In recent years, robot-assisted colorectal surgery has become increasingly common; however, the benefits to patients compared to laparoscopic surgery are still debatable. This research aimed to examine the differences between short-term patient outcomes following partial or complete rectal resections performed by robotic and laparoscopic techniques. A historical cohort study was conducted. All in all, 5 large tertiary care Kaiser Permanente medical centers in Southern California participated in the study. Between 2010 and 2019, 863 patients underwent robotic or laparoscopic pelvic rectal surgery. This number includes low anterior resections, proctectomy with coloanal anastomosis, and abdominoperineal resections. Immediate results include mortality, 30-day readmissions, and re-admissions within a hospital stay after surgery. As opposed to 405, the number of robotic surgeries performed was 458. A higher percentage of men were included in the robotic group (57.4% vs. 50.4%; P=0.04), as well as a higher percentage of obese patients (27.1% vs. 26.9%; P=0.02) and overweight patients (36.9% vs. 35.4%; P=0.01). Comorbidities like diabetes and smoking were also not different, nor was the incidence of ileostomies. After controlling for the Charlson comorbidity index, returns to the emergency room after robotic versus laparoscopic surgery were not significantly different (P=0.17). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in terms of mortality, 30-day readmission, and procedure-related length of stay. Lack of randomization in study design, patient selection for the surgical approach, and training and familiarity with robotic rectal surgery were limitations of this study. There was no statistically significant difference between robotic and laparoscopic patients in terms of length of stay during the procedure or 30-day readmission rates after surgery. Patients with a higher body mass index and those who were male were more likely to have undergone robotic surgery.
Source: journals.lww.com/dcrjournal/Abstract/2022/10000/A_Comparative_Analysis_of_Short_term_Patient.15.aspx
