Dataset Information

Laparotomic versus robotic surgery in elderly patients with endometrial cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Although 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).

Objective

To compare robotic and laparotomic surgery in the treatment and staging of elderly EC patients.

Materials and methods

A 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.

Results

Five 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.

Conclusion

Robotics 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.

SUBMITTER: Raffone A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9292514 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Minimally invasive surgery in urology has grown considerably in application since its initial description in the early 1990s. Herein, we present the protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing open versus robotic urological oncological surgery for various clinically relevant outcomes, as well as to assess their comparative penetrance over the past 20 years (2000-2020). METHODS AND ANALYSIS:We will document the penetrance of robotic versus open surgery in the urological oncological field using a national database.Second, we will perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of all published full-text English and non-English language articles from Pubmed, Scopus and Web of Science search engines on surgical treatment of localised prostate, bladder, kidney and testis cancer published between 1st January 2000 to 10th January 2020. We will focus on the highest-volume urological oncological surgeries, namely, radical prostatectomy, radical cystectomy, partial nephrectomy, radical nephrectomy and retroperitoneal lymph node dissection. Study inclusion criteria will comprise clinical trials and prospective and retrospective studies (cohort or case-control series) comparing robotic versus open surgery. Exclusion criteria will comprise meta-analyses, multiple papers with overalapping study-periods, studies analysing national databases and case series describing only one approach (robotic or open). Risk of bias for included studies will be assessed by the appropriate Cochrane risk of bias tool. Principal outcomes assessed will include perioperative, functional, oncological survival and financial outcomes of open versus robotic uro-oncological surgery. Sensitivity analyses will be performed to correlate outcomes of interest with key baseline characteristics and surrogates of surgical expertise. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis will provide rigorous, consolidated information on contemporary outcomes and trends of open versus robotic urological oncological surgery based on all the available literature. These aggregate data will help physicians better advise patients seeking surgical care for urological cancers. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42017064958.

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:BackgroundHip fractures are a major public health problem in elderly populations and are accompanied by high-mortality rates. Whether timing of surgery has an impact on morbidity and mortality has been discussed controversially, numerous studies suggest that the delay of surgery can significantly increase the risk of morbidity and mortality; others report that achieving a stable medical condition is more important than early surgery. The goal of our systematic review is to assess the impact of timing of surgery on health outcomes in patients aged 60 years or older with acute hip fracture. In addition, we will investigate differences in beneficial or harmful effects of timing of surgery in subgroups of patients based on demographic characteristics, physical status, and the use of anticoagulant medications.MethodsWe will systematically search MEDLINE via Ovid, the Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, and clinical trial registries (from 1997 to 2017). In addition, we will search reference lists of pertinent reviews, archives of annual meetings of orthopaedic societies, and contact experts. We will include randomized controlled trials and non-randomized studies assessing the impact of timing of surgery after hip fracture in patients 60 years or older, published in English or German. Our outcomes of interest include health outcomes such as mortality, perioperative complications, functional capacity, and quality of life. We plan to perform meta-analyses if we have at least three sufficiently similar studies. If data are sufficient, we will conduct subgroup-analyses testing for differences between age groups, sex, patients' physical status as assessed with ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) scores, and the use of anticoagulation.DiscussionSince this is the first systematic review on this topic since 2010, our findings will help to inform clinical practice guidelines concerning timing of surgery in hip fractures. Furthermore, our findings could contribute to define an optimal time period for surgery for different groups of patients with acute hip fracture.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO 2017 CRD42017058216.