1441 Real-World Comparison of Curative Open, Laparoscopic and Robotic Resections for Sigmoid and Rectal Cancer - Single Center Experience

Aim There is an increase in the utilization of robotic surgery in addition to traditional open or laparoscopic approaches. The aim of this study is to compare the short-term outcomes for open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgery for rectal and sigmoid cancer. Method One hundred and forty-seven patients (open n = 48, laparoscopic n = 49, robotic n = 50) undergoing curative resections by two surgeons, using a standardized technique, between 2013 and 2020 were included. Data analyzed included patient demographics, tumor characteristics, length of stay, post-operative outcomes, and pathologic surrogates of oncologic results, including total mesorectal excision (TME) quality, circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement and lymph node (LN) yield. Results Median age of population was 68 years (IQR 59-73), majority (68%) were males. Median distance from anal verge in robotic surgery group was 8 cm, compared to 15 and 14.5 cm in the open and laparoscopic groups respectively, p = 0.029, (laparoscopic vs robotic, p = 0.005 and open vs robotic, p = 0.027). Proportion of patients who received neoadjuvant radiotherapy in robotic surgery group was higher, p = 0.04. In sub-group of tumors between 3 and 7 cm from anal verge more patients in the robotic surgery group had sphincter preservation, p = 0.006. Length of stay, maximum C-reactive protein, and white blood cell rise favored minimally invasive approaches compared to open surgery. There were no differences in post-operative complications, lymph node yield or CRM positivity rate between the three groups. Conclusions Robotic surgery approach is safe and allows sphincter preservation without compromising TME quality in rectal cancer surgery