Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2025 May 16;40(1):121.
doi: 10.1007/s00384-025-04888-9.

Short- and long-term outcomes of robotic versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for middle or lower rectal cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis

Toshinori Sueda  1 , Masayoshi Yasui  2 , Junichi Nishimura  2 , Yoshinori Kagawa  2 , Masatoshi Kitakaze  2 , Ryota Mori  2 , Yoshitomo Yanagimoto  2 , Takashi Kanemura  2 , Kazuyoshi Yamamoto  2 , Hiroshi Wada  2 , Kunihito Gotoh  2 , Hiroshi Miyata  2 , Masayuki Ohue  2
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Short- and long-term outcomes of robotic versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for middle or lower rectal cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis

Toshinori Sueda et al. Int J Colorectal Dis. .

Abstract

Purpose: The potential benefits of robotic surgery (RS) for rectal cancer (RC) remain uncertain. The objective of this study was to evaluate the short- and long-term outcomes of RS compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery (LS) for stage I-III middle or lower RC.

Methods: This study retrospectively analyzed 350 consecutive patients with stage I-III middle or lower RC who underwent curative surgery from 2017 to 2021, employing propensity score matching (PSM) analysis.

Results: Of 350 patients, 128 patients underwent RS. After PSM, we enrolled 256 patients. Median follow-up was 59.8 months. Before PSM, significant differences were observed between groups regarding primary tumor site (p = 0.02). After PSM, no significant differences between groups were observed in terms of operative time, blood loss, conversion rate, intra-operative and postoperative complications, or number of lymph nodes harvested. After PSM, 3- and 5-year cumulative LR rates were 3.2% and 3.2% in the RS group, and 2.8% and 3.2% in the LS group, respectively. The cumulative distant recurrence (DR) rates in the RS group were 13.4% at 3-year and 15.1% at 5-year, whereas in the LS group, they were 14.9% and 18.7%, respectively. No notable differences in cumulative LR or DR rates were evident between groups. Furthermore, no notable differences were observed between groups regarding overall, cancer-specific, or recurrence-free survival according to stage.

Conclusions: RS appears to be viable and safe treatment approach for patients with middle or lower RC, offering short- and long-term outcomes comparable to those of LS.

Keywords: Laparoscopic surgery; Long-term outcome; Propensity score matching; Rectal cancer; Robotic surgery; Short-term outcome.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Ethics approval and informed consent: This retrospective study received approval from the institutional review board of Osaka International Cancer Institute (approval no. 18033). This study was exempt from the requirement for informed consent. Animal experimentation was not conducted in this study. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow diagram describing the patient-matching process
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Incidence of cumulative recurrence. A Local recurrence and B distant recurrence
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Kaplan–Meier curves for overall survival according to stages. A All stages. B Stage I. C Stage II. D Stage III
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Kaplan–Meier curves for cancer-specific survival according to stages. A All stages. B Stage I. C Stage II. D Stage III
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Kaplan–Meier curves for recurrence-free survival according to stages. A All stages. B Stage I. C Stage II. D Stage III
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. International Agency for Research on Cancer (2022) World Health Organization. Cancer today. Cancer fact sheets. Available at: http://gco.iarc.fr/today. Accessed December 11, 2024
    1. Corcione F, Esposito C, Cuccurullo D, Settembre A, Miranda N, Amato F, Pirozzi F, Caiazzo P (2005) Advantages and limits of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery: preliminary experience. Surg Endosc 19:117–119. 10.1007/s00464-004-9004-9 - PubMed
    1. Jayne D, Pigazzi A, Marshall H, Croft J, Corrigan N, Copeland J, Quirke P, West N, Rautio T, Thomassen N, Tilney H, Gudgeon M, Bianchi PP, Edlin R, Hulme C, Brown J (2017) Effect of robotic-assisted vs conventional laparoscopic surgery on risk of conversion to open laparotomy among patients undergoing resection for rectal cancer: the ROLARR randomized clinical trial. JAMA 318:1569–1580. 10.1001/jama.2017.7219 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Simillis C, Tekkis PP (2019) Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: an evidence-based approach. Ann Surg 270:e57. 10.1097/sla.0000000000003156 - PubMed
    1. Polat F, Willems LH, Dogan K, Rosman C (2019) The oncological and surgical safety of robot-assisted surgery in colorectal cancer: outcomes of a longitudinal prospective cohort study. Surg Endosc 33:3644–3655. 10.1007/s00464-018-06653-2 - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources