Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for mid-low rectal cancers

IF 2 4区 医学 Q2 SURGERY Journal of Visceral Surgery Pub Date : 2024-04-01 DOI:10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2024.01.004
Karem Slim , Gilles Tilmans , Bob Valéry Occéan , Chadly Dziri , Bruno Pereira , Michel Canis
{"title":"Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for mid-low rectal cancers","authors":"Karem Slim ,&nbsp;Gilles Tilmans ,&nbsp;Bob Valéry Occéan ,&nbsp;Chadly Dziri ,&nbsp;Bruno Pereira ,&nbsp;Michel Canis","doi":"10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2024.01.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Robotic surgery (RS) is experiencing major development, particularly in the context of rectal cancer. The aim of this meta-analysis was to summarize data from the literature, focusing specifically on the safety and effectiveness of robotic surgery in mid-low rectal cancers, based on the hypothesis that that robotic surgery can find its most rational indication in this anatomical location.</p></div><div><h3>Method</h3><p>The meta-analysis was conducted according to the PRISMA 2000 recommendations, including all randomized trials that compared robotic surgery <em>versus</em> laparoscopic surgery (LS) that were found in the Medline-PICO, Cochrane Database, Scopus and Google databases. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers. The risk of bias was analyzed according to the Cochrane Handbook method and the certainty of the evidence according to the GRADE method. The analysis was carried out with R software Version 4.2-3 using the Package for Meta-Analysis “meta” version 6.5-0.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Eight randomized trials were included (with a total of 2342 patients), including four that focused specifically on mid-low rectal cancer (<em>n</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->1,734 patients). No statistically significant difference was found for overall morbidity, intra-operative morbidity, anastomotic leakage, post-operative mortality, quality of mesorectal specimen, and resection margins. The main differences identified were a lower conversion rate for RS (RR<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.48 [0.24–0.95], <em>p<!--> </em>=<!--> <!-->0.04, I<sup>2</sup> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0%), and a longer operative time for RS (mean difference<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->39.11<!--> <!-->min [9.39–68.83], <em>p</em> <!-->&lt;<!--> <!-->0.01, I<sup>2</sup> <!-->=<!--> <!-->96%). The other differences had no real clinical relevance, i.e., resumption of flatus passage (5<!--> <!-->hours earlier after RS), and lymph node dissection (one more lymph node for LS).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>This meta-analysis does not confirm the initial hypothesis and does not show a statistically significant or clinically relevant benefit of RS compared to LS for mid-low rectal cancer.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":49271,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Visceral Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Visceral Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1878788624000043","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Robotic surgery (RS) is experiencing major development, particularly in the context of rectal cancer. The aim of this meta-analysis was to summarize data from the literature, focusing specifically on the safety and effectiveness of robotic surgery in mid-low rectal cancers, based on the hypothesis that that robotic surgery can find its most rational indication in this anatomical location.

Method

The meta-analysis was conducted according to the PRISMA 2000 recommendations, including all randomized trials that compared robotic surgery versus laparoscopic surgery (LS) that were found in the Medline-PICO, Cochrane Database, Scopus and Google databases. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers. The risk of bias was analyzed according to the Cochrane Handbook method and the certainty of the evidence according to the GRADE method. The analysis was carried out with R software Version 4.2-3 using the Package for Meta-Analysis “meta” version 6.5-0.

Results

Eight randomized trials were included (with a total of 2342 patients), including four that focused specifically on mid-low rectal cancer (n = 1,734 patients). No statistically significant difference was found for overall morbidity, intra-operative morbidity, anastomotic leakage, post-operative mortality, quality of mesorectal specimen, and resection margins. The main differences identified were a lower conversion rate for RS (RR = 0.48 [0.24–0.95], p = 0.04, I2 = 0%), and a longer operative time for RS (mean difference = 39.11 min [9.39–68.83], p < 0.01, I2 = 96%). The other differences had no real clinical relevance, i.e., resumption of flatus passage (5 hours earlier after RS), and lymph node dissection (one more lymph node for LS).

Conclusion

This meta-analysis does not confirm the initial hypothesis and does not show a statistically significant or clinically relevant benefit of RS compared to LS for mid-low rectal cancer.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
比较机器人与腹腔镜手术治疗中低位直肠癌的随机临床试验的 Meta 分析。
简介:机器人手术(RS)正在经历重大发展,尤其是在直肠癌方面:机器人手术(RS)正在经历重大发展,尤其是在直肠癌方面。本荟萃分析旨在总结文献数据,特别关注机器人手术在中低位直肠癌中的安全性和有效性,其假设是机器人手术能在这一解剖位置找到最合理的适应症:荟萃分析根据 PRISMA 2000 建议进行,包括在 Medline-PICO、Cochrane 数据库、Scopus 和 Google 数据库中找到的所有比较机器人手术与腹腔镜手术(LS)的随机试验。数据由两名审稿人独立提取。根据《Cochrane手册》方法分析偏倚风险,根据GRADE方法分析证据的确定性。分析采用 R 软件 4.2-3 版,使用 Meta 分析软件包 "meta "6.5-0 版:共纳入 8 项随机试验(共 2342 名患者),其中 4 项试验专门针对中低位直肠癌(n=1734 名患者)。在总发病率、术中发病率、吻合口漏、术后死亡率、直肠间质标本质量和切除边缘方面,均未发现有统计学意义的差异。发现的主要差异是 RS 的转换率较低(RR=0.48 [0.24-0.95],P=0.04,I2=0%),RS 的手术时间较长(平均差异=39.11 分钟 [9.39-68.83],P2=96%)。其他差异与临床无关,即恢复排便(RS术后提前5小时)和淋巴结清扫(LS术后多一个淋巴结):这项荟萃分析没有证实最初的假设,也没有显示 RS 与 LS 相比对中低位直肠癌有统计学意义或临床相关的益处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
9.50%
发文量
108
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Visceral Surgery (JVS) is the online-only, English version of the French Journal de Chirurgie Viscérale. The journal focuses on clinical research and continuing education, and publishes original and review articles related to general surgery, as well as press reviews of recently published major international works. High-quality illustrations of surgical techniques, images and videos serve as support for clinical evaluation and practice optimization. JVS is indexed in the main international databases (including Medline) and is accessible worldwide through ScienceDirect and ClinicalKey.
期刊最新文献
An atypical mesenteric tumor: The intestinal mesenteric lipophagic granuloma. Laparoscopic left hepatectomy (with video). Robotic living donor left lateral sectionectomy for liver transplantation (with video). Single-port sleeve gastrectomy with parietal prophylactic mesh placement performed (with video). Robotic-assisted parastomal hernia repair using a modified Pauli technique (with video).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1