Study Results
Results pending
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
Recruitment Status
COMPLETED
Total Enrollment
6740 participants
Study Classification
OBSERVATIONAL
Study Start Date
2013-01-01
Study Completion Date
2017-04-15
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
The objective was to evaluate the use and outcomes of robotic proctectomy compared to open and laparoscopic approaches for rectal cancer in the elderly. A retrospective cross-sectional cohort study utilizing the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS; 2006-2013) was performed.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Trial to Evaluate Laparoscopic Versus Open Surgery in Elderly Colorectal Cancer Patients
NCT01862562
Colorectal Cancer
UNKNOWN
PHASE3
Functional Status and Quality of Life in Older Patients Undergoing Robotic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer
NCT05848609
Colorectal Surgery
Geriatric Assessment
Quality of Life
RECRUITING
NA
Laparoscopic Colorectal Resection in Elderly
NCT05563441
Colorectal Cancer
COMPLETED
Laparoscopic-Assisted Resection or Open Resection in Treating Patients With Rectal Cancer
NCT00726622
Colorectal Cancer
COMPLETED
PHASE3
Robotic vs Laparoscopic D3-D4 Lymphadenectomy for Colorectal Cancer
NCT05961423
Colorectal Cancer
UNKNOWN
NA
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
The objective was to evaluate the use and outcomes of robotic proctectomy compared to open and laparoscopic approaches for rectal cancer in the elderly. A retrospective cross-sectional cohort study utilizing the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS; 2006-2013) was performed. All cases were restricted to age 70 years old or greater. The incidence of robotic proctectomy from 2006 - 2013 both as a whole as well as divided into approach was analyzed. Each approach was compared for both primary and secondary outcomes.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Rectal Cancer
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
Observational Model Type
CASE_ONLY
Study Time Perspective
CROSS_SECTIONAL
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Open Proctectomy Patients
Patients who underwent Proctectomy through an open approach
Proctectomy
Intervention Type
PROCEDURE
Resection of the rectum
Laparoscopic Proctectomy Patients
Patients who underwent Proctectomy through a Laparoscopic approach
Proctectomy
Intervention Type
PROCEDURE
Resection of the rectum
Robotic Proctectomy Patients
Patients who underwent Proctectomy through a Robotic approach
Proctectomy
Intervention Type
PROCEDURE
Resection of the rectum
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Proctectomy
Resection of the rectum
Intervention Type
PROCEDURE
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* 70 years of age or older
* underwent proctectomy
* underwent proctectomy
Exclusion Criteria
* emergent admissions
* abdominoperineal resections
* abdominoperineal resections
Minimum Eligible Age
70 Years
Eligible Sex
ALL
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Madigan Army Medical Center
FED
Sponsor Role
collaborator
Tripler Army Medical Center
FED
Sponsor Role
lead
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Carly R Richards
General Surgery Chief Resident Surgeon
Responsibility Role
PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Tripler Army Medical Center
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
Site Status
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
United States
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Guiding principles for the care of older adults with multimorbidity: an approach for clinicians. Guiding principles for the care of older adults with multimorbidity: an approach for clinicians: American Geriatrics Society Expert Panel on the Care of Older Adults with Multimorbidity. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2012 Oct;60(10):E1-E25. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2012.04188.x. Epub 2012 Sep 19. No abstract available.
Reference Type
RESULT
Fielding LP, Phillips RK, Hittinger R. Factors influencing mortality after curative resection for large bowel cancer in elderly patients. Lancet. 1989 Mar 18;1(8638):595-7. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(89)91618-8.
Reference Type
RESULT
Tan KY, Kawamura Y, Mizokami K, Sasaki J, Tsujinaka S, Maeda T, Konishi F. Colorectal surgery in octogenarian patients--outcomes and predictors of morbidity. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2009 Feb;24(2):185-9. doi: 10.1007/s00384-008-0615-9. Epub 2008 Dec 3.
Reference Type
RESULT
Law WL, Chu KW, Tung PH. Laparoscopic colorectal resection: a safe option for elderly patients. J Am Coll Surg. 2002 Dec;195(6):768-73. doi: 10.1016/s1072-7515(02)01483-7.
Reference Type
RESULT
Cheung HY, Chung CC, Fung JT, Wong JC, Yau KK, Li MK. Laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer in octogenarians: results in a decade. Dis Colon Rectum. 2007 Nov;50(11):1905-10. doi: 10.1007/s10350-007-9070-x. Epub 2007 Sep 26.
Reference Type
RESULT
Stocchi L, Nelson H, Young-Fadok TM, Larson DR, Ilstrup DM. Safety and advantages of laparoscopic vs. open colectomy in the elderly: matched-control study. Dis Colon Rectum. 2000 Mar;43(3):326-32. doi: 10.1007/BF02258297.
Reference Type
RESULT
Vignali A, Di Palo S, Tamburini A, Radaelli G, Orsenigo E, Staudacher C. Laparoscopic vs. open colectomies in octogenarians: a case-matched control study. Dis Colon Rectum. 2005 Nov;48(11):2070-5. doi: 10.1007/s10350-005-0147-0.
Reference Type
RESULT
Champagne BJ, Delaney CP. Laparoscopic approaches to rectal cancer. Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2007 Aug;20(3):237-48. doi: 10.1055/s-2007-984868.
Reference Type
RESULT
Jayne DG, Brown JM, Thorpe H, Walker J, Quirke P, Guillou PJ. Bladder and sexual function following resection for rectal cancer in a randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open technique. Br J Surg. 2005 Sep;92(9):1124-32. doi: 10.1002/bjs.4989.
Reference Type
RESULT
van der Pas MH, Haglind E, Cuesta MA, Furst A, Lacy AM, Hop WC, Bonjer HJ; COlorectal cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection II (COLOR II) Study Group. Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer (COLOR II): short-term outcomes of a randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013 Mar;14(3):210-8. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70016-0. Epub 2013 Feb 6.
Reference Type
RESULT
Park S, Kim NK. The Role of Robotic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: Overcoming Technical Challenges in Laparoscopic Surgery by Advanced Techniques. J Korean Med Sci. 2015 Jul;30(7):837-46. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2015.30.7.837. Epub 2015 Jun 10.
Reference Type
RESULT
Baik SH, Kwon HY, Kim JS, Hur H, Sohn SK, Cho CH, Kim H. Robotic versus laparoscopic low anterior resection of rectal cancer: short-term outcome of a prospective comparative study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009 Jun;16(6):1480-7. doi: 10.1245/s10434-009-0435-3. Epub 2009 Mar 17.
Reference Type
RESULT
Kim JY, Kim NK, Lee KY, Hur H, Min BS, Kim JH. A comparative study of voiding and sexual function after total mesorectal excision with autonomic nerve preservation for rectal cancer: laparoscopic versus robotic surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012 Aug;19(8):2485-93. doi: 10.1245/s10434-012-2262-1. Epub 2012 Mar 21.
Reference Type
RESULT
D'Annibale A, Pernazza G, Monsellato I, Pende V, Lucandri G, Mazzocchi P, Alfano G. Total mesorectal excision: a comparison of oncological and functional outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. Surg Endosc. 2013 Jun;27(6):1887-95. doi: 10.1007/s00464-012-2731-4. Epub 2013 Jan 5.
Reference Type
RESULT
Frasson M, Braga M, Vignali A, Zuliani W, Di Carlo V. Benefits of laparoscopic colorectal resection are more pronounced in elderly patients. Dis Colon Rectum. 2008 Mar;51(3):296-300. doi: 10.1007/s10350-007-9124-0. Epub 2008 Jan 15.
Reference Type
RESULT
Jayne D, Pigazzi A, Marshall H, Croft J, Corrigan N, Copeland J, Quirke P, West N, Rautio T, Thomassen N, Tilney H, Gudgeon M, Bianchi PP, Edlin R, Hulme C, Brown J. Effect of Robotic-Assisted vs Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery on Risk of Conversion to Open Laparotomy Among Patients Undergoing Resection for Rectal Cancer: The ROLARR Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2017 Oct 24;318(16):1569-1580. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.7219.
Reference Type
RESULT
Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373-83. doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8.
Reference Type
RESULT
Elixhauser A, Steiner C, Harris DR, Coffey RM. Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data. Med Care. 1998 Jan;36(1):8-27. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199801000-00004.
Reference Type
RESULT
Washington CW, Derdeyn CP, Dacey RG Jr, Dhar R, Zipfel GJ. Analysis of subarachnoid hemorrhage using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample: the NIS-SAH Severity Score and Outcome Measure. J Neurosurg. 2014 Aug;121(2):482-9. doi: 10.3171/2014.4.JNS131100. Epub 2014 Jun 20.
Reference Type
RESULT
Singh JA, Kwoh CK, Boudreau RM, Lee GC, Ibrahim SA. Hospital volume and surgical outcomes after elective hip/knee arthroplasty: a risk-adjusted analysis of a large regional database. Arthritis Rheum. 2011 Aug;63(8):2531-9. doi: 10.1002/art.30390.
Reference Type
RESULT
Schlussel AT, Lustik MB, Johnson EK, Maykel JA, Champagne BJ, Damle A, Ross HM, Steele SR. A nationwide assessment comparing nonelective open with minimally invasive complex colorectal procedures. Colorectal Dis. 2016 Mar;18(3):301-11. doi: 10.1111/codi.13113.
Reference Type
RESULT
Damle A, Damle RN, Flahive JM, Schlussel AT, Davids JS, Sturrock PR, Maykel JA, Alavi K. Diffusion of technology: Trends in robotic-assisted colorectal surgery. Am J Surg. 2017 Nov;214(5):820-824. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2017.03.020. Epub 2017 Mar 21.
Reference Type
RESULT
Lee MG, Chiu CC, Wang CC, Chang CN, Lee SH, Lee M, Hsu TC, Lee CC. Trends and Outcomes of Surgical Treatment for Colorectal Cancer between 2004 and 2012- an Analysis using National Inpatient Database. Sci Rep. 2017 May 17;7(1):2006. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-02224-y.
Reference Type
RESULT
Halabi WJ, Kang CY, Jafari MD, Nguyen VQ, Carmichael JC, Mills S, Stamos MJ, Pigazzi A. Robotic-assisted colorectal surgery in the United States: a nationwide analysis of trends and outcomes. World J Surg. 2013 Dec;37(12):2782-90. doi: 10.1007/s00268-013-2024-7.
Reference Type
RESULT
Tam MS, Kaoutzanis C, Mullard AJ, Regenbogen SE, Franz MG, Hendren S, Krapohl G, Vandewarker JF, Lampman RM, Cleary RK. A population-based study comparing laparoscopic and robotic outcomes in colorectal surgery. Surg Endosc. 2016 Feb;30(2):455-463. doi: 10.1007/s00464-015-4218-6. Epub 2015 Apr 17.
Reference Type
RESULT
Baek JH, Pastor C, Pigazzi A. Robotic and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a case-matched study. Surg Endosc. 2011 Feb;25(2):521-5. doi: 10.1007/s00464-010-1204-x. Epub 2010 Jul 7.
Reference Type
RESULT
Schlussel AT, Delaney CP, Maykel JA, Lustik MB, Nishtala M, Steele SR. A National Database Analysis Comparing the Nationwide Inpatient Sample and American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program in Laparoscopic vs Open Colectomies: Inherent Variance May Impact Outcomes. Dis Colon Rectum. 2016 Sep;59(9):843-54. doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000000642.
Reference Type
RESULT
Antoniou SA, Antoniou GA, Koch OO, Pointner R, Granderath FA. Laparoscopic colorectal surgery confers lower mortality in the elderly: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 66,483 patients. Surg Endosc. 2015 Feb;29(2):322-33. doi: 10.1007/s00464-014-3672-x. Epub 2014 Jul 2.
Reference Type
RESULT
Seishima R, Okabayashi K, Hasegawa H, Tsuruta M, Shigeta K, Matsui S, Yamada T, Kitagawa Y. Is laparoscopic colorectal surgery beneficial for elderly patients? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gastrointest Surg. 2015 Apr;19(4):756-65. doi: 10.1007/s11605-015-2748-9. Epub 2015 Jan 24.
Reference Type
RESULT
Park JS, Choi GS, Lim KH, Jang YS, Jun SH. Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery for low rectal cancer: case-matched analysis of short-term outcomes. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010 Dec;17(12):3195-202. doi: 10.1245/s10434-010-1162-5. Epub 2010 Jun 30.
Reference Type
RESULT
Keller DS, Senagore AJ, Lawrence JK, Champagne BJ, Delaney CP. Comparative effectiveness of laparoscopic versus robot-assisted colorectal resection. Surg Endosc. 2014 Jan;28(1):212-21. doi: 10.1007/s00464-013-3163-5. Epub 2013 Aug 31.
Reference Type
RESULT
Li Y, Wang S, Gao S, Yang C, Yang W, Guo S. Laparoscopic colorectal resection versus open colorectal resection in octogenarians: a systematic review and meta-analysis of safety and efficacy. Tech Coloproctol. 2016 Mar;20(3):153-62. doi: 10.1007/s10151-015-1419-x. Epub 2016 Jan 18.
Reference Type
RESULT
Park JS, Choi GS, Lim KH, Jang YS, Jun SH. S052: a comparison of robot-assisted, laparoscopic, and open surgery in the treatment of rectal cancer. Surg Endosc. 2011 Jan;25(1):240-8. doi: 10.1007/s00464-010-1166-z. Epub 2010 Jun 15.
Reference Type
RESULT
Agha RA, Borrelli MR, Vella-Baldacchino M, Thavayogan R, Orgill DP; STROCSS Group. The STROCSS statement: Strengthening the Reporting of Cohort Studies in Surgery. Int J Surg. 2017 Oct;46:198-202. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.08.586. Epub 2017 Sep 7.
Reference Type
RESULT
Related Links
Access external resources that provide additional context or updates about the study.
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2016/demo/p95-16-1.pdf
An Aging World: 2015 International Population Reports
http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/nisoverview.jsp
Overview of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample. \[Internet\].; 2017
http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/db/nation/nis/APR-DRGsV20MethodologyOverviewandBibliography.pdf
All patient refined diagnosis related groups (APR-DRGs), version 20.0. methodology overview
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
Robotic Proct in the Elderly
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.
Laparoscopy-Assisted Transanal Endoscopy Rectosigmoid Resection for Rectal Cancer
NCT01340755
COMPLETED
NA
Conventional Surgery Compared With Laparoscopic-Assisted Surgery in Treating Patients With Colorectal Cancer
NCT00003354
COMPLETED
PHASE3
Robot-assisted Surgery for Colorectal Cancer Resection: A Population-based Analysis of Prevalence, Trends and Outcomes
NCT06959849
ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING
Trends and Outcomes in Laparoscopic Versus Open Surgery for Rectal Cancer
NCT03683446
COMPLETED
INtracorporeal Versus EXtracorporeal Anastomosis in Robotic Right Colectomy
NCT03130166
COMPLETED
NA
Robotic Assisted Colon and Rectal Surgery Prognostic and Outcome Analysis
NCT05210647
COMPLETED
Three-port Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer
NCT03426514
UNKNOWN
NA
A Trial to Assess Robot-assisted Surgery and Laparoscopy-assisted Surgery in Patients With Mid or Low Rectal Cancer
NCT01423214
UNKNOWN
PHASE3
Minimally Invasive Simultaneous Colorectal and Liver Surgery
NCT03551470
UNKNOWN
Laparoscopic Intersphincteric Resection in Elderly Patients
NCT04673526
COMPLETED
NA
Evaluation of SINGLE PORT (SP) Robotic Technology in Colorectal Surgery
NCT05321134
RECRUITING
NA
Safety and Efficacy of Reduced-port Laparoscopic Surgery for Patients Of Colon and Upper Rectal Cancer
NCT05953662
ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING
NA
RCT on Elderly Patients Undergoing Colorectal Cancer Surgery With Enhanced Geriatric Care
NCT02352688
COMPLETED
NA
Laparoscopic-Assisted Surgery Compared With Open Surgery in Treating Patients With Colon Cancer
NCT00002575
COMPLETED
PHASE3
Robotic-assisted and Laparoscopic Right Colectomy Study - Intracorporeal vs. Extracorporeal Anastomoses
NCT03312569
COMPLETED
Minimally Invasive Right Colectomy Anastomosis Study
NCT03650517
UNKNOWN
A Trial to Evaluate Laparoscopic Versus Open Surgery for Colorectal Cancer
NCT00147134
COMPLETED
PHASE3
The Intraoperative Technical Errors of Robotic vs. Laparoscopic Radical Right Hemiclectomy
NCT07138859
NOT_YET_RECRUITING
NA
Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Low Anterior Resection for Rectal Cancer
NCT03209076
UNKNOWN
NA
Incidence of The Bowel, Bladder, and Sexual Dysfunction Following Surgery for Colorectal Malignancy
NCT04134104
COMPLETED
Robotic-Assisted or Laparoscopic Radical Resection for Rectal Cancer With or Without Left Colic Artery Preservation
NCT06376227
COMPLETED
Robotic Assisted Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision Surgery for Rectal Cancer in Low Site
NCT03422835
UNKNOWN
PHASE2
Robotic-assisted Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Approach for Rectal Cancer Surgery
NCT03589131
COMPLETED
NA
Robotic Top-down Intersphincteric Resection
NCT05961969
RECRUITING
Trial of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic-assisted Radical Resection for Rectal Cancer
NCT02673177
UNKNOWN
NA