Laparoscopic Versus Robotic Right Colectomy: A Two-Year Comparative Outcome Analysis From a Single High-Volume Center

Clicks: 1
ID: 315760
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal

Ranked #312 of 432 articles by views in the british journal of surgery

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 432 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract Background Minimally invasive approaches have become standard in colorectal surgery, with laparoscopic and robotic-assisted techniques associated with reduced postoperative pain, accelerated recovery, and shorter hospitalization. Laparoscopy has been established for several decades, whereas robotic surgery is increasingly adopted due to enhanced instrument articulation, improved ergonomics, and three-dimensional visualization. This study aimed to compare perioperative and postoperative outcomes of robotic (rRC) versus laparoscopic (lapRC) right colectomy. Aims A single-center cohort analysis of a prospectively maintained database was performed, including all patients undergoing elective right colectomy for malignant disease between January 2023 and January 2025. Patients were stratified according to operative approach (lapRC vs. rRC). Continuous variables were evaluated using independent t-tests and categorical variables using Fisher’s exact test. Statistical significance was defined as p<0.05. Methods A single-center cohort analysis of a prospectively maintained database was performed, including all patients undergoing elective right colectomy for malignant disease between January 2023 and January 2025. Patients were stratified according to operative approach (lapRC vs. rRC). Continuous variables were evaluated using independent t-tests and categorical variables using Fisher’s exact test. Statistical significance was defined as p<0.05. Results In total, 159 patients met inclusion criteria (lapRC n=89; rRC n=70). Mean operative duration was significantly longer in the rRC group (298 min; SD 103.82) compared with lapRC (218 min; SD 72.42; p<0.001). Conversely, conversion to open surgery was markedly lower following rRC (1.4% vs. 18%; p<0.001). Length of stay was shorter in the rRC cohort (7.6 vs. 11.6 days), although this difference did not reach statistical significance (p=0.303). Postoperative morbidity, quantified using the Comprehensive Complication Index, demonstrated no significant differences (rRC 7.8 vs. lapRC 9.1; p=0.5813), and anastomotic leak rates were comparable (2.9% vs. 4.5%; p=0.695). Conclusion Robotic right colectomy appears to reduce conversion to open surgery relative to conventional laparoscopy but is associated with prolonged operative time. Postoperative recovery profiles and complication rates were similar, suggesting that robotic-assisted right colectomy is a safe and viable minimally invasive alternative. These findings support the expanding integration of robotic platforms in colorectal surgery. However, randomized controlled trials are needed to validate oncologic equivalence, assess long-term functional outcomes, and determine cost-effectiveness.
Reference Key
openalex_W7163399454 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors D Molinari, M von Strauss Und Torney, F V Angehrn, B P Müller-Stich, D C Steinemann, F Nocera
Journal the british journal of surgery
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/bjs/znag055.047
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znag055.047
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.