The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS · 2026
Short-Term Comparative Outcomes of Single-Port Robotic Surgery and Single-Incision Laparoscopic Surgery in Rectal Cancer: A Retrospective Multicentre Study.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ghazali Khairunnisa Che, Jeong Yong Ki, Kim InKyeong, Bae Jung Hoon, Choi Byung Jo, Lee InKyu, Cho Hyeon Min, Lee Yoon Suk
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) for rectal cancer has seen limited adoption due to its steep learning curve and technical demands. The advent of single-port robotic surgery (SPRS) may address these limitations by improving ergonomics and precision.
METHODS: This retrospective multicentre study compared the perioperative and pathological outcomes of SPRS and SILS in patients undergoing low anterior or intersphincteric resection for rectal cancer from 2014 to 2024 at two hospitals.
RESULTS: Among 110 patients (56 SPRS, 54 SILS), the SPRS group showed significantly shorter operative time (179.95 vs. 318.15 minutes, p < 0.001) and hospital stay (6.04 vs. 9.41 days, p = 0.030). SPRS was also associated with fewer postoperative complications (8.9% vs. 27.8%, p = 0.013). Stoma formation was less frequent in the SPRS group (28.6% vs. 50.0%, p = 0.031). SPRS yielded more harvested lymph nodes (22.70 vs. 16.83, p = 0.002).
CONCLUSION: SPRS offers clinical advantages over SILS and may be preferable in selected rectal cancer patients.
METHODS: This retrospective multicentre study compared the perioperative and pathological outcomes of SPRS and SILS in patients undergoing low anterior or intersphincteric resection for rectal cancer from 2014 to 2024 at two hospitals.
RESULTS: Among 110 patients (56 SPRS, 54 SILS), the SPRS group showed significantly shorter operative time (179.95 vs. 318.15 minutes, p < 0.001) and hospital stay (6.04 vs. 9.41 days, p = 0.030). SPRS was also associated with fewer postoperative complications (8.9% vs. 27.8%, p = 0.013). Stoma formation was less frequent in the SPRS group (28.6% vs. 50.0%, p = 0.031). SPRS yielded more harvested lymph nodes (22.70 vs. 16.83, p = 0.002).
CONCLUSION: SPRS offers clinical advantages over SILS and may be preferable in selected rectal cancer patients.