Robotic-assisted surgery versus open surgery in the treatment of rectal cancer: the current evidence

作者：Liao, Guixiang; Li, Yan-Bing; Zhao, Zhihong; Li, Xianming^*; Deng, Haijun; Li, Gang^*

来源：Scientific Reports, 2016, 6(1): 26981.

DOI：10.1038/srep26981

• TOTAL MESORECTAL EXCISION
• CIRCUMFERENTIAL RESECTION MARGIN
• LOW ANTERIOR RESECTION
• SHORT-TERM OUTCOMES
• LYMPH-NODE RATIO
• LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERY
• COLORECTAL SURGERY
• METAANALYSIS
• CHEMORADIATION
• MULTICENTER

The aim of this meta-analysis was to comprehensively compare the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery (RRCS) and open rectal cancer surgery (ORCS). Electronic database (PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Knowledge, and the Cochrane Library) searches were conducted for all relevant studies that compared the short-term and long-term outcomes between RRCS and ORCS. Odds ratios (ORs), mean differences, and hazard ratios were calculated. Seven studies involving 1074 patients with rectal cancer were identified for this meta-analysis. Compared with ORCS, RRCS is associated with a lower estimated blood loss (mean difference [MD]: -139.98, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -159.11 to -120.86; P < 0.00001), shorter hospital stay length (MD: -2.10, 95% CI: -3.47 to -0.73; P = 0.003), lower intraoperative transfusion requirements (OR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.99, P = 0.05), shorter time to flatus passage (MD: -0.97, 95% CI = -1.06 to -0.88, P < 0.00001), and shorter time to resume a normal diet (MD: -1.71.95% CI = -3.31 to -0.12, P = 0.04). There were no significant differences in surgery-related complications, oncologic clearance, disease-free survival, and overall survival between the two groups. However, RRCS was associated with a longer operative time. RRCS is safe and effective.

• 出版日期2016-5-27
• 单位暨南大学; 温州医科大学; 湖北医药学院; 南方医科大学