Dataset Information

Short-term outcomes in robot-assisted compared to laparoscopic colon cancer resections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Robot-assisted surgery is increasingly adopted in colorectal surgery. However, evidence for the implementation of robot-assisted surgery for colon cancer is sparse. This study aims to evaluate the short-term outcomes of robot-assisted colon surgery (RCS) for cancer compared to laparoscopic colon surgery (LCS).

Methods

Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library were searched between January 1, 2005 and October 2, 2020. Randomized clinical trials and observational studies were included. Non-original literature was excluded. Primary endpoints were anastomotic leakage rate, conversion to open surgery, operative time, and length of hospital stay. Secondary endpoints were surgical efficacy and postoperative morbidity. We evaluated risk of bias using RoB2 and ROBINS-I quality assessment tools. We performed a pooled analysis of primary and secondary endpoints. Heterogeneity was assessed by I², and possible causes were explored by sensitivity- and meta-regression analyses. Publication bias was evaluated by Funnel plots and Eggers linear regression test. The level of evidence was assessed by GRADE.

Results

Twenty studies enrolling 13,799 patients (RCS 1740 (12.6%) and LCS 12,059 (87.4%) were included in the meta-analysis that demonstrated RCS was superior regarding: anastomotic leakage (odds ratio (OR) = 0.54, 95% CI [0.32, 0.94]), conversion (OR = 0.31, 95% CI [0.23, 0.41]), overall complication rate (OR = 0.85, 95% CI [0.73, 1.00]) and time to regular diet (MD = - 0.29, 95% CI [- 0.56, 0.02]). LCS proved to have a shortened operative time compared to RCS (MD = 42.99, 95% CI [28.37, 57.60]). Level of evidence was very low according to GRADE.

Conclusion

RCS showed advantages in colonic cancer surgery regarding surgical efficacy and morbidity compared to LCS despite a predominant inclusion of non-RCT with serious risk of bias assessment and a very low level of evidence.

SUBMITTER: Cuk P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8741661 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductiondHACM is a source of factors including cytokines that allow anti-inflammatory and proliferative elements to be utilized for wound and ulcer management. We present our experience of using dHACM in a cohort of patients undergoing nerve-sparing (NS) robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP). Our objective is to investigate the functional and oncological outcomes of NS after placing amniotic or dehydrated human amnion/chorion membrane (dHACM) on preserved neurovascular bundles (NVBs). From 2013 to 2019, our institution performed transperitoneal multi-port da Vinci robotic prostatectomy. The NVBs are spared by releasing their fascial planes posteriorly, followed by an anterior release of the plane at a similar level. Once the retrograde release of the NVB is performed then 599 patients underwent placement of dHACM graft (AmnioFix by MiMedx, Marietta, GA, USA). The graft was cut into two 4 × 1 cm pieces and laid over the NVB as a wrap. In order to inform the urological community of oncological and functional outcomes, we excluded patients with less than 12 months follow up (n = 64), benign prostatic hyperplasia (n = 5), and unilateral NS (n = 1). 529 (88%) patients were included in this study who underwent a partial or full bilateral NS with dHACM. 529 patients were followed-up for a median (IQR) of 42 months (25-89). Demographics include median (IQR) age 57 years (52-62), median preoperative SHIM score of 24 (21-15), and AUASS of 5 (2-11). Full NS was performed in 74% (391/529). Pathological staging was pT2 = 399 (75%), pT3a = 107 (20%), pT3b = 19 (4%) and pT4 = 4 (1%) with N1 = 3 (0.6%). The number of patients with PSM was 86 (16%), and the overall BCR in the entire cohort was 10%. Postoperatively, 434 (82%) were sexually active. Median time to potency was 119 (37-420) days and time to continence was 42 (23-91) days. Regarding full vs partial NS: median post op SHIM score 18 (13-20) vs 15 (6-20), median time to potency 92 (35-365) days vs 184 (42-560) days, and median time to continence 42 (23-91) days vs 44 (30-92) days. Age > 55 vs ≤ 55 years: median post op SHIM score 18 (12-20) vs 15 (10-20), median time to potency 167 days (42-549) vs 80 (35-288) days, and median time to continence 42 (25-116) days vs 42 (29-76) days. In our series the application of amniotic membrane/dHACM has led to acceptable post RALP outcomes. The BCR rate of 10% in addition to the recovery of potency at a median time of 3 months and continence at 6 weeks is an encouraging result of dHACM. Our findings indicate that dHACM allowed for an even faster period for continence recovery which was independent of grade of NS. Future comparative studies may further assess the impact of new amniotic membrane types on the functional and oncological outcomes after RALP.

Project description:Importance:Robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) has been reported to be safe and feasible. As a new technique, RPD has a learning curve similar to that of other types of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery such as laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy. To our knowledge, no reports exist on the outcomes of open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) and RPD after the learning curve. Objective:To analyze and evaluate the actual advantages of RPD. Design, Setting, and Participants:Between May 2010 and December 2018, 450 patients underwent RPD in the Shanghai Ruijin Hospital affiliated with Shanghai Jiaotong University in Shanghai, China, a high-volume pancreatic disease center. According to our previous study, an important flexion point in the learning curve is 250 cases. Data on the last 200 RPD cases were collected from January 2017 to December 2018. During that period, 634 patients underwent OPD. These patients were divided into 2 groups, and propensity score matching was used to minimize bias. The demographic data and operative outcomes were collected and analyzed. Analysis began May 2019. Exposures:Robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy and OPD. Main Outcomes and Measures:The short-term operative outcomes of RPD and OPD. Results:After 1:1 matching, 187 cases of RPD and OPD were recorded. In the RPD group, 78 patients (41.7%) were women, and the mean (SD) age was 60.9?(11.4) years. In the OPD group, 80 patients (42.8%) were women, and the mean (SD) age was 60.1?(10.8) years. Robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy had advantages in operative time (mean [SD], 279.7?[76.3] minutes vs 298.2?[78.3] minutes; P?=?.02), estimated blood loss (mean [SD], 297.3?[246.8] mL vs 415.2?[497.9] mL; P?=?.002), and postoperative length of hospital stay (mean [SD], 22.4?[16.7] days vs 26.1?[16.3] days; P?=?.03). However, there was no significant difference in the R0 resection rate and incidence rate of postoperative complications, such as postoperative pancreatic fistula, bile leak, and delayed gastric emptying. The incidence rates of postoperative bleeding and reoperation in the RPD group were similar to those in the OPD group, with no statistically significant difference. Conclusions and Relevance:After passing the learning curve, RPD had advantages in operative time and blood loss compared with OPD. There were no differences in postoperative complications such as postoperative pancreatic fistula, bile leak, and delayed gastric emptying. However, patients recovered more quickly after RPD than after OPD. A prospective randomized clinical trial is needed in the future to verify these results.

Project description:BackgroundAs an emerging technology, robot-assisted surgical system has some potential merits in many complicated endoscopic procedures compared with laparoscopic surgery. But robot-assisted liver resection is still a controversial problem on its advantages compared with laparoscopic liver resection. We aimed to perform the meta-analysis to assess and compare the clinical outcomes of robot-assisted and laparoscopic liver resection.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase databases, Clinicaltrials, and Opengrey through March 24, 2020, including references of qualifying articles. English-language, original investigations in humans about robot-assisted and laparoscopic hepatectomy were included. Titles, abstracts, and articles were reviewed by at least 2 independent readers. Continuous and dichotomous variables were compared by the weighted mean difference (WMD) and odds ratio (OR), respectively.ResultsOf 936 titles identified in our original search, 28 articles met our criteria, involving 3544 patients. Compared with laparoscopy, the robot-assisted groups had longer operative time (WMD: 36.93; 95% CI, 19.74-54.12; P < 0.001), lower conversion rate (OR: 0.63; 95% CI, 0.46-0.87; P = 0.005), higher transfusion rate (WMD: 2.39; 95% CI, 1.51-3.76; P < 0.001) and higher total cost (WMD:0.49; 95% CI, 0.42-0.55; P < 0.001). In addition, the baseline characteristics of patients about largest tumor size was larger (WMD: 0.36; 95% CI, 0.16-0.56; P < 0.001) and malignant lesions rate was higher (WMD: 1.50; 95% CI, 1.21-1.86; P < 0.001) in the robot-assisted versus laparoscopic hepatectomy. The subgroup analysis of minor hepatectomy showed robot-assisted was associated with longer operative time (WMD: 36.00; 95% CI, 12.59-59.41; P = 0.003), longer length of stay (WMD: 0.51; 95% CI, 0.02-1.01; p = 0.04) and higher total cost (WMD: 0.48; 95% CI, 0.25-0.72; P < 0.001) (Table 3); while the subgroup analysis of major hepatectomy showed robot-assisted was associated with lower estimated blood loss (WMD: -122.43; 95% CI, -151.78--93.08; P < 0.001).ConclusionsOur meta-analysis revealed that robot-assisted was associated with longer operative time, lower conversion rate, higher transfusion rate and total cost, and robot-assisted has certain advantages in major hepatectomy compared with laparoscopic hepatectomy.