Cargando…

Robotic versus laparoscopic left colectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to review the new evidence to understand whether the robotic approach could find some clear indication also in left colectomy. METHODS: A systematic review of studies published from 2004 to 2022 in the Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus databases and comparing laparoscop...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Solaini, Leonardo, Bocchino, Antonio, Avanzolini, Andrea, Annunziata, Domenico, Cavaliere, Davide, Ercolani, Giorgio
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9262793/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35650261
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00384-022-04194-8
_version_ 1784742582972055552
author Solaini, Leonardo
Bocchino, Antonio
Avanzolini, Andrea
Annunziata, Domenico
Cavaliere, Davide
Ercolani, Giorgio
author_facet Solaini, Leonardo
Bocchino, Antonio
Avanzolini, Andrea
Annunziata, Domenico
Cavaliere, Davide
Ercolani, Giorgio
author_sort Solaini, Leonardo
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: This study aimed to review the new evidence to understand whether the robotic approach could find some clear indication also in left colectomy. METHODS: A systematic review of studies published from 2004 to 2022 in the Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus databases and comparing laparoscopic (LLC) and robotic left colectomy (RLC) was performed. All comparative studies evaluating robotic left colectomy (RLC) versus laparoscopic (LLC) left colectomy with at least 20 patients in the robotic arm were included. Abstract, editorials, and reviews were excluded. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale for cohort studies was used to assess the methodological quality. The random-effect model was used to calculate pooled effect estimates. RESULTS: Among the 139 articles identified, 11 were eligible, with a total of 52,589 patients (RLC, n = 13,506 versus LLC, n = 39,083). The rate of conversion to open surgery was lower for robotic procedures (RR 0.5, 0.5–0.6; p < 0.001). Operative time was longer for the robotic procedures in the pooled analysis (WMD 39.1, 17.3–60.9, p = 0.002). Overall complications (RR 0.9, 0.8–0.9, p < 0.001), anastomotic leaks (RR 0.7, 0.7–0.8; p < 0.001), and superficial wound infection (RR 3.1, 2.8–3.4; p < 0.001) were less common after RLC. There were no significant differences in mortality (RR 1.1; 0.8–1.6, p = 0.124). There were no differences between RLC and LLC with regards to postoperative variables in the subgroup analysis on malignancies. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic left colectomy requires less conversion to open surgery than the standard laparoscopic approach. Postoperative morbidity rates seemed to be lower during RLC, but this was not confirmed in the procedures performed for malignancies. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00384-022-04194-8.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9262793
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92627932022-07-09 Robotic versus laparoscopic left colectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis Solaini, Leonardo Bocchino, Antonio Avanzolini, Andrea Annunziata, Domenico Cavaliere, Davide Ercolani, Giorgio Int J Colorectal Dis Review BACKGROUND: This study aimed to review the new evidence to understand whether the robotic approach could find some clear indication also in left colectomy. METHODS: A systematic review of studies published from 2004 to 2022 in the Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus databases and comparing laparoscopic (LLC) and robotic left colectomy (RLC) was performed. All comparative studies evaluating robotic left colectomy (RLC) versus laparoscopic (LLC) left colectomy with at least 20 patients in the robotic arm were included. Abstract, editorials, and reviews were excluded. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale for cohort studies was used to assess the methodological quality. The random-effect model was used to calculate pooled effect estimates. RESULTS: Among the 139 articles identified, 11 were eligible, with a total of 52,589 patients (RLC, n = 13,506 versus LLC, n = 39,083). The rate of conversion to open surgery was lower for robotic procedures (RR 0.5, 0.5–0.6; p < 0.001). Operative time was longer for the robotic procedures in the pooled analysis (WMD 39.1, 17.3–60.9, p = 0.002). Overall complications (RR 0.9, 0.8–0.9, p < 0.001), anastomotic leaks (RR 0.7, 0.7–0.8; p < 0.001), and superficial wound infection (RR 3.1, 2.8–3.4; p < 0.001) were less common after RLC. There were no significant differences in mortality (RR 1.1; 0.8–1.6, p = 0.124). There were no differences between RLC and LLC with regards to postoperative variables in the subgroup analysis on malignancies. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic left colectomy requires less conversion to open surgery than the standard laparoscopic approach. Postoperative morbidity rates seemed to be lower during RLC, but this was not confirmed in the procedures performed for malignancies. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00384-022-04194-8. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022-06-01 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC9262793/ /pubmed/35650261 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00384-022-04194-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Review
Solaini, Leonardo
Bocchino, Antonio
Avanzolini, Andrea
Annunziata, Domenico
Cavaliere, Davide
Ercolani, Giorgio
Robotic versus laparoscopic left colectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title Robotic versus laparoscopic left colectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Robotic versus laparoscopic left colectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Robotic versus laparoscopic left colectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Robotic versus laparoscopic left colectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Robotic versus laparoscopic left colectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort robotic versus laparoscopic left colectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9262793/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35650261
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00384-022-04194-8
work_keys_str_mv AT solainileonardo roboticversuslaparoscopicleftcolectomyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT bocchinoantonio roboticversuslaparoscopicleftcolectomyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT avanzoliniandrea roboticversuslaparoscopicleftcolectomyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT annunziatadomenico roboticversuslaparoscopicleftcolectomyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT cavalieredavide roboticversuslaparoscopicleftcolectomyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT ercolanigiorgio roboticversuslaparoscopicleftcolectomyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis