Comparison between robotic natural orifice specimen extraction surgery and traditional laparoscopic low anterior resection for middle and low rectal cancer: A propensity score matching analysis.

Background And Objectives: This study aimed to find the advantages of robotic natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) for middle and low rectal cancer, compared with traditional laparoscopic low anterior resection (LAR).

Methods: Patients receiving robotic NOSES or traditional laparoscopic LAR were retrospectively enrolled from 2013-10 to 2019-06, with middle and low rectal cancer, maximum diameter ≤ 5 cm, pT1-3 or ypT1-3 stage, no distant metastases. The baseline of the two groups was balanced using the propensity score matching method. Surgical quality, postoperative recovery, and long-term oncological outcomes were compared.

Results: Totally 137 eligible patients with robotic NOSES and 137 matched patients with traditional laparoscopic LAR were enrolled. Robotic NOSES had a significantly lower open conversion rate (0 vs. 4.4%, p = .030), less intraoperative hemorrhage (50 ml vs. 80 ml, p < .001) and longer distance from distal resection margin of low rectal cancer (1.5 cm vs. 1.0 cm, p = .030). Robotic NOSES significantly reduced the 30-day postoperative complication rate of Clavien-Dindo grade II or higher (17.5% vs. 31.4%, p = .008), promoted gastrointestinal and urinary function recovery, reduced postoperative pain and hospital stay (6.0 vs. 7.0 d, p = .022). The two groups were similar in long-term survival.

Conclusions: Compared with traditional laparoscopic LAR, robotic NOSES had significant advantages in improving surgical quality and promoting postoperative recovery.