Hybrid minimally invasive/open approach versus total minimally invasive approach for rectal cancer resection: short- and long-term results

Simona Deidda, Jacopo Crippa, Emilie Duchalais, Scott R. Kelley, Kellie L. Mathis, Eric Dozois, David Larson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Objectives: To reduce the technical challenges of a totally minimally invasive approach (TMA) and to decrease the morbidity associated with open surgery, a hybrid minimally invasive/open approach (HMOA) has been introduced as a surgical technique for rectal cancer. The aim of this study was to compare postoperative results and long-term oncologic outcomes between hybrid minimally invasive/open approach and totally minimally invasive approach in patients who underwent rectal resection for cancer. Methods: All patients with rectal cancer undergoing a totally minimally invasive approach or hybrid minimally invasive/open approach proctectomy between 2012 and 2016 were analyzed. Preoperative and postoperative outcomes were collected from a prospectively maintained institutional database. Results: Among 283 patients, 138 (48.8%) underwent a hybrid minimally invasive/open approach and 145 (51.2%) a totally minimally invasive approach. Preoperative characteristics were similar between groups except for distance from the anal verge, which was lower in totally minimally invasive approach group (50.7% vs 29%; p = 0.0008). Length of stay (LOS) was significantly longer in the hybrid minimally invasive/open approach group (6.4 vs 4.3; p = < 0.0001). The median follow-up was 29.6 (14–40.6) months. Overall survival and disease-free survival were not significantly different between groups. Conclusions: Compared with a hybrid minimally invasive/open approach, a totally minimally invasive approach has a shorter length of stay and may improve short-term outcomes in patients undergoing proctectomy for cancer.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1251-1258
Number of pages8
JournalInternational Journal of Colorectal Disease
Volume34
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 2019

Fingerprint

Rectal Neoplasms
Length of Stay
Disease-Free Survival
Databases
Morbidity
Survival
Neoplasms

Keywords

  • Hybrid minimally invasive/open approach
  • Length of stay
  • Rectal cancer
  • Totally minimally invasive approach

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Gastroenterology

Cite this

Hybrid minimally invasive/open approach versus total minimally invasive approach for rectal cancer resection : short- and long-term results. / Deidda, Simona; Crippa, Jacopo; Duchalais, Emilie; Kelley, Scott R.; Mathis, Kellie L.; Dozois, Eric; Larson, David.

In: International Journal of Colorectal Disease, Vol. 34, No. 7, 01.07.2019, p. 1251-1258.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{36e873d5d9ed456dab48f69a309911ac,
title = "Hybrid minimally invasive/open approach versus total minimally invasive approach for rectal cancer resection: short- and long-term results",
abstract = "Objectives: To reduce the technical challenges of a totally minimally invasive approach (TMA) and to decrease the morbidity associated with open surgery, a hybrid minimally invasive/open approach (HMOA) has been introduced as a surgical technique for rectal cancer. The aim of this study was to compare postoperative results and long-term oncologic outcomes between hybrid minimally invasive/open approach and totally minimally invasive approach in patients who underwent rectal resection for cancer. Methods: All patients with rectal cancer undergoing a totally minimally invasive approach or hybrid minimally invasive/open approach proctectomy between 2012 and 2016 were analyzed. Preoperative and postoperative outcomes were collected from a prospectively maintained institutional database. Results: Among 283 patients, 138 (48.8{\%}) underwent a hybrid minimally invasive/open approach and 145 (51.2{\%}) a totally minimally invasive approach. Preoperative characteristics were similar between groups except for distance from the anal verge, which was lower in totally minimally invasive approach group (50.7{\%} vs 29{\%}; p = 0.0008). Length of stay (LOS) was significantly longer in the hybrid minimally invasive/open approach group (6.4 vs 4.3; p = < 0.0001). The median follow-up was 29.6 (14–40.6) months. Overall survival and disease-free survival were not significantly different between groups. Conclusions: Compared with a hybrid minimally invasive/open approach, a totally minimally invasive approach has a shorter length of stay and may improve short-term outcomes in patients undergoing proctectomy for cancer.",
keywords = "Hybrid minimally invasive/open approach, Length of stay, Rectal cancer, Totally minimally invasive approach",
author = "Simona Deidda and Jacopo Crippa and Emilie Duchalais and Kelley, {Scott R.} and Mathis, {Kellie L.} and Eric Dozois and David Larson",
year = "2019",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s00384-019-03311-4",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "34",
pages = "1251--1258",
journal = "International Journal of Colorectal Disease",
issn = "0179-1958",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Hybrid minimally invasive/open approach versus total minimally invasive approach for rectal cancer resection

T2 - short- and long-term results

AU - Deidda, Simona

AU - Crippa, Jacopo

AU - Duchalais, Emilie

AU - Kelley, Scott R.

AU - Mathis, Kellie L.

AU - Dozois, Eric

AU - Larson, David

PY - 2019/7/1

Y1 - 2019/7/1

N2 - Objectives: To reduce the technical challenges of a totally minimally invasive approach (TMA) and to decrease the morbidity associated with open surgery, a hybrid minimally invasive/open approach (HMOA) has been introduced as a surgical technique for rectal cancer. The aim of this study was to compare postoperative results and long-term oncologic outcomes between hybrid minimally invasive/open approach and totally minimally invasive approach in patients who underwent rectal resection for cancer. Methods: All patients with rectal cancer undergoing a totally minimally invasive approach or hybrid minimally invasive/open approach proctectomy between 2012 and 2016 were analyzed. Preoperative and postoperative outcomes were collected from a prospectively maintained institutional database. Results: Among 283 patients, 138 (48.8%) underwent a hybrid minimally invasive/open approach and 145 (51.2%) a totally minimally invasive approach. Preoperative characteristics were similar between groups except for distance from the anal verge, which was lower in totally minimally invasive approach group (50.7% vs 29%; p = 0.0008). Length of stay (LOS) was significantly longer in the hybrid minimally invasive/open approach group (6.4 vs 4.3; p = < 0.0001). The median follow-up was 29.6 (14–40.6) months. Overall survival and disease-free survival were not significantly different between groups. Conclusions: Compared with a hybrid minimally invasive/open approach, a totally minimally invasive approach has a shorter length of stay and may improve short-term outcomes in patients undergoing proctectomy for cancer.

AB - Objectives: To reduce the technical challenges of a totally minimally invasive approach (TMA) and to decrease the morbidity associated with open surgery, a hybrid minimally invasive/open approach (HMOA) has been introduced as a surgical technique for rectal cancer. The aim of this study was to compare postoperative results and long-term oncologic outcomes between hybrid minimally invasive/open approach and totally minimally invasive approach in patients who underwent rectal resection for cancer. Methods: All patients with rectal cancer undergoing a totally minimally invasive approach or hybrid minimally invasive/open approach proctectomy between 2012 and 2016 were analyzed. Preoperative and postoperative outcomes were collected from a prospectively maintained institutional database. Results: Among 283 patients, 138 (48.8%) underwent a hybrid minimally invasive/open approach and 145 (51.2%) a totally minimally invasive approach. Preoperative characteristics were similar between groups except for distance from the anal verge, which was lower in totally minimally invasive approach group (50.7% vs 29%; p = 0.0008). Length of stay (LOS) was significantly longer in the hybrid minimally invasive/open approach group (6.4 vs 4.3; p = < 0.0001). The median follow-up was 29.6 (14–40.6) months. Overall survival and disease-free survival were not significantly different between groups. Conclusions: Compared with a hybrid minimally invasive/open approach, a totally minimally invasive approach has a shorter length of stay and may improve short-term outcomes in patients undergoing proctectomy for cancer.

KW - Hybrid minimally invasive/open approach

KW - Length of stay

KW - Rectal cancer

KW - Totally minimally invasive approach

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85066633178&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85066633178&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00384-019-03311-4

DO - 10.1007/s00384-019-03311-4

M3 - Article

C2 - 31139888

AN - SCOPUS:85066633178

VL - 34

SP - 1251

EP - 1258

JO - International Journal of Colorectal Disease

JF - International Journal of Colorectal Disease

SN - 0179-1958

IS - 7

ER -