Dataset Information

Obese patients and robotic colorectal surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Background: Obesity is a major health problem, demonstrated to double the risk of colorectal cancer. The benefits of robotic colorectal surgery in obese patients remain largely unknown. This meta-analysis evaluated the clinical and pathological outcomes of robotic colorectal surgery in obese and non-obese patients.

Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, Healthcare Management Information Consortium (HMIC) and Midwives Information and Resources Service (MIDIRS) databases were searched on 1 August 2018 with no language restriction. Meta-analysis was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. Obese patients (BMI 30?kg/m² or above) undergoing robotic colorectal cancer resections were compared with non-obese patients. Included outcome measures were: operative outcomes (duration of surgery, conversion to laparotomy, blood loss), postoperative complications, hospital length of stay and pathological outcomes (number of retrieved lymph nodes, positive circumferential resection margins and length of distal margin in rectal surgery).

Results: A total of 131 full-text articles were reviewed, of which 12 met the inclusion criteria and were included in the final analysis. There were 3166 non-obese and 1420 obese patients. A longer duration of surgery was documented in obese compared with non-obese patients (weighted mean difference -21·99 (95 per cent c.i. -31·52 to -12·46) min; P?
Conclusion: Robotic surgery in obese patients results in a significantly longer duration of surgery and higher conversion rates than in non-obese patients. Further studies should focus on better stratification of the obese population with colorectal disease as candidates for robotic procedures.

SUBMITTER: Suwa Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7709366 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Obese patients and robotic colorectal surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Suwa Y Y Joshi M M Poynter L L Endo I I Ashrafian H H Darzi A A

BJS open 20200921

<h4>Background</h4>Obesity is a major health problem, demonstrated to double the risk of colorectal cancer. The benefits of robotic colorectal surgery in obese patients remain largely unknown. This meta-analysis evaluated the clinical and pathological outcomes of robotic colorectal surgery in obese and non-obese patients.<h4>Methods</h4>MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, Healthcare Management Information Consortium (HMIC) and Midwives Information and Resources Service (MIDIRS) databases were search ...[more]

PMID: 32955800

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionUp to the present time, the laparoscopic approach for colon cancer is considered the gold standard. However, robotic surgery has been appraised in modern medicine. It is essential to evaluate the differences between laparoscopic and robotic surgery, owing to the significant impact they cause in postoperative morbidity and mortality. This article aims to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature to compare robotic versus laparoscopic colectomies in patients with colon cancer in terms of the incidence of colonic fistulas.Methods and analysisPubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Science Direct, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, LILACS and Clinical trials databases will be searched for randomised clinical trials investigating the incidence of colonic fistulas in patients with colonic cancer, submitted to robotic surgery compared with a laparoscopic approach. No language or publication period restrictions will be imposed. The primary outcome will be the incidence of colonic fistulas in patients with colon cancer in different surgical approaches. The secondary outcomes will be the incidence of infection, sepsis, mortality, length of hospitalisation and malnutrition. Three independent reviewers will select the studies and extract data from the original publications. The risk of bias will be assessed using The Risk of Bias 2 tool, and the evidence's certainty will be made using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Data synthesis will be performed using the Review Manager software (RevMan V.5.2.3). To assess heterogeneity. We will compute the I2 statistics. In addition, a quantitative synthesis will be performed if the included studies are sufficiently homogeneous.Ethics and disseminationThis study will review the published data; thus, it is not necessary to obtain ethical approval. The findings of this systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.Prospero registration numberCRD42021295313.

Project description:BackgroundTransforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is the treatment of choice for lumbar spinal stenosis and spondylolisthesis. The procedure can be performed through a traditional open approach (O-TLIF) or through minimally invasive techniques (MI-TLIF). Spinal surgeries in obese patients can pose risks, including increased rates of infection and thromboembolic events.Questions/purposesWe sought to systematically review the literature on the differences between MI-TLIF and O-TLIF in the obese patient in terms of complication rate, functional outcomes, blood loss, and length of hospital stay.MethodsWe used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to systematically search PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for studies published through February 2019 and identified those comparing the outcomes of O-TLIF and MI-TLIF in obese patients. The primary outcome was complication rate (total, infections, dural tears); secondary outcomes were blood loss, length of hospital stay, and functional scores. Two authors independently reviewed the studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and data were pooled using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model.ResultsIn the sample of 430 patients, the average age was 53.5 years, there were 153 men and 203 women, and the average body mass index was 33.6. Complications were significantly higher in O-TLIF than in MI-TLIF (OR = 0.420 [95% CI: 0.199, 0.887]; I 2 = 45.20%). No difference was detected between the two groups for visual analog scale back pain scores and Oswestry Disability Index scores between the pre-operative and last follow-up visits (SMD = -0.034 [95% CI -0.695, 0.627]; I 2 = 62.14% and SMD = 0.617 [95% CI: -1.082, 2.316]; I 2 = 25%, respectively). Blood loss was significantly lower in MI-TLIF compared to O-TLIF (SMD = -426.736 [95% CI: -490.720, -362.752]; I 2 = 70.53%), as was the duration of hospital stay (SMD = -1.079 [95% CI: -1.591, -0.208]; I 2 = 84.3%).ConclusionMI-TLIF has equivalent efficacy to O-TLIF in obese patients at long-term follow-up. In addition, complication rate, blood loss, and length of hospital stay were lower in MI-TLIF than in O-TLIF.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough robotics has been shown to improve outcomes in some high-difficulty surgical category patients, it is unclear if such an approach may improve outcomes in elderly patients with endometrial carcinoma (EC).ObjectiveTo compare robotic and laparotomic surgery in the treatment and staging of elderly EC patients.Materials and methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis was performed assessing the risk of overall, intra-operative, and peri-operative complications associated with the surgical approach (laparotomic vs robotic) for elderly patients with EC by relative risk (RR). Pooled means ± standard deviation of length of stay were compared with the unpaired t test. Subgroup analyses for overall complications were performed based on different age cut-offs (>70, >65, and >75 years) and severity of complications (minor and major). A value of P less than 0.05 was considered significant.ResultsFive studies with 7629 EC patients were included. Pooled RR for robotic compared with laparotomic surgery was 0.40 (P < 0.001) for overall, 0.46 (P = 0.18) for intra-operative, and 0.43 (P < 0.001) for peri-operative complications. Pooled difference between means ± standard deviation of length of stay for robotic versus laparotomic surgery was -3.34 (P < 0.001). At subgroup analyses, pooled RR of overall complications for robotic surgery versus laparotomic surgery was 0.34 (P < 0.001) in the >70 years, 0.51 (P < 0.01) in the >65 years, 0.20 (P = 0.12) in the >75 years groups. Pooled RR was 0.50 (P = 0.1) in the minor complications subgroup, and 0.42 (P = 0.002) in the major complications subgroup.ConclusionRobotics might be a viable alternative to the laparotomic approach for EC in elderly patients because it significantly decreases the risk of overall and peri-operative complications (mainly major complications), and the length of stay when compared with laparotomy. The decrease in risk of overall complications is greater with increasing patient age.

Dataset Information

Obese patients and robotic colorectal surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Obese patients and robotic colorectal surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets