Guixiang Liao1, Zhihong Zhao2, Haijun Deng3, Xianming Li1. 1. Department of Oncology, Shenzhen People's Hospital, Second Clinical Medicine Centre, Jinan University, Shenzhen, China. 2. Department of Nephrology, Shenzhen People's Hospital, Second Clinical Medicine Centre, Jinan University, Shenzhen, China. 3. Department of General Surgery, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the pathologic outcomes between robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery (RRCS) and laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery (LRCS) based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: Electronic databases were searched from their inception to 7 October 2018, for RCTs involving a comparison between RRCS and LRCS. Positive circumferential resection margin (CRM), distance to the distal margin, proximal margin, the rate of complete mesorectal excision, and harvested lymph nodes were interesting of outcomes. RESULTS: The positive CRM, proximal margin, and rate of complete mesorectal excision were comparable between the two techniques. RRCS resulted in better outcomes for the distance to the distal margin (mean difference: 0.83 cm, 95% confidence interval, 0.29-1.37, P = .003). CONCLUSIONS: The pathologic outcomes associated with the two approaches were comparable, with RRCS showing better outcomes for the distance to the distal margin. However, additional well-designed studies are needed to assess whether the benefits of pathologic outcomes improve survival outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the pathologic outcomes between robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery (RRCS) and laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery (LRCS) based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: Electronic databases were searched from their inception to 7 October 2018, for RCTs involving a comparison between RRCS and LRCS. Positive circumferential resection margin (CRM), distance to the distal margin, proximal margin, the rate of complete mesorectal excision, and harvested lymph nodes were interesting of outcomes. RESULTS: The positive CRM, proximal margin, and rate of complete mesorectal excision were comparable between the two techniques. RRCS resulted in better outcomes for the distance to the distal margin (mean difference: 0.83 cm, 95% confidence interval, 0.29-1.37, P = .003). CONCLUSIONS: The pathologic outcomes associated with the two approaches were comparable, with RRCS showing better outcomes for the distance to the distal margin. However, additional well-designed studies are needed to assess whether the benefits of pathologic outcomes improve survival outcomes.
Authors: Aaron C Spaulding; Hanadi Hamadi; Osayande Osagiede; Riccardo Lemini; Jordan J Cochuyt; John Watson; James M Naessens; Dorin T Colibaseanu Journal: J Robot Surg Date: 2020-09-02