Short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted right colectomy compared with laparoscopic surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

• Published in: Asian journal of surgery Vol. 42; no. 5; pp. 589 - 598
• Main Authors: Ma, Shixun, Chen, Yan, Chen, Yifeng, Guo, Tiankang, Yang, Xiongfei, Lu, Yufeng, Tian, Jinhui, Cai, Hui
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: China Elsevier Taiwan LLC 01.05.2019; Elsevier
• Subjects: Laparoscopic; Meta-analysis; Right colectomy; Robotic-assisted; Systematic review; Systematic review; Laparoscopic; Robotic-assisted; Right colectomy; Meta-analysis
• ISSN: 1015-9584; 0219-3108
• DOI: 10.1016/j.asjsur.2018.11.002

To assess the clinical efficacy and safety of robotic-assisted right colectomy (RRC) with conventional laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC) by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis of the published studies. All published literature for comparative studies reporting preoperative outcomes of RRC and LRC were searched. We searched the databases included Cochrane Library of Clinical Comparative Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and Chinese Biomedical Database (CBM) from 1973 to 2018. The censor date was up to January 2018. Operative time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, conversion rates to open surgery, postoperative complications, and related outcomes were evaluated. All calculations and statistical tests were performed using Stata 12.0 software. A total of 7769 patients with colon cancer enrolled in 13 trials were divided into a study group (n = 674) and a control group (n = 7095). Meta-analysis suggested significantly greater length of hospital stay in the LRC group [MD = −0.85; 95% CI: −1.07 to −0.63; P < 0.00001]. Robotic surgery was also associated with a significantly lower complication rate [OR = 0.73; 95% CI: 0.52 to 1.01; P = 0.05]. There were statistically significant differences between the groups in estimated blood loss [MD = −16.89; 95% CI: −24.80 to −8.98; P < 0.00001] and the rate of intraoperative conversion to open surgery [OR = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.15 to 0.75; P = 0.008)], but these differences were not clinically relevant. The recovery of bowel function in two groups is no significant differences [MD = −0.58, 95% CI: −0.96 to −0.20, P = 0.0008]. However, operation times [MD = 43.61, 95% CI: 39.11 to 48.10, P < 0.00001] were longer for RRC than for LRC. Compared to LRC, RRC was associated with reduced estimated blood loss, reduced postoperative complications, longer operation times. Recovery of bowel function and other perioperative outcomes were equivalent between the two surgeries.