Propensity matched analysis of minimally invasive and open radical resection for rectal cancer: comparison of short-term outcomes in elderly/frail patients

Although minimally invasive surgery (MIS), such as robotic and laparoscopic procedures, is sometimes a better option than open surgery for patients with rectal cancer, it can present challenges for some elderly or frail patients who have a higher risk of chronic illnesses and poor surgical tolerance. On the basis of several pathophysiological characteristics, the patients were grouped according to their age. The time nodes, which are 65 and 80 years old, can clarify the goal of the study and offer some therapeutic benefit. These subgroups stand to gain a great deal from MIS because of its superior arm of machinery and imagery. The short-term oncological outcomes and postoperative conditions of robotic surgery, laparoscopic surgery, and conventional open surgery were compared in this study using a propensity-matched analysis. In this retrospective study, a total of 2049 consecutive patients who underwent proctectomy between September 2017 and June 2023 were chosen. We then carried out a propensity matching analysis based on inclusion criteria. Patients were split into two age groups: 65–80 and  > 80. While the secondary objective was to further investigate the similar characteristics between RS and LS, the major objective was to compare oncological outcomes and postoperative conditions between MIS and OS. K–M survival curves were used to represent oncological outcomes and survival conditions. Complication rate and mFI score were used to assess postoperative conditions. Regarding the functional outcomes, the LARS scale was applied to create questionnaires that calculated the anal function of the patients. 110 cases from the group of patients aged 65–80 were successfully merged after matching 1: 1 by propensity score, whereas 73 instances from patients aged > 80 were incorporated while examining the primary objective between OS and MIS. Regarding the secondary goal, each group contained 45 cases for patients above 80 and 65 cases for patients aged 65–80, respectively. Faster recovery from MIS included quicker first flatus passage, earlier switch to liquid nutrition, and shorter hospital stay. In the meantime, MIS also showed benefits in terms of the proportion of low mFI scores and the rates of wound complications in the two age groups. Less blood loss and shorter operational time are further MIS features. On the other hand, MIS experienced more pulmonary complications than OS. Robotic surgery was statistically no different from laparoscopic surgery in patients aged 65–80, although it was superior in terms of operative time and recovery. Comparable and satisfactory oncological and survival results were obtained with all three treatments. For elderly/frail patients with rectal cancer, MIS could be recognized as an effective procedure with favorable outcomes of recovery that are accompanied by better postoperative conditions. While, robotic surgery is slightly better than laparoscopic surgery in some aspects. However, to further demonstrate the effectiveness of three surgical modalities in treating certain groups, multi-center prospective studies are required.