Robotic versus laparoscopic approaches for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of postoperative complications, anastomotic leak, and mortality.

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Pub Date : 2024-11-22 DOI:10.1007/s00423-024-03545-z
Mellisa Lisset Villafane Asmat, José Caballero-Alvarado, Katherine Lozano-Peralta, Hugo Valencia Mariñas, Carlos Zavaleta-Corvera
{"title":"Robotic versus laparoscopic approaches for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of postoperative complications, anastomotic leak, and mortality.","authors":"Mellisa Lisset Villafane Asmat, José Caballero-Alvarado, Katherine Lozano-Peralta, Hugo Valencia Mariñas, Carlos Zavaleta-Corvera","doi":"10.1007/s00423-024-03545-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Compare the efficacy and safety of robotic versus laparoscopic approach for rectal cancer treatment, addressing the ongoing debate within the medical community regarding the optimal surgical approach.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>Traditionally, surgery has been the cornerstone of rectal cancer treatment, aimed at tumor removal and intestinal function preservation. Recent advancements have introduced laparoscopic and robotic surgeries as minimally invasive alternatives to conventional methods. However, it faces limitations in instrument mobility and dexterity. Robotic approach, on the other hand, enhances these aspects by providing surgeons with advanced precision, a three-dimensional high-definition view, and superior tissue manipulation capabilities, making it an increasingly preferred option for rectal cancer treatment.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA-2020 guidelines was carried out. This study analyzed phase 2 and 3 randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy and safety of robotic versus laparoscopic approach in treating rectal cancer. Only studies meeting specific criteria were included, with congress abstracts, narrative reviews, case reports, and letters to the editor excluded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 350 studies, 8 met the inclusion criteria, encompassing 2525 patients from diverse geographical locations. The main outcomes analyzed were regional recurrence, anastomotic leak, postoperative complications, and mortality. The findings indicated no significant differences between robotic and laparoscopic surgeries in terms of Grade III Clavien-Dindo complications, mortality, and anastomotic leakage. The diverse geographical origin of the studies suggests the applicability of the results across different health care settings, although system-specific considerations are essential.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Robotic approach does not show significant advantages over laparoscopic approach in terms of major complications and mortality rates in rectal cancer treatment, indicating that both surgical approaches are viable options with their specific benefits and limitations.</p>","PeriodicalId":17983,"journal":{"name":"Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery","volume":"409 1","pages":"353"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-024-03545-z","RegionNum":3,"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

Objective: Compare the efficacy and safety of robotic versus laparoscopic approach for rectal cancer treatment, addressing the ongoing debate within the medical community regarding the optimal surgical approach.

Background: Traditionally, surgery has been the cornerstone of rectal cancer treatment, aimed at tumor removal and intestinal function preservation. Recent advancements have introduced laparoscopic and robotic surgeries as minimally invasive alternatives to conventional methods. However, it faces limitations in instrument mobility and dexterity. Robotic approach, on the other hand, enhances these aspects by providing surgeons with advanced precision, a three-dimensional high-definition view, and superior tissue manipulation capabilities, making it an increasingly preferred option for rectal cancer treatment.

Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA-2020 guidelines was carried out. This study analyzed phase 2 and 3 randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy and safety of robotic versus laparoscopic approach in treating rectal cancer. Only studies meeting specific criteria were included, with congress abstracts, narrative reviews, case reports, and letters to the editor excluded.

Results: We identified 350 studies, 8 met the inclusion criteria, encompassing 2525 patients from diverse geographical locations. The main outcomes analyzed were regional recurrence, anastomotic leak, postoperative complications, and mortality. The findings indicated no significant differences between robotic and laparoscopic surgeries in terms of Grade III Clavien-Dindo complications, mortality, and anastomotic leakage. The diverse geographical origin of the studies suggests the applicability of the results across different health care settings, although system-specific considerations are essential.

Conclusion: Robotic approach does not show significant advantages over laparoscopic approach in terms of major complications and mortality rates in rectal cancer treatment, indicating that both surgical approaches are viable options with their specific benefits and limitations.

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
机器人与腹腔镜直肠癌治疗方法:术后并发症、吻合口漏和死亡率的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
目的:比较机器人手术与腹腔镜手术治疗直肠癌的有效性和安全性,解决医学界一直存在的关于最佳手术方法的争议:比较机器人与腹腔镜直肠癌治疗方法的疗效和安全性,解决医学界一直存在的关于最佳手术方法的争论:背景:传统上,手术一直是直肠癌治疗的基石,目的是切除肿瘤并保留肠道功能。近年来,腹腔镜手术和机器人手术作为微创手术替代了传统方法。然而,腹腔镜手术在器械的移动性和灵巧性方面受到限制。另一方面,机器人方法为外科医生提供了先进的精确度、三维高清视角和卓越的组织操作能力,从而增强了这些方面的优势,使其日益成为直肠癌治疗的首选:本研究按照 PRISMA-2020 指南进行了系统回顾和荟萃分析。本研究分析了评估机器人与腹腔镜方法治疗直肠癌的有效性和安全性的 2 期和 3 期随机对照试验。只有符合特定标准的研究才被纳入,大会摘要、叙述性综述、病例报告和致编辑的信均被排除在外:我们确定了 350 项研究,其中 8 项符合纳入标准,涵盖了来自不同地区的 2525 名患者。分析的主要结果包括区域复发、吻合口漏、术后并发症和死亡率。研究结果表明,在 III 级克拉维恩-丁多并发症、死亡率和吻合口漏方面,机器人手术和腹腔镜手术没有明显差异。这些研究来自不同的地域,这表明研究结果适用于不同的医疗环境,但特定系统的考虑因素至关重要:结论:在直肠癌治疗中,就主要并发症和死亡率而言,机器人方法与腹腔镜方法相比并无明显优势,这表明两种手术方法都是可行的选择,都有各自的优势和局限性。
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
3.30
自引率
8.70%
发文量
342
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Langenbeck''s Archives of Surgery aims to publish the best results in the field of clinical surgery and basic surgical research. The main focus is on providing the highest level of clinical research and clinically relevant basic research. The journal, published exclusively in English, will provide an international discussion forum for the controlled results of clinical surgery. The majority of published contributions will be original articles reporting on clinical data from general and visceral surgery, while endocrine surgery will also be covered. Papers on basic surgical principles from the fields of traumatology, vascular and thoracic surgery are also welcome. Evidence-based medicine is an important criterion for the acceptance of papers.
期刊最新文献
Low vs. conventional intra-abdominal pressure in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a prospective cohort study. Comparative effectiveness totally endoscopic thyroidectomy via completely submental tri-hole approach and transoral endoscopic thyroidectomy without insufflation. Curative treatment for oligometastatic gastroesophageal cancer- results of a prospective multicenter study. New purse-string suture clamp and multi-functional seal cap: a simple intracorporeal circular-stapled oesophagojejunostomy after laparoscopic total gastrectomy. The importance of microvascular invasion in patients with non-functioning pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasm.
×
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