Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the evidence available on the safety as well as effectiveness of robotic resection as compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer.

Material and methods: A comparison of laparoscopic and robotic surgical treatments for rectal cancer was collected. Eligible trials that analyzed probabilistic hazard ratios (HR) for endpoints of interest (including perioperative morbidity) and postoperative complications were included in our review.

Results: A total of six studies were included based on the present inclusion criteria. The pooled data showed that R-TME appeared to have association with remarkable reduction in the postoperative morbidity rate as compared to L-TME. Moreover, R-TME was also linked to lower conversion, decreased lymph node number, and longer operation time compared with L-TME. However, there was no difference in hospital stay, positive range of circumferential resection and blood loss between the two study groups.

Conclusions: Robotic rectal cancer surgery provides favorable outcomes and is considered as a safe surgical technique in terms of postoperative oncological safety. Like laparoscopic TME surgery, robotic surgery may be a valid alternative and complementary approach with beneficial effects on minimally-invasive surgery.

Keywords:

• Rectal cancer
• robotic surgery
• laparoscopic surgery
• meta-analysis

Declaration of interest

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.