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

Deidda S.

First

;Crippa J.;Duchalais E.;Kelley S. R.;Mathis K. L.;Dozois E. J.;Larson D. W.

2019-01-01

---

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.