Cargando…

Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer in male urogenital function preservation, a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Urogenital dysfunction after rectal cancer surgery can largely affect patients’ postoperative quality of life. Whether robotic surgery can be a better option when comparing with laparoscopic surgery is still not well-known. METHODS: Comprehensive search in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Librar...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tang, Xiaoli, Wang, Zheng, Wu, Xiaoqing, Yang, Meiyuan, Wang, Daorong
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6169007/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30285780
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12957-018-1499-y
_version_ 1783360443083915264
author Tang, Xiaoli
Wang, Zheng
Wu, Xiaoqing
Yang, Meiyuan
Wang, Daorong
author_facet Tang, Xiaoli
Wang, Zheng
Wu, Xiaoqing
Yang, Meiyuan
Wang, Daorong
author_sort Tang, Xiaoli
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Urogenital dysfunction after rectal cancer surgery can largely affect patients’ postoperative quality of life. Whether robotic surgery can be a better option when comparing with laparoscopic surgery is still not well-known. METHODS: Comprehensive search in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Clinical Trials was conducted to identify relevant studies in March 2018. Studies comparing robotic surgery with laparoscopic surgery were included. Measurement of urogenital function was through the International Prostate Symptom Score and International Index of Erectile Function. RESULTS: Six studies with 386 patients in robotic group and 421 patients in laparoscopic group were finally included. Pooled analysis indicated that bladder function was better at 12 months in the robotic group after the procedures (mean difference, − 0.30, 95% CI, − 0.52 to − 0.08). No significant difference was found at 3 and 6 months postoperatively (mean difference, − 0.37, 95% CI, − 1.48 to 0.73; mean difference, − 1.21, 95% CI, − 2.69 to 0.28). Sexual function was better at 3 months in the robotic group after surgery (mean difference, − 3.28, 95% CI, − 6.08 to − 0.49) and not significantly different at 6 and 12 months. (mean difference, 3.78, 95% CI, − 7.37 to 14.93; mean difference, − 2.82, 95% CI, − 8.43 to 2.80). CONCLUSION: Robotic surgery may offer faster recovery in urogenital function compared to laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6169007
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-61690072018-10-10 Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer in male urogenital function preservation, a meta-analysis Tang, Xiaoli Wang, Zheng Wu, Xiaoqing Yang, Meiyuan Wang, Daorong World J Surg Oncol Review BACKGROUND: Urogenital dysfunction after rectal cancer surgery can largely affect patients’ postoperative quality of life. Whether robotic surgery can be a better option when comparing with laparoscopic surgery is still not well-known. METHODS: Comprehensive search in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Clinical Trials was conducted to identify relevant studies in March 2018. Studies comparing robotic surgery with laparoscopic surgery were included. Measurement of urogenital function was through the International Prostate Symptom Score and International Index of Erectile Function. RESULTS: Six studies with 386 patients in robotic group and 421 patients in laparoscopic group were finally included. Pooled analysis indicated that bladder function was better at 12 months in the robotic group after the procedures (mean difference, − 0.30, 95% CI, − 0.52 to − 0.08). No significant difference was found at 3 and 6 months postoperatively (mean difference, − 0.37, 95% CI, − 1.48 to 0.73; mean difference, − 1.21, 95% CI, − 2.69 to 0.28). Sexual function was better at 3 months in the robotic group after surgery (mean difference, − 3.28, 95% CI, − 6.08 to − 0.49) and not significantly different at 6 and 12 months. (mean difference, 3.78, 95% CI, − 7.37 to 14.93; mean difference, − 2.82, 95% CI, − 8.43 to 2.80). CONCLUSION: Robotic surgery may offer faster recovery in urogenital function compared to laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. BioMed Central 2018-10-02 /pmc/articles/PMC6169007/ /pubmed/30285780 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12957-018-1499-y Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Review
Tang, Xiaoli
Wang, Zheng
Wu, Xiaoqing
Yang, Meiyuan
Wang, Daorong
Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer in male urogenital function preservation, a meta-analysis
title Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer in male urogenital function preservation, a meta-analysis
title_full Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer in male urogenital function preservation, a meta-analysis
title_fullStr Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer in male urogenital function preservation, a meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer in male urogenital function preservation, a meta-analysis
title_short Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer in male urogenital function preservation, a meta-analysis
title_sort robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer in male urogenital function preservation, a meta-analysis
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6169007/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30285780
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12957-018-1499-y
work_keys_str_mv AT tangxiaoli roboticversuslaparoscopicsurgeryforrectalcancerinmaleurogenitalfunctionpreservationametaanalysis
AT wangzheng roboticversuslaparoscopicsurgeryforrectalcancerinmaleurogenitalfunctionpreservationametaanalysis
AT wuxiaoqing roboticversuslaparoscopicsurgeryforrectalcancerinmaleurogenitalfunctionpreservationametaanalysis
AT yangmeiyuan roboticversuslaparoscopicsurgeryforrectalcancerinmaleurogenitalfunctionpreservationametaanalysis
AT wangdaorong roboticversuslaparoscopicsurgeryforrectalcancerinmaleurogenitalfunctionpreservationametaanalysis