Short-term and long-term efficacy in robot-assisted treatment for mid and low rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- PMID: 38127156
- PMCID: PMC10739549
- DOI: 10.1007/s00384-023-04579-3
Short-term and long-term efficacy in robot-assisted treatment for mid and low rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Abstract
Objective: This study aims to conduct a meta-analysis to evaluate the short-term and long-term therapeutic effects of robot-assisted laparoscopic treatment in patients with mid and low rectal cancer.
Methods: A comprehensive search strategy was employed to retrieve relevant literature from PubMed, NCBI, Medline, and Springer databases, spanning the database inception until August 2023. The focus of this systematic review was on controlled studies that compared the treatment outcomes of robot-assisted (Rob) and conventional laparoscopy (Lap) in the context of mid and low rectal cancer. Data extraction and literature review were meticulously conducted by two independent researchers (HMW and RKG). The synthesized data underwent rigorous analysis utilizing RevMan 5.4 software, adhering to established methodological standards in systematic reviews. The primary outcomes encompass perioperative outcomes and oncological outcomes. Secondary outcomes include long-term outcomes.
Result: A total of 11 studies involving 2239 patients with mid and low rectal cancer were included (3 RCTs and 8 NRCTs); the Rob group consisted of 1111 cases, while the Lap group included 1128 cases. The Rob group exhibited less intraoperative bleeding (MD = -40.01, 95% CI: -57.61 to -22.42, P < 0.00001), a lower conversion rate to open surgery (OR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.09 to 0.82, P = 0.02), a higher number of harvested lymph nodes (MD = 1.97, 95% CI: 0.77 to 3.18, P = 0.001), and a lower CRM positive rate (OR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.23 to 0.95, P = 0.04). Additionally, the Rob group had lower postoperative morbidity rate (OR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.53 to 0.82, P < 0.0001) and a lower occurrence rate of complications with Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3 (OR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.39 to 0.90, P = 0.02). Further subgroup analysis revealed a lower anastomotic leakage rate (OR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.45 to 0.97, P = 0.04). No significant differences were observed between the two groups in the analysis of operation time (P = 0.42), occurrence rates of protective stoma (P = 0.81), PRM (P = 0.92), and DRM (P = 0.23), time to flatus (P = 0.18), time to liquid diet (P = 0.65), total hospital stay (P = 0.35), 3-year overall survival rate (P = 0.67), and 3-year disease-free survival rate (P = 0.42).
Conclusion: Robot-assisted laparoscopic treatment for mid and low rectal cancer yields favorable outcomes, demonstrating both efficacy and safety. In comparison to conventional laparoscopy, patients experience reduced intraoperative bleeding and a lower incidence of complications. Notably, the method achieves comparable short-term and long-term treatment results to those of conventional laparoscopic surgery, thus justifying its consideration for widespread clinical application.
Keywords: Long-term efficacy; Meta-analysis; Mid and low rectal cancer; Robot-assisted; Short-term efficacy.
© 2023. The Author(s).
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare no competing interests.
Figures
![Fig. 1](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/10739549/bin/384_2023_4579_Fig1_HTML.gif)
![Fig. 2](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/10739549/bin/384_2023_4579_Fig2_HTML.gif)
![Fig. 3](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/10739549/bin/384_2023_4579_Fig3_HTML.gif)
![Fig. 4](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/10739549/bin/384_2023_4579_Fig4_HTML.gif)
![Fig. 5](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/10739549/bin/384_2023_4579_Fig5_HTML.gif)
![Fig. 6](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/10739549/bin/384_2023_4579_Fig6_HTML.gif)
![Fig. 7](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/10739549/bin/384_2023_4579_Fig7_HTML.gif)
![Fig. 8](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/10739549/bin/384_2023_4579_Fig8_HTML.gif)
![Fig. 9](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/10739549/bin/384_2023_4579_Fig9_HTML.gif)
Similar articles
-
Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Feb 1;2(2022):CD014217. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014217. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022. PMID: 36321557 Free PMC article.
-
[Safety and prognosis analysis of transanal total mesorectal excision versus laparoscopic mesorectal excision for mid-low rectal cancer].Zhonghua Wei Chang Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2022 Jun 25;25(6):522-530. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn441530-20210811-00321. Zhonghua Wei Chang Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2022. PMID: 35754217 Chinese.
-
[Efficacy comparison between robot-assisted and laparoscopic surgery for mid-low rectal cancer: a prospective randomized controlled trial].Zhonghua Wei Chang Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2020 Apr 25;23(4):377-383. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn.441530-20190401-00135. Zhonghua Wei Chang Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2020. PMID: 32306606 Clinical Trial. Chinese.
-
Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of oncological and perioperative outcomes compared with laparoscopic total mesorectal excision.BMC Cancer. 2016 Jul 4;16:380. doi: 10.1186/s12885-016-2428-5. BMC Cancer. 2016. PMID: 27377924 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Robotic resection compared with laparoscopic rectal resection for cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of short-term outcome.Colorectal Dis. 2012 Apr;14(4):e134-56. doi: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2011.02907.x. Colorectal Dis. 2012. PMID: 22151033 Review.
References
-
- Hu LD, Li XF, Wang XY, Guo TK. Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric carcinoma: a meta-analysis of efficacy and safety. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2016;17(9):4327–4333. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Research Materials