-
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study
Comparison of Laparoscopic versus Robot-Assisted Surgery for Rectal Cancers: The COLRAR Randomized Controlled Trial.
- Jun Seok Park, Sung Min Lee, Gyu-Seog Choi, Soo Yeun Park, Hye Jin Kim, Seung Ho Song, Byung Soh Min, Nam Kyu Kim, Seon Hahn Kim, and Kang Young Lee.
- Colorectal Cancer Center, Kyungpook National University Chilgok Hospital, School of Medicine, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Republic of Korea.
- Ann. Surg. 2023 Jul 1; 278 (1): 313831-38.
ObjectiveTo evaluate whether robotic for middle or low rectal cancer produces an improvement in surgical outcomes compared with laparoscopic surgery in a randomized controlled trial (RCT).BackgroundThere is a lack of proven clinical benefit of robotic total mesorectal excision (TME) compared with a laparoscopic approach in the setting of multicenter RCTs.MethodsBetween July 2011 and February 2016, patients diagnosed with an adenocarcinoma located <10 cm from the anal verge and clinically rated T1-4aNxM0 were enrolled. The primary outcome was the completeness of TME assessed by a surgeon and a pathologist.ResultsThe RCT was terminated prematurely because of poor accrual of data. In all, 295 patients were assigned randomly to a robot-assisted TME group (151 in R-TME) or a laparoscopy-assisted TME group (144 in L-TME). The rates of complete TME were not different between groups (80.7% in R-TME, 77.1% in L-TME). Pathologic outcomes including the circumferential resection margin and the numbers of retrieved lymph nodes were not different between groups. In a subanalysis, the positive circumferential resection margin rate was lower in the R-TME group (0% vs 6.1% for L-TME; P =0.031). Among the recovery parameters, the length of opioid use was shorter in the R-TME group ( P =0.028). There was no difference in the postoperative complication rate between the groups (12.0% for R-TME vs 8.3% for L-TME).ConclusionsIn patients with middle or low rectal cancer, robotic-assisted surgery did not significantly improve the TME quality compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (ClinicalTrial.gov ID: NCT01042743).Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Notes
Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
- Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as
*italics*
,_underline_
or**bold**
. - Superscript can be denoted by
<sup>text</sup>
and subscript<sub>text</sub>
. - Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines
1. 2. 3.
, hyphens-
or asterisks*
. - Links can be included with:
[my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
- Images can be included with:
![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
- For footnotes use
[^1](This is a footnote.)
inline. - Or use an inline reference
[^1]
to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document[^1]: This is a long footnote.
.