Robotic-Assisted vs. Standard Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Cancer Resection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 19,731 Patients.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Safiejko K
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8750860 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Surgical resection is crucial for curative treatment of rectal cancer. Through multidisciplinary treatment, including radiochemotherapy and total mesorectal excision, survival has improved substantially. Consequently, more patients have to deal with side effects of treatment. The most recently introduced surgical technique is robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) which seems equally effective in terms of oncological control compared to laparoscopy. However, RAS enables further advantages which maximize the precision of surgery, thus providing better functional outcomes such as sexual function or contience without compromising oncological results. This review was done according to the PRISMA and AMSTAR-II guidelines and registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018104519). The search was planned with PICO criteria and conducted on Medline, Web of Science and CENTRAL. All screening steps were performed by two independent reviewers. Inclusion criteria were original, comparative studies for laparoscopy vs. RAS for rectal cancer and reporting of functional outcomes. Quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The search retrieved 9703 hits, of which 51 studies with 24,319 patients were included. There was a lower rate of urinary retention (non-RCTs: Odds ratio (OR) [95% Confidence Interval (CI)] 0.65 [0.46, 0.92]; RCTs: OR[CI] 1.29[0.08, 21.47]), ileus (non-RCTs: OR[CI] 0.86[0.75, 0.98]; RCTs: OR[CI] 0.80[0.33, 1.93]), less urinary symptoms (non-RCTs mean difference (MD) [CI] - 0.60 [- 1.17, - 0.03]; RCTs: - 1.37 [- 4.18, 1.44]), and higher quality of life for RAS (only non-RCTs: MD[CI]: 2.99 [2.02, 3.95]). No significant differences were found for sexual function (non-RCTs: standardized MD[CI]: 0.46[- 0.13, 1.04]; RCTs: SMD[CI]: 0.09[- 0.14, 0.31]). The current meta-analysis suggests potential benefits for RAS over laparoscopy in terms of functional outcomes after rectal cancer resection. The current evidence is limited due to non-randomized controlled trials and reporting of functional outcomes as secondary endpoints.
| S-EPMC7746565 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To compare the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic surgery for middle and low rectal cancer.This is a retrospective study on a prospectively collected database containing 111 patients who underwent minimally invasive rectal resection with total mesorectal excision (TME) with curative intent between January 2008 and December 2014 (robot, n = 53; laparoscopy, n = 58). The patients all had a diagnosis of middle and low rectal adenocarcinoma with stage?I-III disease. The median follow-up period was 37.4 mo. Perioperative results, morbidity a pathological data were evaluated and compared. The 3-year overall survival and disease-free survival rates were calculated and compared.Patients were comparable in terms of preoperative and demographic parameters. The median surgery time was 192 min for laparoscopic TME (L-TME) and 342 min for robotic TME (R-TME) (P < 0.001). There were no differences found in the rates of conversion to open surgery and morbidity. The patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery stayed in the hospital two days longer than the robotic group patients (8 d for L-TME and 6 d for R-TME, P < 0.001). The pathologic evaluation showed a higher number of harvested lymph nodes in the robotic group (18 for R-TME, 11 for L-TME, P < 0.001) and a shorter distal resection margin for laparoscopic patients (1.5 cm for L-TME, 2.5 cm for R-TME, P < 0.001). The three-year overall survival and disease-free survival rates were similar between groups.Both L-TME and R-TME achieved acceptable clinical and oncologic outcomes. The robotic technique showed some advantages in rectal surgery that should be validated by further studies.
| S-EPMC4814646 | biostudies-other
Project description:ImportanceRobotic rectal cancer surgery is gaining popularity, but limited data are available regarding safety and efficacy.ObjectiveTo compare robotic-assisted vs conventional laparoscopic surgery for risk of conversion to open laparotomy among patients undergoing resection for rectal cancer.Design, setting, and participantsRandomized clinical trial comparing robotic-assisted vs conventional laparoscopic surgery among 471 patients with rectal adenocarcinoma suitable for curative resection conducted at 29 sites across 10 countries, including 40 surgeons. Recruitment of patients was from January 7, 2011, to September 30, 2014, follow-up was conducted at 30 days and 6 months, and final follow-up was on June 16, 2015.InterventionsPatients were randomized to robotic-assisted (n = 237) or conventional (n = 234) laparoscopic rectal cancer resection, performed by either high (upper rectum) or low (total rectum) anterior resection or abdominoperineal resection (rectum and perineum).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was conversion to open laparotomy. Secondary end points included intraoperative and postoperative complications, circumferential resection margin positivity (CRM+) and other pathological outcomes, quality of life (36-Item Short Form Survey and 20-item Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory), bladder and sexual dysfunction (International Prostate Symptom Score, International Index of Erectile Function, and Female Sexual Function Index), and oncological outcomes.ResultsAmong 471 randomized patients (mean [SD] age, 64.9 [11.0] years; 320 [67.9%] men), 466 (98.9%) completed the study. The overall rate of conversion to open laparotomy was 10.1%: 19 of 236 patients (8.1%) in the robotic-assisted laparoscopic group and 28 of 230 patients (12.2%) in the conventional laparoscopic group (unadjusted risk difference = 4.1% [95% CI, -1.4% to 9.6%]; adjusted odds ratio = 0.61 [95% CI, 0.31 to 1.21]; P = .16). The overall CRM+ rate was 5.7%; CRM+ occurred in 14 (6.3%) of 224 patients in the conventional laparoscopic group and 12 (5.1%) of 235 patients in the robotic-assisted laparoscopic group (unadjusted risk difference = 1.1% [95% CI, -3.1% to 5.4%]; adjusted odds ratio = 0.78 [95% CI, 0.35 to 1.76]; P = .56). Of the other 8 reported prespecified secondary end points, including intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, plane of surgery, 30-day mortality, bladder dysfunction, and sexual dysfunction, none showed a statistically significant difference between groups.Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients with rectal adenocarcinoma suitable for curative resection, robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery, as compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery, did not significantly reduce the risk of conversion to open laparotomy. These findings suggest that robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery, when performed by surgeons with varying experience with robotic surgery, does not confer an advantage in rectal cancer resection.Trial registrationisrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN80500123.
| S-EPMC5818805 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceRobotic-assisted cholecystectomy is rapidly being adopted into practice, partly based on the belief that it offers specific technical and safety advantages over traditional laparoscopic surgery. Whether robotic-assisted cholecystectomy is safer than laparoscopic cholecystectomy remains unclear.ObjectiveTo determine the uptake of robotic-assisted cholecystectomy and to analyze its comparative safety vs laparoscopic cholecystectomy.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study used Medicare administrative claims data for nonfederal acute care hospitals from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2019. Participants included 1 026 088 fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries 66 to 99 years of age who underwent cholecystectomy with continuous Medicare coverage for 3 months before and 12 months after surgery. Data were analyzed August 17, 2022, to June 1, 2023.ExposureSurgical technique used to perform cholecystectomy: robotic-assisted vs laparoscopic approaches.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was rate of bile duct injury requiring definitive surgical reconstruction within 1 year after cholecystectomy. Secondary outcomes were composite outcome of bile duct injury requiring less-invasive postoperative surgical or endoscopic biliary interventions, and overall incidence of 30-day complications. Multivariable logistic analysis was performed adjusting for patient factors and clustered within hospital referral regions. An instrumental variable analysis was performed, leveraging regional variation in the adoption of robotic-assisted cholecystectomy within hospital referral regions over time, to account for potential confounding from unmeasured differences between treatment groups.ResultsA total of 1 026 088 patients (mean [SD] age, 72 [12.0] years; 53.3% women) were included in the study. The use of robotic-assisted cholecystectomy increased 37-fold from 211 of 147 341 patients (0.1%) in 2010 to 6507 of 125 211 patients (5.2%) in 2019. Compared with laparoscopic cholecystectomy, robotic-assisted cholecystectomy was associated with a higher rate of bile duct injury necessitating a definitive operative repair within 1 year (0.7% vs 0.2%; relative risk [RR], 3.16 [95% CI, 2.57-3.75]). Robotic-assisted cholecystectomy was also associated with a higher rate of postoperative biliary interventions, such as endoscopic stenting (7.4% vs 6.0%; RR, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.16-1.33]). There was no significant difference in overall 30-day complication rates between the 2 procedures. The instrumental variable analysis, which was designed to account for potential unmeasured differences in treatment groups, also showed that robotic-assisted cholecystectomy was associated with a higher rate of bile duct injury (0.4% vs 0.2%; RR, 1.88 [95% CI, 1.14-2.63]).Conclusions and relevanceThis cohort study's finding of significantly higher rates of bile duct injury with robotic-assisted cholecystectomy compared with laparoscopic cholecystectomy suggests that the utility of robotic-assisted cholecystectomy should be reconsidered, given the existence of an already minimally invasive, predictably safe laparoscopic approach.
| S-EPMC10512167 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundUpper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) is the malignant transformation of urothelial cells, from the renal calyces to the ureteral orifices. While the benefits of minimally invasive nephroureterectomy over their open counterpart have been established, the optimal technique remains a debate. We aimed to assess current evidence in the literature and compare outcomes between robotic-assisted (RANU) and laparoscopic nephroureterectomy (LNU).MethodsA systematic review of the literature was performed for studies comparing RANU and LNU for bladder cancer. Outcome measurements were recurrence rates (local and distal), positive margins, positive lymph node yield and perioperative outcomes. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.ResultsOur results demonstrate a significantly higher mortality rate in patients undergoing laparoscopic nephroureterectomy when compared with the robotic-assisted approach for the treatment of UTUC (1.8% vs. 1.1%, p = 0.008); however, these results were inconsistent on sensitivity analysis and should therefore be interpreted with caution. No significant difference was observed for other outcomes.ConclusionThe ideal approach to minimally invasive radical nephroureterectomy remains undetermined. Future research, ideally prospective randomised studies, should focus on long-term outcomes, in particular recurrence, recurrence-free survival, overall survival and the correlation between surgical technique and survival.
| S-EPMC10071076 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Sacrocolpopexy has been dubbed the “gold standard” repair for apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP). This study sought to determine a genetic cause for sacrocolpopexy failure by comparing genotypes from 10 women who suffered from early POP reoccurance after sacrocolpopexy surgery, versus 40 randomly selected women with long term success after the same procedure. We objectively defined early overt failure after robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy as having a pelvic organ prolapse quantification system examination (POP-Q) of stage III or IV occurring in more than one compartment within six months after surgery. All medical records identified during this process were then reviewed by a panel of urogynecology attendings and fellows to select patients who were truly clinical outliers. By this method we identified 10 patients (cases) who experienced early overt surgical failure. We also randomly selected 40 controls from our research database which includes greater than 500 patients who underwent robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy during the same time period and had been objectively and subjectively assessed for ≥ 12 months with surgical success at ≥ 12 months that did not undergo prolapse re-operation or re-treatment. Demographics and peri-operative details were compared between cases and controls. Exclusion criteria for controls included use of other graft material besides polypropylene mesh, prior surgery for prolapse involving graft material, and conversion to laparotomy. DNA from the 10 cases and 40 controls was isolated from buccal swabs and genotyped on a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array that contains 250,000 markers (NspI 250K SNP array, Affymetrix, Santa Clara, CA). All women in this study identified as Caucasian. All subjects provided written informed consent to study participation and data release. This was a case-control study approved by the Institutional Review Board at the Atlantic Health System in Morristown New Jersey (R11-10-004).
2016-06-01 | GSE63236 | GEO
Project description:ObjectiveRobotic surgery (RS) has been increasingly used for the resection of rectal cancer, and its advantages over laparoscopic surgery (LS) have been demonstrated. However, few studies focused on the severity of postoperative complications. This study aimed to compared the postoperative complications within 30 days after RS over LS according to the Clavien-Dindo (C-D) classification.MethodsA literature research of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were systematically performed. The studies comparing the complications of RS and LS for rectal cancer based on the C-D classification were enrolled. Primary outcomes were C-D grade III, IV, V, III-V (severe complications).ResultsSeventeen studies (3193 patients) were included in the final analysis: 1554 underwent RS and 1639 underwent LS. The RS group was associated with significantly lower rates of severe complications (OR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.53-0.90, P = 0.005), C-D grade IV (OR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.53-0.90, P = 0.005), and anastomotic leak (OR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.48-0.91, P = 0.01). There was no significant difference in C-D grade III, C-D grade I, II, I-II (minor complications), overall complications, bleeding, wound complications, postoperative ileus, urinary retention, readmission, reoperation between two groups.ConclusionsRobotic surgery is safe for rectal cancer and may be an effective alternative to laparoscopic surgery, with lower rates of severe complications, C-D grade IV, and anastomotic leak. Further large randomized controlled trials are necessary to confirm this conclusion.
| S-EPMC7529204 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Recently, it has been questioned if minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer was surgically successful. We decided to perform a meta-analysis to determine if minimally invasive surgery is adequate to obtain a complete resection for curable rectal cancer. METHODS:A systematic search pertaining to evaluation between laparoscopic and open rectal resection for rectal cancer was performed until 30th November 2016 in the electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE), using the following search terms in all possible combinations: rectal cancer, laparoscopy, minimally invasive and open surgery. Outcomes analyzed were number of clear Distal Resection Margins (DRM or DM), complete Circumferential Resection Margins (CRM) and complete, nearly complete and incomplete Total Mesorectal Excision (TME) and of patients who received laparoscopic or open treatment for rectal cancer. RESULTS:12 articles were included in the final analysis. The prevalence of successful surgical resection was similar between open and laparoscopic surgery. About distance from distal margin of the specimen, clear CRM and complete TME there were no statistically significant difference between the two groups (MD = -0.090 cm, p = 0.364, 95% CI -0.283, 0.104; OR = 1.032, p = 0.821, 95% CI 0.784, 1.360; OR = 0.933, p = 0.720, 95% CI 0.638, 1.364, respectively). The analysis of nearly complete TME showed a significant difference between the two groups (OR = 1.407, p = 0.006, 95% CI 1.103, 1.795), while the analysis of incomplete TME showed a non-significant difference (OR = 1.010, p = 0.964, 95% CI 0.664, 1.534). CONCLUSIONS:By pooling together data from 5 RCTs and 7 nRCTs, we are able to provide evidence of safety and efficacy of minimally invasive surgery. Waiting for further randomized clinical trials, our results are encouraging to introduce laparoscopic rectal resection in daily practice.
| S-EPMC6177141 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10641393 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Sacrocolpopexy has been dubbed the âgold standardâ repair for apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP). This study sought to determine a genetic cause for sacrocolpopexy failure by comparing genotypes from 10 women who suffered from early POP reoccurance after sacrocolpopexy surgery, versus 40 randomly selected women with long term success after the same procedure. We objectively defined early overt failure after robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy as having a pelvic organ prolapse quantification system examination (POP-Q) of stage III or IV occurring in more than one compartment within six months after surgery. All medical records identified during this process were then reviewed by a panel of urogynecology attendings and fellows to select patients who were truly clinical outliers. By this method we identified 10 patients (cases) who experienced early overt surgical failure. We also randomly selected 40 controls from our research database which includes greater than 500 patients who underwent robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy during the same time period and had been objectively and subjectively assessed for ⥠12 months with surgical success at ⥠12 months that did not undergo prolapse re-operation or re-treatment. Demographics and peri-operative details were compared between cases and controls. Exclusion criteria for controls included use of other graft material besides polypropylene mesh, prior surgery for prolapse involving graft material, and conversion to laparotomy. DNA from the 10 cases and 40 controls was isolated from buccal swabs and genotyped on a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array that contains 250,000 markers (NspI 250K SNP array, Affymetrix, Santa Clara, CA). All women in this study identified as Caucasian. All subjects provided written informed consent to study participation and data release. This was a case-control study approved by the Institutional Review Board at the Atlantic Health System in Morristown New Jersey (R11-10-004). This case-control study compared single genotypes of 10 cases to 40 controls. All subjects were identified as Caucasian. Cases were women who experienced early overt POP recurrence after robotic sacrocolpopexy, and controls were randomly selected women with long term success after the same procedure.
2016-06-01 | E-GEOD-63236 | biostudies-arrayexpress