Surgical endoscopy · 2025
Robotic versus open cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy: a propensity score-matched study.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Baron Ekaterina, Xu Zhesheng, Paro Alessandro, Nikiforchin Andrei, Singh Riya, Wernberg Jessica A, Sharma Rohit
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS/HIPEC) is often associated with extensive surgical resection and has traditionally been performed via laparotomy. Data on minimally invasive robotic approaches remain limited. We evaluated surgical safety and survival outcomes of robotic CRS/HIPEC for peritoneal surface malignancies (PSM).
METHODS: A single-center propensity score-matched study was conducted using a prospectively collected database (2018-2025). PSM patients treated with robotic CRS/HIPEC were matched 1:1 to open CRS/HIPEC controls using propensity scores based on age, sex, BMI, histology, and PCI.
RESULTS: Of 99 cases, 15 robotic and 71 open CRS/HIPECs were identified. After matching, 15 robotic and 15 open cases were balanced by age, sex, BMI, diagnosis, prior surgical score, and PCI. CC-0/1 rate was 100.0% in robotic and 93.3% in open CRS/HIPEC (p = 1.00). Median blood loss was lower in the robotic group (100 mL vs 250 mL, p = 0.04). Median hospital stay was shorter after robotic CRS/HIPEC (6 vs 9 days, p = 0.05). No differences were observed in major complications (26.7% vs 33.3%, p = 1.00) and reoperation (0.0% vs 6.7%, p = 1.00). No 90-day mortality was observed in either group. Median follow-up was 58 months. Median overall survival (not reached vs 52 months, p = 0.20) and progression-free survival (not reached vs 42 months, p = 0.19) did not differ between robotic and open CRS/HIPEC.
CONCLUSION: In PSM patients with low tumor burden, robotic CRS/HIPEC is not associated with increased morbidity or worse survival. It may offer benefits such as reduced blood loss and shorter hospitalization. Multicenter studies are warranted to optimize patient selection.
METHODS: A single-center propensity score-matched study was conducted using a prospectively collected database (2018-2025). PSM patients treated with robotic CRS/HIPEC were matched 1:1 to open CRS/HIPEC controls using propensity scores based on age, sex, BMI, histology, and PCI.
RESULTS: Of 99 cases, 15 robotic and 71 open CRS/HIPECs were identified. After matching, 15 robotic and 15 open cases were balanced by age, sex, BMI, diagnosis, prior surgical score, and PCI. CC-0/1 rate was 100.0% in robotic and 93.3% in open CRS/HIPEC (p = 1.00). Median blood loss was lower in the robotic group (100 mL vs 250 mL, p = 0.04). Median hospital stay was shorter after robotic CRS/HIPEC (6 vs 9 days, p = 0.05). No differences were observed in major complications (26.7% vs 33.3%, p = 1.00) and reoperation (0.0% vs 6.7%, p = 1.00). No 90-day mortality was observed in either group. Median follow-up was 58 months. Median overall survival (not reached vs 52 months, p = 0.20) and progression-free survival (not reached vs 42 months, p = 0.19) did not differ between robotic and open CRS/HIPEC.
CONCLUSION: In PSM patients with low tumor burden, robotic CRS/HIPEC is not associated with increased morbidity or worse survival. It may offer benefits such as reduced blood loss and shorter hospitalization. Multicenter studies are warranted to optimize patient selection.