Literature DB >> 26448918

Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Seon Heui Lee1, Sungwon Lim2, Jin Hee Kim3, Kil Yeon Lee4.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Robotic surgery (RS) overcomes the limitations of previous conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS). Although meta-analyses have been published recently, our study evaluated the latest comparative surgical, urologic, and sexual results for rectal cancer and compares RS with CLS in patients with rectal cancer only.
METHODS: We searched three foreign databases (Ovid-MEDLINE, Ovid-Embase, and Cochrane Library) and five Korean databases (KoreaMed, KMbase, KISS, RISS, and KisTi) during July 2013. The Cochrane Risk of Bias and the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized were utilized to evaluate quality of study. Dichotomous variables were pooled using the risk ratio (RR), and continuous variables were pooled using the mean difference (MD). All meta-analyses were conducted with Review Manager, V. 5.3.
RESULTS: Seventeen studies involving 2,224 patients were included. RS was associated with a lower rate of intraoperative conversion than that of CLS (RR, 0.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15-0.54). Time to first flatus was short (MD, -0.13; 95% CI, -0.25 to -0.01). Operating time was longer for RS than that for CLS (MD, 49.97; 95% CI, 20.43-79.52, I(2) = 97%). International Prostate Symptom Score scores at 3 months better RS than CLS (MD, -2.90; 95% CI, -5.31 to -0.48, I(2) = 0%). International Index of Erectile Function scores showed better improvement at 3 months (MD, -2.82; 95% CI, -4.78 to -0.87, I(2) = 37%) and 6 months (MD, -2.15; 95% CI, -4.08 to -0.22, I(2) = 0%).
CONCLUSION: RS appears to be an effective alternative to CLS with a lower conversion rate to open surgery, a shorter time to first flatus and better recovery in voiding and sexual function. RS could enhance postoperative recovery in patients with rectal cancer.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Rectal neoplasms; Robotic surgical procedures

Year:  2015        PMID: 26448918      PMCID: PMC4595819          DOI: 10.4174/astr.2015.89.4.190

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Surg Treat Res        ISSN: 2288-6575            Impact factor:   1.859


  48 in total

1.  Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Julian P T Higgins; Simon G Thompson
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2002-06-15       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument.

Authors:  Karem Slim; Emile Nini; Damien Forestier; Fabrice Kwiatkowski; Yves Panis; Jacques Chipponi
Journal:  ANZ J Surg       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 1.872

3.  Clinical outcomes of robot-assisted intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: comparison with conventional laparoscopy and multifactorial analysis of the learning curve for robotic surgery.

Authors:  Li-Jen Kuo; Yen-Kuang Lin; Chun-Chao Chang; Cheng-Jeng Tai; Jeng-Fong Chiou; Yu-Jia Chang
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2014-02-23       Impact factor: 2.571

4.  The multiphasic learning curve for robot-assisted rectal surgery.

Authors:  Kevin Kaity Sng; Masayasu Hara; Jae-Won Shin; Byung-Eun Yoo; Kyung-Sook Yang; Seon-Hahn Kim
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2013-03-19       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a comparative analysis of oncological safety and short-term outcomes.

Authors:  P P Bianchi; C Ceriani; A Locatelli; G Spinoglio; M G Zampino; A Sonzogni; C Crosta; B Andreoni
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-06-05       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  A comparative study of voiding and sexual function after total mesorectal excision with autonomic nerve preservation for rectal cancer: laparoscopic versus robotic surgery.

Authors:  Jeong Yeon Kim; Nam-Kyu Kim; Kang Young Lee; Hyuk Hur; Byung Soh Min; Jang Hwan Kim
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2012-03-21       Impact factor: 5.344

7.  Short-term clinical outcome of robot-assisted intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: a retrospective comparison with conventional laparoscopy.

Authors:  Soo Yeun Park; Gyu-Seog Choi; Jun Seok Park; Hye Jin Kim; Jong-Pil Ryuk
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-06-30       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal disease, focusing on rectal cancer: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Yongzhi Yang; Feng Wang; Peng Zhang; Chenzhang Shi; Yang Zou; Huanlong Qin; Yanlei Ma
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2012-07-03       Impact factor: 5.344

9.  Robotic tumor-specific mesorectal excision of rectal cancer: short-term outcome of a pilot randomized trial.

Authors:  S H Baik; Y T Ko; C M Kang; W J Lee; N K Kim; S K Sohn; H S Chi; C H Cho
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2008-02-13       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  Advantages and limits of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery: preliminary experience.

Authors:  F Corcione; C Esposito; D Cuccurullo; A Settembre; N Miranda; F Amato; F Pirozzi; P Caiazzo
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2004-11-18       Impact factor: 4.584

View more
  37 in total

Review 1.  The Current Role of Robotics in Colorectal Surgery.

Authors:  Harith H Mushtaq; Shinil K Shah; Amit K Agarwal
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2019-03-06

Review 2.  Robotics Total Mesorectal Excision Up To the Minute.

Authors:  Homoud Alawfi; Ho Seung Kim; Seung Yoon Yang; Nam Kyu Kim
Journal:  Indian J Surg Oncol       Date:  2020-06-04

Review 3.  A review on robotic surgery in rectal cancer.

Authors:  Zairul Azwan Mohd Azman; Seon-Hahn Kim
Journal:  Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2016-03-16

Review 4.  Learning curve in robotic rectal cancer surgery: current state of affairs.

Authors:  Rosa M Jiménez-Rodríguez; Mercedes Rubio-Dorado-Manzanares; José Manuel Díaz-Pavón; M Luisa Reyes-Díaz; Jorge Manuel Vazquez-Monchul; Ana M Garcia-Cabrera; Javier Padillo; Fernando De la Portilla
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2016-10-06       Impact factor: 2.571

5.  Robotic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: Hype or Hope? (Indian Experience).

Authors:  S P Somashekhar; K R Ashwin; C Rohit Kumar
Journal:  Indian J Surg Oncol       Date:  2020-06-08

Review 6.  Robotic versus laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery: towards defining criteria to the right choice.

Authors:  Matthew Zelhart; Andreas M Kaiser
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-08-15       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  Systematic review of robotic low anterior resection for rectal cancer.

Authors:  Christoph Holmer; Martin E Kreis
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-12-07       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 8.  Retrorectal Tumors: A Comprehensive Literature Review.

Authors:  Seong Kyu Baek; Grace Soon Hwang; Alessio Vinci; Mehraneh D Jafari; Fariba Jafari; Zhobin Moghadamyeghaneh; Alessio Pigazzi
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 3.352

9.  Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery for lower rectal cancer: the impact of visceral obesity on surgical outcomes.

Authors:  Akio Shiomi; Yusuke Kinugasa; Tomohiro Yamaguchi; Hiroyasu Kagawa; Yushi Yamakawa
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2016-09-06       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 10.  30 Years of Robotic Surgery.

Authors:  Tiago Leal Ghezzi; Oly Campos Corleta
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 3.352

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.