Comparative Evaluation of Near-Term Oncologic, Urinary, Sexual, and Postoperative Outcomes in Rectal Cancer: Laparoscopic vs. Robotic Approaches

Le résumé fourni par la source

Background and Objectives: This study compares laparoscopic and robotic surgical techniques for rectal cancer, focusing on oncologic outcomes, mesocolic excision quality, lymph node yield, and postoperative sexual and urinary function, while also exploring patient satisfaction and recovery trajectories through clinical outcomes and validated questionnaires. Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 100 patients who underwent rectal cancer surgery between 2017 and 2021 at our tertiary center—53 underwent laparoscopic and 47 robotic surgery. Demographic data, tumor characteristics, and surgical details (procedure type, lymph node yield, morbidity, and mortality) were collected, and postoperative outcomes, including local recurrence, metastasis, need for reoperation, urinary incontinence, and sexual dysfunction, were compared. Functional outcomes were evaluated using the LARS questionnaire, Wexner score, IPSS, IIEF, and FSFI. Results: No significant differences were found in age, BMI, tumor size, or ASA scores between groups. Robotic surgery was associated with shorter hospital stays (p < 0.001), no conversions to open surgery (vs. 28.3% in laparoscopy), and zero cases of positive circumferential margins (vs. 35.8% in laparoscopy; p < 0.001). Lymphatic and perineural invasion rates were similar. Tumor recurrence occurred in four robotic and six laparoscopic cases, and factors significantly associated with recurrence included pathological stage, hospital stay, and adjuvant treatment. Robotic surgery showed improved urinary and sexual function, with lower Wexner, IPSS, and FSFI scores. Conclusions: Robotic surgery is a safe, effective, and patient-friendly alternative to laparoscopy, offering better preservation of continence and sexual function, reduced conversion rates, and shorter hospitalization, and should be considered the preferred approach in appropriately selected rectal cancer patients.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.