ArtiSential versus conventional laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery: a multicenter retrospective matched cohort study
- PMID: 39806734
- PMCID: PMC11634190
- DOI: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000002149
ArtiSential versus conventional laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery: a multicenter retrospective matched cohort study
Abstract
Background: This study aims to compare outcomes of colorectal cancer surgeries performed using the newly developed articulating laparoscopic instrument, ArtiSential, with those using conventional non-articulating or rigid laparoscopic instruments.
Methods: This multicenter, retrospective, matched cohort study enrolled patients with colorectal cancer undergoing laparoscopic surgery in seven tertiary referral hospitals from January 2021 to October 2022. A 1:1 propensity score matching was performed between the articulating (Arti-LAP) and conventional (Rigid-LAP) laparoscopic groups. The primary outcome was the overall incidence of short-term complications.
Results: The study initially comprised 694 and 2008 patients in the Arti-LAP and Rigid-LAP groups, respectively. After matching, each group consisted of 694 patients, with no significant differences in baseline clinical characteristics. The mean operation time was 161±32 min in Arti-LAP and 152±25 min in Rigid-LAP groups (P=0.105). Open conversion rates were 0% (0/694) in Arti-LAP and 1.0% (7/694) in Rigid-LAP groups (P=0.024). Overall morbidity rates were 9.5% (66/694) in Arti-LAP and 12.8% (89/694) in Rigid-LAP (P=0.061), with similar rates of severe morbidities. Specimen quality was acceptable in both groups. Multivariable regression analysis showed that the choice of instrument type (articulating or rigid) was not associated with perioperative morbidity. Despite a short median follow-up period of 19.5 months, no significant difference in disease-free survival was observed between the groups.
Conclusion: Laparoscopic surgery using ArtiSential was performed safely and effectively for patients with colorectal cancer. Articulating laparoscopic instruments may offer an advantage in reducing open conversion rates.
Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Sponsorships or competing interests that may be relevant to content are disclosed at the end of this article.
Figures
References
-
- Park JW, Kang SB, Hao J, et al. . Open versus laparoscopic surgery for mid or low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (COREAN trial): 10-year follow-up of an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021;6:569–577. - PubMed
-
- Simillis C, Lal N, Thoukididou SN, et al. . Open versus laparoscopic versus robotic versus transanal mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Ann Surg 2019;270:59–68. - PubMed
-
- Matsuda T, Sawada R, Hasegawa H, et al. . Learning curve for transanal total mesorectal excision for low rectal malignancy. J Am Coll Surg 2023;236:1054–1063. - PubMed
-
- Yamamoto S, Inomata M, Katayama H, et al. . Short-term surgical outcomes from a randomized controlled trial to evaluate laparoscopic and open D3 dissection for stage II/III colon cancer: Japan Clinical Oncology Group Study JCOG 0404. Ann Surg 2014;260:23–30. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Research Materials
