Robotic surgery contributes to the preservation of bowel and urinary function after total mesorectal excision: comparisons with transanal and conventional laparoscopic surgery

Table 4 Postoperative functional comparisons by procedures in the robotic group

Variables	DST	Hand sewn	P value	LLND	No LLND	P value
Variables	N = 22	N = 11	P value	N = 19	N = 14	P value
Distance from AV to tumor (mm)^†	60 (40–80)	35 (25–50)	< 0.01	55 (30–80)	57.5 (25–70)	0.98
Anastomotic height from AV (mm)^†	50 (30–60)	25 (20–30)	< 0.01	40 (20–50)	42.5 (20–60)	0.79
Wexner score^†	7 (0–16)	12 (9–20)	< 0.01	11 (0–20)	9 (1–16)	0.88
Wexner ≥ 10, n (%)	8 (36.4)	9 (81.8)	0.02	11 (57.9)	6 (42.9)	0.49
LARS score^†	34 (11–41)	39 (34–41)	< 0.01	36 (11–41)	34.5 (15–41)	0.34
Major LARS, n (%)	15 (68.2)	11 (100)	0.06	16 (84.2)	10 (71.4)	0.42
mFIQL score^†	29.2 (0–73.8)	45.2 (9.5–85.7)	0.06	40.9 (2.3–85.7)	32.1 (0–73.8)	0.54
mFIQL ≥ 50, n (%)	6 (27.3)	4 (36.4)	0.69	6 (31.6)	4 (28.6)	1.00
IPSS^†	2 (0–23)	5 (0–16)	0.49	3 (0–23)	2 (0–12)	0.08
Severe IPSS, n (%)	2 (9.1)	0 (0)	0.54	2 (10.5)	0 (0)	0.49

AV anal verge, LARS low anterior resection syndrome, mFIQL modified fecal incontinence quality of life, IPSS international prostate symptom score, DST double staple technique, LLND lateral lymph node dissection
^†Median (Range)

ISSN: 1471-2482