SpringerLink
Log in

Right Colectomy with Intracorporeal Anastomosis: A European Multicenter Propensity Score Matching Retrospective Study of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Procedures

  • Original Scientific Report
  • Published:
World Journal of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

This study aimed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of robotic (RRC-IA) versus laparoscopic (LRC-IA) right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis using a propensity score matching (PSM) analysis based on a large European multicentric cohort of patients with nonmetastatic right colon cancer.

Methods

Elective curative-intent RRC-IA and LRC-IA performed between 2014 and 2020 were selected from the MERCY Study Group database. The two PSM-groups were compared for operative and postoperative outcomes, and survival rates.

Results

Initially, 596 patients were selected, including 194 RRC-IA and 402 LRC-IA patients. After PSM, 298 patients (149 per group) were compared. There was no statistically significant difference between RRC-IA and LRC-IA in terms of operative time, intraoperative complication rate, conversion to open surgery, postoperative morbidity (19.5% in RRC-IA vs. 26.8% in LRC-IA; p = 0.17), or 5-yr survival (80.5% for RRC-IA and 74.7% for LRC-IA; p = 0.94). R0 resection was obtained in all patients, and > 12 lymph nodes were harvested in 92.3% of patients, without group-related differences. RRC-IA procedures were associated with a significantly higher use of indocyanine green fluorescence than LRC-IA (36.9% vs. 14.1%; OR: 3.56; 95%CI 2.02–6.29; p < 0.0001).

Conclusion

Within the limitation of the present analyses, there is no statistically significant difference between RRC-IA and LRC-IA performed for right colon cancer in terms of short- and long-term outcomes.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lacy AM, Delgado S, Castells A et al (2008) The long-term results of a randomized clinical trial of laparoscopy-assisted versus open surgery for colon cancer. Ann Surg 248:1–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Veldkamp R, Kuhry E, Hop WC et al (2005) Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: short-term outcomes of a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 6:477–484

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Yamamoto S, Inomata M, Katayama H et al (2014) Short-term surgical outcomes from a randomized controlled trial to evaluate laparoscopic and open D3 dissection for stage II/III colon cancer: Japan Clinical Oncology Group Study JCOG 0404. Ann Surg 260:23–30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Crawshaw BP, Chien HL, Augestad KM et al (2015) Effect of laparoscopic surgery on health care utilization and costs in patients who undergo colectomy. JAMA Surg 150:410–415

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Keller DS, Delaney CP, Hashemi L et al (2016) A national evaluation of clinical and economic outcomes in open versus laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Surg Endosc 30:4220–4228

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Liao CH, Tan EC, Chen CC et al (2017) Real-world cost-effectiveness of laparoscopy versus open colectomy for colon cancer: a nationwide population-based study. Surg Endosc 31:1796–1805

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. van Oostendorp S, Elfrink A, Borstlap W et al (2017) Intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis in right hemicolectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 31:64–77

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Allaix ME, Degiuli M, Bonino MA et al (2019) Intracorporeal or extracorporeal ileocolic anastomosis after laparoscopic right colectomy: a double-blinded randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 270:762–767

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bollo J, Turrado V, Rabal A et al (2020) Randomized clinical trial of intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis in laparoscopic right colectomy (IEA trial). Br J Surg 107:364–372

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Shapiro R, Keler U, Segev L et al (2016) Laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis: short- and long-term benefits in comparison with extracorporeal anastomosis. Surg Endosc 30:3823–3829

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Sheetz KH, Claflin J, Dimick JB (2020) Trends in the adoption of robotic surgery for common surgical procedures. JAMA Netw Open 3:e1918911

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Park JS, Choi GS, Park SY et al (2012) Randomized clinical trial of robot-assisted versus standard laparoscopic right colectomy. Br J Surg 99:1219–1226

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Park JS, Kang H, Park SY et al (2019) Long-term oncologic after robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy: a prospective randomized study. Surg Endosc 33:2975–2981

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Genova P, Pantuso G, Cipolla C, et al (2020) Laparoscopic versus robotic right colectomy with extra-corporeal or intra-corporeal anastomosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Langenbecks Arch Surg

  15. de'Angelis N, Schena CA, Piccoli M, et al (2022) Impact of operation duration on postoperative outcomes of minimally-invasive right colectomy. Colorectal Dis

  16. MERCY Study Collaborative Group (2022) Predictors of surgical outcomes of minimally invasive right colectomy: the MERCY study. Int J Colorectal Dis 37:907–918

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Martinez-Perez A, Piccoli M, Casoni Pattacini G, et al. (2023) Conversion to open surgery during minimally invasive right colectomy for cancer: results from a large multinational European study. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A

  18. Weiser MR (2018) AJCC 8th edition: colorectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 25:1454–1455

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Xu L, Su X, He Z et al (2021) Short-term outcomes of complete mesocolic excision versus D2 dissection in patients undergoing laparoscopic colectomy for right colon cancer (RELARC): a randomised, controlled, phase 3, superiority trial. Lancet Oncol 22:391–401

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M et al (2008) The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol 61:344–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Chapuis PH, Bokey L, Keshava A et al (2013) Risk factors for prolonged ileus after resection of colorectal cancer: an observational study of 2400 consecutive patients. Ann Surg 257:909–915

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hou TY, Gan HQ, Zhou JF et al (2020) Incidence of and risk factors for surgical site infection after colorectal surgery: a multiple-center prospective study of 3,663 consecutive patients in China. Int J Infect Dis 96:676–681

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Milone M, Elmore U, Di Salvo E et al (2015) Intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis. Results from a multicentre comparative study on 512 right-sided colorectal cancers. Surg Endosc 29:2314–2320

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. de’Angelis N, Moroni P, Brunetti F et al (2019) Indocyanine green fluorescence guided robotic right colectomy with intra-corporeal anastomosis—a video vignette. Colorectal Dis 21:1459–1460

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Austin PC (2008) A critical appraisal of propensity-score matching in the medical literature between 1996 and 2003. Stat Med 27:2037–2049

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Austin PC (2009) Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Stat Med 28:3083–3107

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Zhang Z, Kim HJ, Lonjon G et al (2019) Balance diagnostics after propensity score matching. Ann Transl Med 7:16

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Austin PC (2013) The performance of different propensity score methods for estimating marginal hazard ratios. Stat Med 32:2837–2849

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Brazauskas R, Logan BR (2016) Observational studies: matching or regression? Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 22:557–563

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Milone M, Elmore U, Vignali A et al (2018) Recovery after intracorporeal anastomosis in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Langenbecks Arch Surg 403:1–10

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Malczak P, Wysocki M, Pisarska-Adamczyk M, et al (2021) Bowel function after laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a randomized controlled trial comparing intracorporeal anastomosis and extracorporeal anastomosis. Surg Endosc

  33. de’Angelis N, Lizzi V, Azoulay D, et al (2016) Robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy for colon cancer: analysis of the initial simultaneous learning curve of a surgical fellow. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 26:882–892

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Trastulli S, Coratti A, Guarino S et al (2015) Robotic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis compared with laparoscopic right colectomy with extracorporeal and intracorporeal anastomosis: a retrospective multicentre study. Surg Endosc 29:1512–1521

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Ceccarelli G, Costa G, Ferraro V et al (2021) Robotic or three-dimensional (3D) laparoscopy for right colectomy with complete mesocolic excision (CME) and intracorporeal anastomosis? A propensity score-matching study comparison. Surg Endosc 35:2039–2048

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Migliore M, Giuffrida MC, Marano A et al (2021) Robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy within a systematic ERAS protocol: a propensity-weighted analysis. Updates Surg 73:1057–1064

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Merola G, Sciuto A, Pirozzi F et al (2020) Is robotic right colectomy economically sustainable? A multicentre retrospective comparative study and cost analysis. Surg Endosc 34:4041–4047

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Blumberg D (2019) Robotic colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis is feasible with no operative conversions during the learning curve for an experienced laparoscopic surgeon develo** a robotics program. J Robot Surg 13:545–555

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Spinoglio G, Bianchi PP, Marano A et al (2018) Robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy with complete mesocolic excision for the treatment of colon cancer: perioperative outcomes and 5-year survival in a consecutive series of 202 patients. Ann Surg Oncol 25:3580–3586

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Solaini L, Cavaliere D, Pecchini F et al (2019) Robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis: a multicenter comparative analysis on short-term outcomes. Surg Endosc 33:1898–1902

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Megevand JL, Amboldi M, Lillo E et al (2019) Right colectomy: consecutive 100 patients treated with laparoscopic and robotic technique for malignancy. Cumulative experience in a single centre. Updates Surg 71:151–156

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Ngu JC, Ng YY (2018) Robotics confers an advantage in right hemicolectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis when matched against conventional laparoscopy. J Robot Surg 12:647–653

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. De Nardi P, Elmore U, Maggi G et al (2020) Intraoperative angiography with indocyanine green to assess anastomosis perfusion in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal resection: results of a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 34:53–60

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Wojcik M, Doussot A, Manfredelli S et al (2020) Intra-operative fluorescence angiography is reproducible and reduces the rate of anastomotic leak after colorectal resection for cancer: a prospective case-matched study. Colorectal Dis 22:1263–1270

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Guerrieri M, Campagnacci R, Sperti P et al (2015) Totally robotic vs 3D laparoscopic colectomy: a single centers preliminary experience. World J Gastroenterol 21:13152–13159

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

MERCY Study Collaborating Group Members: Filippo Aisoni: Department of Surgery, Unit of General Surgery, University Hospital of Ferrara, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy. Christine Denet: Department of Digestive Oncologic and Metabolic Surgery, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris Descartes University, Paris, France. Céphise Antonot: Department of Digestive Surgical Oncology - Liver Transplantation Unit, University Hospital of Besançon, Besançon, France. Jeanne Vertier: Department of Digestive and Oncologic Surgery, Hospital Nord, CHU Saint-Etienne, Saint-Etienne, France. Aleix Martínez-Perez: Unit of General Surgery, CARE Department, Henri Mondor Hospital, Creteil, France. Giovanni Domenico De Palma: Department of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, "Federico II" University of Naples, Naples, Italy. Lorenzo Orci, Sebastiano Bartoletti: Division of Abdominal and Transplantation Surgery, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Geneva University Hospitals, 4 rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil, 1205 Geneva, Switzerland. Lauren O’Connell: Department of Surgery, St. Vincent's University Hospital, Elm Park, Dublin 4, Ireland. Monica Ortenzi: Department of General Surgery, Università Politecnica Delle Marche, Piazza Roma 22, 60121, Ancona, Italy., Francesca Pecchini: Unit of General, Emergency Surgery and New Technologies. OCB (Ospedale Civile Baggiovara), AOU (Azienda Ospedaliero, Universitaria Di Modena), Modena, Italy. Jean-Christophe Paquet: Unit of Digestive and Urologic Surgery, Groupe Hospitalier Nord-Essonne, Site de Longjumeau, France. Massimo Chiarugi, Dario Tartaglia: General, Emergency and Trauma Surgery Department, Pisa University Hospital, Pisa, Italy. Ornella Perrotto: Department of Digestive and Oncologic Surgery, Hospital Nord, CHU Saint-Etienne, Saint-Etienne, France. Antonio Santangelo: General Surgery Department, Azienda Sanitaria Universitaria Friuli Centrale (ASU FC), Udine, Italy. Francesco Arces: General, Emergency and Trauma Surgery Department, Pisa University Hospital, Pisa, Italy. Raffaele De Rosa: General and Oncologic Surgical Unit, Policlinico San Martino, Genova, Italy. Enrico Andolfi: San Donato Hospital, General and Emergency Surgery Unit, Arezzo, Italy. Gian Luigi de’Angelis: University Hospital of Parma, Italy. Maria Clotilde Carra: Faculté de Santé, Université Paris Cité, France. Francesca Pecchini: Unit of General, Emergency Surgery and New Technologies. OCB (Ospedale Civile Baggiovara), AOU (Azienda Ospedaliero, Universitaria Di Modena), Modena, Italy. Gianluca Pellino: Unit of Colorectal Surgery, Department of General and Digestive Surgery, University Hospital Vall d'Hebron-Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. Alessia Urbani: Department of Surgery, Unit of General Surgery, University Hospital of Ferrara, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy. Laura Vidal: Unit of Colorectal Surgery, Department of General and Digestive Surgery, University Hospital Vall d'Hebron-Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. Angelo Restivo, Simona Deidda: Colon and Rectal Surgery Unit, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy.

Funding

No funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Nicola de’Angelis and Micaela Piccoli have contributed equally.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Unit of Colorectal and Digestive Surgery, DIGEST Department, Beaujon University Hospital, Clichy, France

    Nicola de’Angelis

  2. University of Paris Est, UPEC, Créteil, France

    Nicola de’Angelis

  3. Unit of General, Emergency Surgery and New Technologies, OCB (Ospedale Civile Baggiovara), AOU (Azienda Ospedaliero, Universitaria Di Modena), Modena, Italy

    Micaela Piccoli & Gianmaria Casoni Pattacini

  4. Department of Surgery, St. Vincent’s University Hospital, Elm Park, Dublin 4, Ireland

    Des C. Winter

  5. Department of Surgery, Unit of General Surgery, University Hospital of Ferrara, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy

    Paolo Carcoforo

  6. University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK

    Valerio Celentano

  7. Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College, London, UK

    Valerio Celentano

  8. General, Emergency and Trauma Surgery Department, Pisa University Hospital, Pisa, Italy

    Federico Coccolini

  9. Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, UK

    Salomone Di Saverio

  10. Department of General Surgery, Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences ‘L. Sacco’, University of Milan, ASST Fatebenefratelli Sacco, Milan, Italy

    Alice Frontali

  11. Department of Digestive Oncologic and Metabolic Surgery, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris Descartes University, Paris, France

    David Fuks

  12. Department of Surgical, Oncological and Oral Sciences (Di.Chir.On.S.), Paolo Giaccone University Hospital, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy

    Pietro Genova

  13. Department of General Surgery, Università Politecnica Delle Marche, Piazza Roma 22, 60121, Ancona, Italy

    Mario Guerrieri

  14. Unit of Colorectal Surgery, Department of General and Digestive Surgery, University Hospital Vall d’Hebron-Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain

    Miquel Kraft & Eloy Espin

  15. Department of Digestive Surgical Oncology - Liver Transplantation Unit, University Hospital of Besançon, Besançon, France

    Zaher Lakkis

  16. Department of Digestive and Oncologic Surgery, CHU Saint-Etienne, Hospital Nord, Saint-Etienne, France

    Bertrand Le Roy

  17. Department of Digestive, Oncologic and Metabolic Surgery, Ambroise Paré Hospital, AP-HP. Paris Saclay University, Boulogne-Billancourt, France

    Renato Micelli Lupinacci

  18. Department of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, “Federico II” University of Naples, Naples, Italy

    Marco Milone

  19. General Surgery Department, Azienda Sanitaria Universitaria Friuli Centrale (ASU FC), Udine, Italy

    Roberto Petri

  20. General and Oncologic Surgical Unit, Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy

    Stefano Scabini

  21. Emergency Surgery Department, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Di Bologna, Bologna, Italy

    Valeria Tonini

  22. Groupe Hospitalier Diaconesses, Croix Saint-Simon, 75020, Paris, France

    Alain Valverde

  23. Colon and Rectal Surgery Unit, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy

    Luigi Zorcolo

  24. Division of Abdominal and Transplantation Surgery, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Geneva University Hospitals, 4 Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil, 1205, Geneva, Switzerland

    Frederic Ris

  25. Department of Digestive, Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery, Henri-Mondor Hospital, AP-HP, Université Paris Est – UPEC, 51, Avenue du Maréchal de Lattre de Tassigny, 94010, Créteil, France

    Nicola de’Angelis & Giorgio Bianchi

Authors
  1. Nicola de’Angelis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Micaela Piccoli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gianmaria Casoni Pattacini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Des C. Winter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Paolo Carcoforo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Valerio Celentano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Federico Coccolini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Salomone Di Saverio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Alice Frontali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. David Fuks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Pietro Genova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Mario Guerrieri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Miquel Kraft
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Zaher Lakkis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Bertrand Le Roy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Renato Micelli Lupinacci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Marco Milone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Roberto Petri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  19. Stefano Scabini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  20. Valeria Tonini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  21. Alain Valverde
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  22. Luigi Zorcolo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  23. Giorgio Bianchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  24. Frederic Ris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  25. Eloy Espin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Consortia

For the MERCY Study Collaborating Group Members

  • Filippo Aisoni
  • , Christine Denet
  • , Céphise Antonot
  • , Jeanne Vertier
  • , Aleix Martínez-Perez
  • , Giovanni Domenico De Palma
  • , Lorenzo Orci
  • , Sebastiano Bartoletti
  • , Lauren O’Connell
  • , Monica Ortenzi
  • , Francesca Pecchini
  • , Jean-Christophe Paquet
  • , Massimo Chiarugi
  • , Dario Tartaglia
  • , Ornella Perrotto
  • , Antonio Santangelo
  • , Francesco Arces
  • , Raffaele De Rosa
  • , Enrico Andolfi
  • , Gian Luigi de’Angelis
  • , Maria Clotilde Carra
  • , Francesca Pecchini
  • , Gianluca Pellino
  • , Alessia Urbani
  • , Laura Vidal
  • , Angelo Restivo
  •  & Simona Deidda

Contributions

NdeA, MP, and GMCP contributed to study conception and design, data interpretation, manuscript drafting and critical revisions. They take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. DCW, PC, VC, FC, SDS, AF, DF, PG, MG, MK, ZL, BLR, RML, MM, RP, SS, VT, AV, LZ, GB, FR, and EE have been involved in the data collection, data interpretation, and critical revisions of the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript before submission.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicola de’Angelis.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Nicola de’Angelis, Micaela Piccoli, Gianmaria Casoni Pattacini, Des C Winter, Paolo Carcoforo, Valerio Celentano, Federico Coccolini, Salomone Di Saverio, Alice Frontali, David Fuks, Pietro Genova, Mario Guerrieri, Miquel Kraft, Zaher Lakkis, Bertrand Le Roy, Renato Micelli Lupinacci, Marco Milone, Roberto Petri, Stefano Scabini, Valeria Tonini, Alain Valverde, Luigi Zorcolo, Giorgio Bianchi, Frederic Ris, Eloy Espin declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical statement

This research was declared to the National Commission for Data Protection and Liberties (CNIL: 2210699) and approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB: 00011558). All personal data were collected after informing the involved patients and were treated in conformity to the ethical standards of the Helsinki Declaration.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

268_2023_7031_MOESM1_ESM.pdf

Supplementary file 1: Supplemental Figure 1. Covariate balance plot showing the accuracy of the PSM model (plot of the effect size before and after PSM). (PDF 255 kb)

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

de’Angelis, N., Piccoli, M., Casoni Pattacini, G. et al. Right Colectomy with Intracorporeal Anastomosis: A European Multicenter Propensity Score Matching Retrospective Study of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Procedures. World J Surg 47, 2039–2051 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-023-07031-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-023-07031-3

Search

Navigation