Search

Background: It is unclear whether conversion from minimally invasive surgery to laparotomy in patients with colon cancer contributes to worse outcomes compared with those operated by laparotomy. In this study, we aimed to assess the implications of transitioning from minimally invasive surgery to laparotomy in patients with colon cancer compared with patients undergoing upfront laparotomy., Methods: A retrospective analysis of the National Cancer Database, including patients with stages I to III colon cancer (2010-2019). Patients who underwent either upfront laparotomy (Open Surgery Group) or minimally invasive surgery converted to open surgery (Converted Surgery Group) were included. Groups were balanced using propensity-score matching. Primary outcome was overall survival, and secondary outcomes included 30- and 90-day mortality and 30-day readmission rates., Results: The study included 65,083 operated patients with stage I to III colon cancer; 57,091 patients (87.7%) were included in the Open Surgery group and 7,992 (12.3%) in the Converted Surgery group. 93.5% were converted from laparoscopy, and 6.5% were converted from robotic surgery. After propensity-score matching, 7,058 patients were included in each group. Median overall survival was significantly higher in the Converted Surgery group (107.3 months) than in the Open Surgery group (101.5 months; P = .006). A survival benefit was seen in patients >65 years of age (79.5 vs 71.9 months; P = .001), left-sided disease (129.4 vs 114.5 months; P < .001), and with a high Charlson comorbidity index score (=3; 58.9 vs 42.3 months; P = .03). Positive margin rates were similar between the groups (6.3% vs 5.6%; P = .07). Converted patients had a higher 30-day readmission rate (6.7% vs 5.6%, P = .006) and shorter duration of stay (median, 5 vs 6 days, P < .001) than patients in the Open Surgery group. In addition, 30-day mortality was comparable between the groups (2.9% vs 3.5%; P = .07)., Conclusion: Conversion to open surgery from minimally invasive surgery was associated with better overall survival compared with upfront open surgery. A survival benefit was mainly seen in patients >65 years of age, with significant comorbidities, and with left-sided tumors. We believe these data suggest that, in the absence of an absolute contraindication to minimally invasive surgery, it should be the preferred approach in patients with colon cancer., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Previous evaluations of the oncologic efficacy of minimally invasive approaches to total gastrectomy in gastric adenocarcinoma have been limited by sample size and duration of follow-up., Methods: We queried the National Cancer Database to identify patients undergoing robotic and laparoscopic or open total gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma between 2010 and 2015. Propensity score matching was used to adjust for patient, tumor, and treating facility factors. Kaplan-Meier survival functions were used to compare overall survival. Secondary outcomes included margin status, lymph node sampling, mortality, readmission, and length of stay., Results: In the study, 3,213 (72.2%) patients underwent open total gastrectomy; 1,238 (27.8%) minimally invasive total gastrectomy. Patients undergoing minimally invasive total gastrectomy were more likely to be treated at academic (49.5% vs 57.8%, P < .05) and high-volume centers (21.6% vs 28.4%, P < .05). Propensity score matching yielded 1,238 open and 1,238 minimally invasive well-matched total gastrectomies. Minimally invasive was associated with a decreased median length of stay (10 vs 9 days; P < .01). Rates of positive surgical margins, 30-day readmission, 90-day mortality and overall survival were identical between matched cohorts (P > .1)., Conclusion: Minimally invasive approaches to total gastrectomy provide perioperative oncologic outcomes and overall survival rates that are identical to those for open total gastrectomy but are associated with reduced length of stay., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Insurance type has been reported to be an independent predictor of overall survival in lung cancer patients. We studied the effect of insurance type on patient outcomes after minimally invasive pulmonary lobectomy for lung cancer., Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 433 consecutive patients who underwent robotic-assisted pulmonary lobectomy by one surgeon during an 80-month period. Perioperative outcomes and intraoperative and postoperative complications were noted. Disposition at discharge after surgery (favorable, eg, transfer to home with self-care or with home health nursing and/or physical therapy, versus unfavorable, eg, long-term acute care or rehabilitation facility, hospice, or death) and 5-year overall survival (5-years OS) were also recorded. We used Pearson χ 2 , analysis of variance (ANOVA), and Kruskal-Wallis test to compare variables and Cox regression for survival analysis., Results: There were 107 patients (mean age 57.5 years) with private insurance, 118 (mean age 70.3 years) with public insurance (Medicare or Medicaid), 196 (mean age 71.8 year; P < .001) with combination insurance plans (Medicare plus a privately supplied supplemental), and 12 patients with no insurance (excluded owing to low sample size). There were more current smokers in the public insurance group, more former smokers in the combination insurance group, and more nonsmokers in the private insurance group (P = .03). There were more comorbidities in the public and combination insurance groups versus the private insurance group, including gastroesophageal reflux disease (P = .003), hypertension (P = .01), and hyperlipidemia (P < .001). The groups had no differences in tumor size or pathologic stage. There were higher numbers of intraoperative conversions to open lobectomy in the private and public insurance groups versus the combination insurance group (P = .001). Also, the private and combination insurance groups had more cases of favorable disposition at discharge after surgery compared with the public insurance group (P < .001). Multivariable regression analyses identified private insurance type as an independent predictor of favorable disposition at discharge (public versus private plan; odds ratio, 0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.22-0.85, P = .02) and 5-year OS (combination versus private plan; hazard ratio, 2.68; 95% CI, 1.26-5.67, P = .01; public versus private plan; HR, 2.84; 95% CI, 1.37-5.89; P = .01)., Conclusion: Although public or combination insurance type was associated with greater risk of all-cause mortality, and public insurance type was associated with less favorable disposition at discharge after surgery and overall conversion to open lobectomy, insurance type was not associated with increased intraoperative complications, hospital duration of stay, or in-hospital mortality after minimally invasive robotic-assisted pulmonary lobectomy., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Introduction: The safety, efficacy, and learning curve for robotic pancreatoduodenecomy has been reported; however, the outcomes and learning curve of robotic pancreatoduodenecomy with vascular resections remain unknown. Our aim was to evaluate the outcomes of robotic pancreatoduodenecomy with vascular resections compared with robotic pancreatoduodenecomy without vascular resection and to identify the learning curve and benchmarks for improved performance during robotic pancreatoduodenecomy with vascular resections., Methods: A retrospective review of consecutive patients who underwent robotic pancreatoduodenecomy with vascular resections and robotic pancreatoduodenecomy between 2011 and 2017. Patients were analyzed consecutively, and a cumulative sum analysis was performed to detect improvements in performance over time., Results: Of 380 consecutive robotic pancreatoduodenecomy patients, 50 (13%) underwent robotic pancreatoduodenecomy with vascular resections. Compared with robotic pancreatoduodenecomy, robotic pancreatoduodenecomy with vascular resections were more likely to have had pancreatic adenocarcinoma (84% vs 42%) and had received neoadjuvant therapy (35% vs 65%, P < .01). Robotic pancreatoduodenecomy with vascular resections operative time revealed a steady, significant decrease (Rho = -0.38, p = .006) with marked initial improvement after the first 8 cases and maturation of the learning curve after 35 cases. A significant decrease in duration of the hospital stay was observed throughout the experience (Rho = -0.528, P < .0001), whereas margin status, pancreatic fistula, major morbidity, and mortality remained constant and comparable to robotic pancreatoduodenecomy alone., Conclusion: Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy with vascular resections is safe and feasible. For surgeons who have surpassed the learning curve of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy, it appears that improvements in performance of robotic pancreatoduodenecomy with vascular resections can be observed after 35 cases., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: This study is to clarify the feasibility of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy in terms of surgical risks, clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula, and oncologic outcomes compared with open pancreaticoduodenectomy by using propensity score matching. Traditional open pancreaticoduodenectomy and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy have been compared only in small, retrospective, and nonrandomized cohort studies with variable quality., Methods: Prospectively collected data for pancreaticoduodenectomy were evaluated. Comparison between robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy and open pancreaticoduodenectomy was carried out after propensity-score matching. A total of 117 robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy and 128 open pancreaticoduodenectomy cases were performed during the study period. After propensity score matching, 87 cases were included for comparison in each cohort., Results: Longer operation time, less blood loss, more lymph nodes harvested, and less delayed gastric emptying were noted in the robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy cases. We found no significant difference regarding the overall postoperative complications by Clavien-Dindo classification, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, wound infection rate, and postoperative hospital stay. Clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula was not significantly different between robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy and open pancreaticoduodenectomy, regardless of the Callery risk factor, with overall clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula of 8.0% by robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy and 12.6% by open pancreaticoduodenectomy after propensity score matching. We found no survival difference between robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy and open pancreaticoduodenectomy when the comparison was specifically performed for each primary periampullary malignancy., Conclusion: Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy is associated with less blood loss, less delayed gastric emptying, and more lymph node yield. Propensity scored-matched analysis revealed that robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy is not inferior to open pancreaticoduodenectomy in terms of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula, surgical risks, and survival outcomes., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Mediastinal involvement in resected non-small-cell lung cancer mandates adjuvant therapy and affects survival. This study investigated lymph node dissection efficacy, lymph node metastasis detection, and survival after robotic-assisted lobectomy for non-small-cell lung cancer., Methods: We retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent robotic-assisted lobectomy for non-small-cell lung cancer. Survival was assessed through chart reviews, Social Security Death Registry, and national obituary searches. Kaplan-Meier survival curves by clinical and pathologic stage were compared by log-rank and Cox regression analysis., Results: In 249 patients (mean age, 67.8 ± 0.6 years), mean individual mediastinal lymph nodes retrieved was 7.7 ± 0.3 lymph nodes, with mean of 13.9 ± 0.4 N1+ mediastinal lymph nodes. There were 159 (63.9%) clinical stage I versus 134 (53.8%) pathologic stage I patients, with 67 (26.9%) patients upstaged (20 cN0 to pN1; 17 cN0 to pN2; 4 cN1 to pN2) and 37 (14.9%) downstaged. One-year and 3-year survival rates, respectively, changed between clinical stage I (clinical stage I, 91% and 70%; clinical stage II, 80% and 64%; clinical stage III, 78% and 57%; clinical stage IV, 71% and 45%) and pathologic stage (pathologic stage I, 92% and 75%; clinical stage II, 83% and 73%; pathologic stage III, 75% and 44%; and pathologic stage IV, 67% and 0%)., Conclusion: Mediastinal lymph node dissection during robotic-assisted lobectomy adequately assesses lymph node stations and detects occult lymph node metastasis. Stage-specific survival is affected by upstaging., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: This study compared the long-term oncologic outcomes of patients with rectal cancer who underwent either laparoscopic or robotic total mesorectal excision (TME) via minimally invasive surgery (MIS) to those patient who underwent open TME., Methods: This study was a retrospective, case-control study; patients in the 2 groups were matched according to age, sex, MIS vs open operation, body mass index, tumor location, pathologic TNM stage (ie, tumor-node-metastasis), neoadjuvant treatment, and adjuvant treatment., Results: A total of 633 patients (MIS, n = 211; open, n = 422) were assessed. The median follow-up period was 64 (2-124) months. Patient characteristics did not differ between the groups. Overall postoperative complication rates did not differ between the groups (16.0% [MIS]; 17.0% [open]; P = .76). Rates of the involvement of the circumferential resection margin did not differ between the groups (4.0% [MIS]; 5.0% [open]; P = .84). The 5-year overall survival, disease-specific survival, disease-free survival, and local recurrence rates were not different between the MIS and open groups (overall survival = 88.4% vs 85.3%, P = .23; disease-specific survival = 88.8% vs 87.4%, P = .53, disease-free survival = 80.7% vs 78.4%, P = .74; local recurrence = 5.7% vs 5.1%, P = .95). In subgroup analysis, no differences were found in terms of the long-term, oncologic outcomes, oncologic adequacy, and postoperative complications among 3 groups., Conclusion: We found no differences in the oncologic outcomes between MIS and open surgery, suggesting that MIS for rectal cancer is a safe option for rectal cancer that does not increase the risk of serious complications., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)