Comparative analysis of the safety and effectiveness of robotic natural orifice specimen extraction versus laparoscopic surgery for colorectal tumors through systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract

The purpose of this study and meta-analysis was to evaluate the perioperative and oncologic results of robotic NOSE versus laparoscopic surgery for colorectal tumors. We plan to perform an extensive electronic search on PubMed, CNKI, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to find research articles published from the beginning of the databases until July 2024 that examine the comparison between robotic natural orifice specimen extraction and laparoscopic surgery in patients with colorectal cancer. Both English and Chinese literature will be included. Literature screening will strictly follow predetermined criteria for inclusion and exclusion, specifically targeting randomized controlled trials and cohort studies. The evaluation of quality will be conducted with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Review Manager 5.4.1 will be utilized to perform a meta-analysis of data gathered from the studies that are included. The ultimate evaluation included seven past cohort studies with a total of 1117 participants (545 who had robotic NOSE and 572 who had laparoscopic surgery). Patients who had robotic NOSE experienced notable enhancements in LOHS, time to first flatus, time to start the liquid diet, EBL, and postoperative ileus when compared to patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery. There were no notable discrepancies noted in terms of surgical duration, total complications, lymph node collection, and anastomotic leakage between the two methods. In conclusion, the use of robotic technology for extracting specimens through natural body openings in colorectal surgery is considered to be safe and achievable. It offers notable advantages over laparoscopic surgery, including reduced hospital stay, earlier time to first flatus and liquid intake, decreased EBL, and lower incidence of postoperative ileus.