Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis of four randomized controlled trials

World Journal of Surgical Oncology

Research

Haijun Deng¹  Shuhui Lin²  Yawei Yuan²  Jiarong Chen²  Guixiang Liao²  Rong Li²  Shasha Du²  Zhihong Zhao³ 

[1] Department of General Surgery, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, No. 1838, Guangzhou Avenue North, 510515, Guangzhou, China;Department of Radiation Oncology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, No. 1838, Guangzhou Avenue North, 510515, Guangzhou, China;Institute of Nephrology and Urology, Third Affiliated Hospital of Southern Medical University, 510630, Guangzhou, China;

关键词: Colorectal;    Robotic;    Laparoscopic;    Meta-analysis;    Colorectal cancer;   

DOI  :  10.1186/1477-7819-12-122

 received in 2014-01-28, accepted in 2014-04-09,  发布年份 2014

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

BackgroundRobotic-assisted laparoscopy is popularly performed for colorectal disease. The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted colorectal surgery (RCS) and laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LCS) for colorectal disease based on randomized controlled trial studies.MethodsLiterature searches of electronic databases (Pubmed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) were performed to identify randomized controlled trial studies that compared the clinical or oncologic outcomes of RCS and LCS. This meta-analysis was performed using the Review Manager (RevMan) software (version 5.2) that is provided by the Cochrane Collaboration. The data used were mean differences and odds ratios for continuous and dichotomous variables, respectively. Fixed-effects or random-effects models were adopted according to heterogeneity.ResultsFour randomized controlled trial studies were identified for this meta-analysis. In total, 110 patients underwent RCS, and 116 patients underwent LCS. The results revealed that estimated blood losses (EBLs), conversion rates and times to the recovery of bowel function were significantly reduced following RCS compared with LCS. There were no significant differences in complication rates, lengths of hospital stays, proximal margins, distal margins or harvested lymph nodes between the two techniques.ConclusionsRCS is a promising technique and is a safe and effective alternative to LCS for colorectal surgery. The advantages of RCS include reduced EBLs, lower conversion rates and shorter times to the recovery of bowel function. Further studies are required to define the financial effects of RCS and the effects of RCS on long-term oncologic outcomes.

【 授权许可】

Unknown   
© Liao et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014. This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.