Robotic versus laparoscopic left colectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
This study aimed to review the new evidence to understand whether the robotic approach could find some clear indication also in left colectomy.Methods
A systematic review of studies published from 2004 to 2022 in the Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus databases and comparing laparoscopic (LLC) and robotic left colectomy (RLC) was performed. All comparative studies evaluating robotic left colectomy (RLC) versus laparoscopic (LLC) left colectomy with at least 20 patients in the robotic arm were included. Abstract, editorials, and reviews were excluded. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies was used to assess the methodological quality. The random-effect model was used to calculate pooled effect estimates.Results
Among the 139 articles identified, 11 were eligible, with a total of 52,589 patients (RLC, n = 13,506 versus LLC, n = 39,083). The rate of conversion to open surgery was lower for robotic procedures (RR 0.5, 0.5-0.6; p < 0.001). Operative time was longer for the robotic procedures in the pooled analysis (WMD 39.1, 17.3-60.9, p = 0.002). Overall complications (RR 0.9, 0.8-0.9, p < 0.001), anastomotic leaks (RR 0.7, 0.7-0.8; p < 0.001), and superficial wound infection (RR 3.1, 2.8-3.4; p < 0.001) were less common after RLC. There were no significant differences in mortality (RR 1.1; 0.8-1.6, p = 0.124). There were no differences between RLC and LLC with regards to postoperative variables in the subgroup analysis on malignancies.Conclusions
Robotic left colectomy requires less conversion to open surgery than the standard laparoscopic approach. Postoperative morbidity rates seemed to be lower during RLC, but this was not confirmed in the procedures performed for malignancies.
SUBMITTER: Solaini L
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9262793 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background: There is a rapidly growing literature available on right hemicolectomy comparing the short- and long-term outcomes of robotic right colectomy (RRC) to that of laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC). The aim of this meta-analysis is to revise current comparative literature systematically. Methods: A systematic review of comparative studies published between 2000 to 2021 in PubMed, Scopus and Embase was performed. The primary endpoint was postoperative morbidity, mortality and long-term oncological results. Secondary endpoints consist of blood loss, conversion rates, complications, time to first flatus, hospital stay and incisional hernia rate. Results: 25 of 322 studies were considered for data extraction. A total of 16,099 individual patients who underwent RRC (n = 1842) or LRC (n = 14,257) between 2002 and 2020 were identified. Operative time was significantly shorter in the LRC group (LRC 165.31 min ± 43.08 vs. RRC 207.38 min ± 189.13, MD: −42.01 (95% CI: −51.06−32.96), p < 0.001). Blood loss was significantly lower in the RRC group (LRC 63.57 ± 35.21 vs. RRC 53.62 ± 34.02, MD: 10.03 (95% CI: 1.61–18.45), p = 0.02) as well as conversion rate (LRC 1155/11,629 vs. RRC 94/1534, OR: 1.65 (1.28–2.13), p < 0.001) and hospital stay (LRC 6.15 ± 31.77 vs. RRC 5.31 ± 1.65, MD: 0.84 (95% CI: 0.29–1.38), p = 0.003). Oncological long-term results did not differ between both groups. Conclusion: The advantages of robotic colorectal procedures were clearly demonstrated. RRC can be regarded as safe and feasible. Most of the included studies were retrospective with a limited level of evidence. Further randomized trials would be suitable.
| S-EPMC9103048 | 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:BACKGROUND:To date, robotic surgery has been widely used worldwide. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate short-term and long-term outcomes of robotic gastrectomy (RG) in gastric cancer patients to determine whether RG can replace laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG). METHODS:The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was applied to perform the study. Pubmed, Cochrane Library, WanFang, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and VIP databases were comprehensively searched for studies published before May 2020 that compared RG with LG. Next, two independent reviewers conducted literature screening and data extraction. The quality of the literature was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), and the data analyzed using the Review Manager 5.3 software. Random effects or fixed effects models were applied according to heterogeneity. RESULTS:A total of 19 studies including 7275 patients were included in the meta-analyses, of which 4598 patients were in the LG group and 2677 in the RG group. Compared with LG, RG was associated with longer operative time (WMD = -32.96, 95% CI -42.08 ~ -23.84, P < 0.001), less blood loss (WMD = 28.66, 95% CI 18.59 ~ 38.73, P < 0.001), and shorter time to first flatus (WMD = 0.16 95% CI 0.06 ~ 0.27, P = 0.003). There was no significant difference between RG and LG in terms of the hospital stay (WMD = 0.23, 95% CI -0.53 ~ 0.98, P = 0.560), overall postoperative complication (OR = 1.07, 95% CI 0.91 ~ 1.25, P = 0.430), mortality (OR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.24 ~ 1.90, P = 0.450), the number of harvested lymph nodes (WMD = -0.96, 95% CI -2.12 ~ 0.20, P = 0.100), proximal resection margin (WMD = -0.10, 95% CI -0.29 ~ 0.09, P = 0.300), and distal resection margin (WMD = 0.15, 95% CI -0.21 ~ 0.52, P = 0.410). No significant differences were found between the two treatments in overall survival (OS) (HR = 0.95, 95% CI 0.76 ~ 1.18, P = 0.640), recurrence-free survival (RFS) (HR = 0.91, 95% CI 0.69 ~ 1.21, P = 0.530), and recurrence rate (OR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.67 ~ 1.21, P = 0.500). CONCLUSIONS:The results of this study suggested that RG is as acceptable as LG in terms of short-term and long-term outcomes. RG can be performed as effectively and safely as LG. Moreover, more randomized controlled trials comparing the two techniques with rigorous study designs are still essential to evaluate the value of the robotic surgery for gastric cancer.
| S-EPMC7688002 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Robotic surgery has become a promising surgical method in minimally invasive pancreatic surgery due to its three-dimensional visualization, tremor filtration, motion scaling, and better ergonomics. Numerous studies have explored the benefits of RDP over LDP in terms of perioperative safety and feasibility, but no consensus has been achieved yet. This article aimed to evaluate the benefits and drawbacks of RDP and LDP for perioperative outcomes. By June 2022, all studies comparing RDP to LDP in the PubMed, the Embase, and the Cochrane Library database were systematically reviewed. According to the heterogeneity, fix or random-effects models were used for the meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes. Odds ratio (OR), weighted mean differences (WMD), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. A sensitivity analysis was performed to explore potential sources of high heterogeneity and a trim and fill analysis was used to evaluate the impact of publication bias on the pooled results. Thirty-four studies met the inclusion criteria. RDP provides greater benefit than LDP for higher spleen preservation (OR 3.52 95% CI 2.62-4.73, p < 0.0001) and Kimura method (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.42-2.62, p < 0.0001) in benign and low-grade malignant tumors. RDP is associated with lower conversion to laparotomy (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.33-0.52, p < 0.00001), and shorter postoperative hospital stay (WMD - 0.57, 95% CI - 0.92 to - 0.21, p = 0.002), but it is more costly. In terms of postoperative complications, there was no difference between RDP and LDP except for 30-day mortality (RDP versus LDP, 0.1% versus 1.0%, p = 0.03). With the exception of its high cost, RDP appears to outperform LDP on perioperative outcomes and is technologically feasible and safe. High-quality prospective randomized controlled trials are advised for further confirmation as the quality of the evidence now is not high.
| S-EPMC9834369 | biostudies-literature
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:PurposeThe primary aim was to investigate the operative outcomes of intracorporeal (IA) and extracorporeal (EA) anastomosis in left-sided minimally-invasive colectomy.MethodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted for studies comparing operative outcomes and follow-up data of IA versus EA in minimally-invasive left colectomy. Studies that investigated recto-sigmoid resections using transanal circular staplers were excluded. Data from eligible studies were extracted, qualitatively assessed, and included in a meta-analysis. Odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences with 95 per cent confidence intervals were calculated.ResultsEight studies with a total of 750 patients were included (IA n = 335 versus EA n = 415). IA was associated with significantly lower overall morbidity (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.26-0.61, p < 0.0001) and less frequent surgical site infection (SSI) (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.12-0.61, p = 0.002) as primary outcomes compared to EA. Of the secondary outcomes, length of incision (SMD -2.51, 95% CI -4.21 to -0.81, p = 0.004), time to first oral diet intake (SMD -0.49, 95% CI -0.76 to -0.22, p = 0. 0004) and time to first bowel movement (SMD -0.40, 95% CI -0.71 to -0.09, p = 0.01) were significantly in favor of IA, while operative time was significantly shorter in the EA group (SMD 0.36, 95% CI 0.14-0.59, p = 0.001).ConclusionsIA proves to be a safe and feasible option as it demonstrates benefits in terms of lower overall morbidity, fewer rates of SSI, smaller incision length, and faster postoperative gastrointestinal recovery despite a longer operative time compared to EA.
| S-EPMC10837220 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the safety and effectiveness of robotic vs laparoscopic hysterectomy in women with benign uterine disease, as determined by randomized studies. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Controlled-Trials.com from study inception to October 9, 2014, using the intersection of the themes "robotic" and "hysterectomy." We included only randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials of robotic vs laparoscopic hysterectomy in women for benign disease. Four trials met our inclusion criteria and were included in the analyses. We extracted data, and assessed the studies for methodological quality in duplicate. For meta-analysis, we used random effects to calculate pooled risk ratios (RRs) and weighted mean differences. For our primary outcome, we used a modified version of the Expanded Accordion Severity Grading System to classify perioperative complications. We identified 41 complications among 326 patients. Comparing robotic and laparoscopic hysterectomy, revealed no statistically significant differences in the rate of class 1 and 2 complications (RR, 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.23-1.89) or in the rate of class 3 and 4 complications (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.22-4.40). Analyses of secondary outcomes were limited owing to heterogeneity, but showed no significant benefit of the robotic technique over the laparoscopic technique in terms of length of hospital stay (weighted mean difference, -0.39 day; 95% CI, -0.92 to 0.14 day), total operating time (weighted mean difference, 9.0 minutes; 95% CI, -31.27 to 47.26 minutes), conversions to laparotomy, or blood loss. Outcomes of cost, pain, and quality of life were reported inconsistently and were not amenable to pooling. Current evidence demonstrates neither statistically significant nor clinically meaningful differences in surgical outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign disease. The role of robotic surgery in benign gynecology remains unclear.
| S-EPMC4698211 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionLaparoscopic colectomy has been widely used clinically due to its minimally invasive advantages, and many studies have also demonstrated its safety and efficacy. However, the efficacy of laparoscopic left hemicolectomy remains unclear due to the differences in pathogenesis and surgical details between left and right colon cancers. Therefore, we plan to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate whether laparoscopic techniques can be safely used in left hemicolectomy.Method and analysisThis meta-analysis protocol will be completed and reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols guidelines. A systematic search was performed for all articles related to laparoscopic left hemicolectomy in PubMed, Web of Science, Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library from inception to 5 November 2021. Article screening and data extraction were performed independently by two authors and cross-checked after completion. The literature to be included will use corresponding tools for bias risk assessment. Subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses will be used to explore potential heterogeneity.Ethics and disseminationBecause this systematic review is based on studies with published results and does not involve intervention in patients, no ethical review is required. The results of this study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.Prospero registration numberCRD42022291526.
| S-EPMC9226930 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare robotic colectomy (RC) with laparoscopic colectomy (LC) in terms of intraoperative and postoperative outcomes.Materials and methodsA systematic literature search was performed to retrieve comparative studies of robotic and laparoscopic colectomy. The databases searched were PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from January 2000 to October 2014. The Odds ratio, Risk difference and Mean difference were used as the summary statistics.ResultsA total of 12 studies, which included a total of 4,148 patients who had undergone robotic or laparoscopic colectomy, were included and analyzed. RC demonstrated a longer operative time (MD 41.52, P<0.00001) and higher cost (MD 2.42, P<0.00001) than did LC. The time to first flatus passage (MD -0.51, P = 0.003) and the length of hospital stay (MD -0.68, P = 0.01) were significantly shorter after RC. Additionally, the intraoperative blood loss (MD -16.82, P<0.00001) was significantly less in RC. There was also a significantly lower incidence of overall postoperative complications (OR 0.74, P = 0.02) and wound infections (RD -0.02, P = 0.03) after RC. No differences in the postoperative ileus, in the anastomotic leak, or in the conversion to open surgery rate and in the number of harvested lymph nodes outcomes were found between the approaches.ConclusionsThe present meta-analysis, mainly based on observational studies, suggests that RC is more time-consuming and expensive than laparoscopy but that it results in faster recovery of bowel function, a shorter hospital stay, less blood loss and lower rates of both overall postoperative complications and wound infections.
| S-EPMC4516360 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMinimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy is considered hazardous for the majority of authors and minimally distal pancreatectomy is still a debated topic. The aim of this study was to compare robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) using meta-analysis.MethodEMBASE, Medline and PubMed were searched systematically to identify full-text articles comparing robotic and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies. The meta-analysis was performed by using Review Manager 5.3.ResultsNine studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and included 637 patients (246 robotic and 391 laparoscopic). RDP had a shorter hospital length of stay by 1 day (P = 0.01). On the other hand, LDP had shorter operative time by 30 min, although this was statistically nonsignificant (P = 0.12). RDP showed a significantly increased readmission rate (P = 0.04). There was no difference in the conversion rate, incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula, International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula grade B-C rate, major morbidity, spleen preservation rate and perioperative mortality. All surgical specimens of RDP reported R0 negative margins, whereas 7 specimens in the LDP group had affected margins.ConclusionsIn terms of feasibility, safety and oncological adequacy, there is no essential difference between the two techniques so far. The 30 min longer operative time of the RDP is due to the docking and undocking of the robot. The shorter length of stay by 1 day should be judged in combination with the increased 90-day readmission rate.
| S-EPMC4925795 | biostudies-literature