Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2023 Dec 21;39(1):7.
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

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Short-term and long-term efficacy in robot-assisted treatment for mid and low rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Huiming Wu et al. Int J Colorectal Dis. .

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PRISMA flow chart of study selection. *Consider, if feasible to do so, reporting the number of records identified from each database or register searched (rather than the total number across all databases/registers). **If automation tools were used, indicate how many records were excluded by a human and how many were excluded by automation tools. From: Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. 10.1136/bmj.n71
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
The risk of bias assessment according to the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
The risk of bias assessment according to the ROBINS-I tool
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
A funnel plot
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
TSA for operative blood loss
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
TSA for conversion to open surgery rate
Fig. 7
Fig. 7
TSA for postoperative morbidity
Fig. 8
Fig. 8
TSA for harvested lymph nodes
Fig. 9
Fig. 9
TSA for circumferential resection margin positive rate

Similar articles

References

    1. Zawadzki M, Rząca M, Czarnecki R, Obuszko Z, Jacyna K, Stewart L, Witkiewicz W. Beginning robotic assisted colorectal surgery – it’s harder than it looks! Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne. 2014;9(4):562–568. doi: 10.5114/wiitm.2014.45494. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Park S, Kim NK. The role of robotic surgery for rectal cancer: overcoming technical challenges in laparoscopic surgery by advanced techniques. J Korean Med Sci. 2015;30(7):837–846. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2015.30.7.837. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. 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
    1. Marano A, Hyung WJ. Robotic gastrectomy: the current state of the art. J Gastric Cancer. 2012;12(2):63–72. doi: 10.5230/jgc.2012.12.2.63. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg. 2010;8(5):336–341. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007. - DOI - PubMed

Substances

-