Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of effectiveness and safety of Da Vinci robot’s “3 + 1” and “4 + 1” modes of treatment for colorectal cancer

  • Research
  • Published:
Journal of Robotic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To compare the effectiveness of the Da Vinci Surgical Robot System (DSRS) “3 + 1” and “4 + 1” models for colorectal cancer (CRC). A total of 107 patients with CRC admitted to our hospital from February 2021 to May 2022 were selected for the retrospective analysis. Of these, 57 patients underwent the DSRS “4 + 1” model (control group), while the rest 50 underwent the DSRS “3 + 1” model (research group). The operation time, intraoperative bleeding, number of lymph nodes detected, time of first postoperative urinary catheter removal, time of first feeding, time of first venting and hospitalization were compared between the two groups. The changes of white blood cell (WBC) and C-reactive protein (CRP) levels before and after surgery were detected, and patients’ adverse effects and treatment costs between surgery and hospital discharge were counted. The Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS) and the Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS) were used to assess the psychological state of the patients. There was no difference in operative time, intraoperative bleeding, and number of lymph nodes detected between both groups (P > 0.05), while time to first postoperative urinary catheter removal, time to first feeding, time to first venting, length of stay (LOS), postoperative inflammatory factor levels, incidence of adverse events, and treatment costs were all lower in the research group than in the control group (P < 0.05). SAS and SDS scores decreased after treatment in both groups, but the decrease was more obvious in the research group (P < 0.05). Both DSRS “4 + 1” and “3 + 1” modes have better treatment effects for CRC. However, the “3 + 1” mode has higher safety and lower treatment cost, which can significantly improve the postoperative recovery process of patients and is more worthy to be promoted in clinical practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data obtained in this study are true and reliable.

References

  1. Baidoun F, Elshiwy K, Elkeraie Y, Merjaneh Z, Khoudari G, Sarmini MT, Gad M, Al-Husseini M, Saad A (2021) Colorectal cancer epidemiology: recent trends and impact on outcomes. Curr Drug Targets 22:998–1009

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Biller LH, Schrag D (2021) Diagnosis and treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: a review. JAMA 325:669–685

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kishore C, Bhadra P (2021) Current advancements and future perspectives of immunotherapy in colorectal cancer research. Eur J Pharmacol 893:173819

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Fan A, Wang B, Wang X, Nie Y, Fan D, Zhao X, Lu Y (2021) Immunotherapy in colorectal cancer: current achievements and future perspective. Int J Biol Sci 17:3837–3849

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Yue T, Chen S, Zhu J, Guo S, Huang Z, Wang P, Zuo S, Liu Y (2021) The aging-related risk signature in colorectal cancer. Aging (Albany NY) 13:7330–7349

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Siegel RL, Jakubowski CD, Fedewa SA, Davis A, Azad NS (2020) Colorectal cancer in the young: epidemiology, prevention, management. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book 40:1–14

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Guo F, Ma D, Li S (2019) Compare the prognosis of Da Vinci robot-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) with video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) for non-small cell lung cancer: a Meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 98:e17089

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Pu F, Zhang Z, Chen Z, Cai K, Wang B, Wu Q, Shi D, Liu J, Shao Z (2020) Application of the da Vinci surgical robot system in presacral nerve sheath tumor treatment. Oncol Lett 20:125

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Moglia A, Ferrari V, Melfi F, Ferrari M, Mosca F, Cuschieri A, Morelli L (2018) Performances on simulator and da Vinci robot on subjects with and without surgical background. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 27:309–314

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lee HH, Na JC, Yoon YE, Rha KH, Han WK (2020) Robot-assisted laparoendoscopic single-site upper urinary tract surgery with da Vinci Xi surgical system: initial experience. Investig Clin Urol 61:323–329

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Heo JE, Kang SK, Koh DH, Na JC, Lee YS, Han WK, Choi YD, Jang WS (2019) Pure single-site robot-assisted pyeloplasty with the da Vinci SP surgical system: Initial experience. Investig Clin Urol 60:326–330

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Zeng Y, Wang G, Li Z, Lin H, Zhu S, Yi B (2021) The micro hand S vs. da Vinci surgical robot-assisted surgery on total mesorectal excision: short-term outcomes using propensity score matching analysis. Front Surg 8:656270

  13. Professional Committee of Robotic Surgery, Colorectal Cancer Committee of Chinese Medical Doctor Association; Robotic and Laparoscopic Surgery Committee of Chinese Research Hospital Association (2021) Chinese expert consensus on robotic surgery for colorectal cancer (2020 edition). Zhonghua Wei Chang Wai Ke Za Zhi 24:14–22

  14. Yue T, Li Q, Wang R, Liu Z, Guo M, Bai F, Zhang Z, Wang W, Cheng Y, Wang H (2020) Comparison of hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS) and Zung self-rating anxiety/depression scale (SAS/SDS) in evaluating anxiety and depression in patients with psoriatic arthritis. Dermatology 236:170–178

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Jin K, Ren C, Liu Y, Lan H, Wang Z (2020) An update on colorectal cancer microenvironment, epigenetic and immunotherapy. Int Immunopharmacol 89:107041

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Patel SG, Karlitz JJ, Yen T, Lieu CH, Boland CR (2022) The rising tide of early-onset colorectal cancer: a comprehensive review of epidemiology, clinical features, biology, risk factors, prevention, and early detection. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 7:262–274

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Leal Ghezzi T, Campos CO (2016) 30 years of robotic surgery. World J Surg 40:2550–2557

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Xie X, Wu Y, Li K, Ai C, Wang Q, Wang C, Chen J, Xiang B (2021) Preliminary experiences with robot-assisted choledochal cyst excision using the da Vinci surgical system in children below the age of one. Front Pediatr 9:741098

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Ni K, Xue D, Li G (2021) Transperineal single-port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with Si da Vinci surgical system: initial experience and description of technique. Transl Cancer Res 10:4694–4701

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Agarwal DK, Sharma V, Toussi A, Viers BR, Tollefson MK, Gettman MT, Frank I (2020) Initial experience with da vinci single-port robot-assisted radical prostatectomies. Eur Urol 77:373–379

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Soliman BG, Nguyen DT, Chan EY, Chihara RK, Meisenbach LM, Graviss EA, Kim MP (2020) Impact of da Vinci Xi robot in pulmonary resection. J Thorac Dis 12:3561–3572

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Niegisch G, Rabenalt R, Albers P (2011) Quality control in the implementation of new surgical procedures: Da Vinci robot-assisted systems. Urologe A 50:1288–1290

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Olson B, Cahill E, Imanguli M (2022) Feasibility and safety of the da Vinci Xi surgical robot for transoral robotic surgery. J Robot Surg

  24. Piazza P, Rosiello G, Chacon VT, Puliatti S, Amato M, Farinha R, Schiavina R, Brunocilla E, Berquin C, Develtere D, Sinatti C, Van Puyvelde H, De Groote R, Schatteman P, De Naeyer G, D’Hondt F, Mottrie A (2021) Robot-assisted cystectomy with intracorporeal urinary diversion after pelvic irradiation for prostate cancer: Technique and results from a single high-volume center. Eur Urol 80:489–496

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Jiang J, Zhu S, Yi B, Li J (2021) Comparison of the short-term operative, oncological, and functional outcomes between two types of robot-assisted total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: Da Vinci versus micro hand S surgical robot. Int J Med Robot 17:e2260

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Shah AA, Bandari J, Pelzman D, Davies BJ, Jacobs BL (2021) Diffusion and adoption of the surgical robot in urology. Transl Androl Urol 10:2151–2157

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Ji J, Zhu H, Zhao JZ, Yang YQ, Xu XT, Qian KY (2020) Negative emotions and their management in Chinese convalescent cervical cancer patients: a qualitative study. J Int Med Res 48:300060520948758

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Malhotra C, Kanesvaran R, Krishna L, Xiang L, Kumarakulasinghe NB, Tan SH, Tulsky JA, Pollak KI (2018) Oncologists’ responses to patient and caregiver negative emotions and patient perception of quality of communication: Results from a multi-ethnic Asian setting. Support Care Cancer 26:957–965

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

It is supported by the construction project of Hainan Provincial Clinical Medical Center, Research Project of Health Industry in Hainan Province (NO.22A200193) and Project supported by Hainan Province Clinical Medical Center.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Huaiwen Wang and Yuanhao Wu are co first author.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Anorectal Surgery, Hainan Provincial People’s Hospital, Haikou, 570311, Hainan, China

    Huaiwen Wang, Yuanhao Wu, Ping Huang, Weijia Chen, Zhenfen Wang & Yuna Wang

Authors
  1. Huaiwen Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yuanhao Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ping Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Weijia Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Zhenfen Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Yuna Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Huaiwen Wang was responsible for the conceptualization of the study, as well as the collection and curation of the experimental data. Huaiwen Wang also played a primary role in drafting the initial version of the manuscript. Yuanhao Wu and Ping Huang were responsible for conducting the data analysis and contributed to the writing and editing of the manuscript. They provided important insights into the interpretation of the data and the development of the study's conclusions. Weijia Chen, Yuna Wang and Zhenfen Wang played important roles in the revision of the manuscript and the overall management of the project. Yuna Wang oversaw project administration, while Zhenfen Wang provided additional guidance and oversight throughout the study's development. All authors contributed significantly to the study and reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Huaiwen Wang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

In this study, there is no interest dispute.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, H., Wu, Y., Huang, P. et al. Comparison of effectiveness and safety of Da Vinci robot’s “3 + 1” and “4 + 1” modes of treatment for colorectal cancer. J Robotic Surg 17, 2807–2815 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-023-01717-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-023-01717-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation