Why the study?
Does robotic colectomy improve short-term perioperative outcomes compared to laparoscopic and open colectomy in patients undergoing elective colectomy?
Does robotic colectomy improve short-term perioperative outcomes compared to laparoscopic and open colectomy in patients undergoing elective colectomy?
Robotic colectomy is associated with a shorter hospital stay compared to laparoscopic and open approaches, with otherwise comparable adjusted short-term outcomes.
Shorter hospital stay with robotic colectomy may support selective use; leaves open need for RCTs to confirm perioperative benefits.
Background This study aimed to compare perioperative outcomes of patients undergoing robotic, laparoscopic, and open colectomy using a procedure‐targeted database. Methods Retrospective review of patients undergoing elective colectomy in 2013 was conducted using the procedure‐targeted database of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS‐NSQIP). Robotic, laparoscopic, and open groups were matched (1:1:1) based on age, gender, body mass index, surgical procedure, diagnosis and ASA classification. Demographics, comorbidities, and short‐term (30 day) outcomes were compared. Results Out of 12 790 patients, 387 fulfilled criteria per group after matching. Univariate comparison showed operating time was longer ( P < 0.001) and hospital stay was shorter ( P < 0.001) in the robotic group. Morbidity ( P < 0.001), superficial SSI ( P < 0.001), bleeding requiring transfusion ( P < 0.001), ventilator dependency ( P = 0.003), and ileus ( P < 0.001) rates were lower in the robotic group. After adjusting for confounders, outcomes were comparable between the groups except hospital stay which was shorter in the robotic group ( P < 0.001). Conclusions ACS‐NSQIP data demonstrated several short‐term advantages of robotic surgery compared with laparoscopic and open surgery.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Benlice et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: