Suscribirse

Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for mid-low rectal cancers - 30/04/24

Doi : 10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2024.01.004 
Karem Slim a, , Gilles Tilmans b, Bob Valéry Occéan c, Chadly Dziri d, Bruno Pereira e, Michel Canis a
a Department of gynecology and pelvic surgery, CHU de Clermont-Ferrand, Clermont-Ferrand, France 
b Digestive surgery department, CHU de Clermont-Ferrand, Clermont-Ferrand, France 
c Department of Statistics, CHU de Nîmes, Nîmes, France 
d Honoris Center for Medical Simulation, Tunis, Tunisia 
e Department of Clinical Research and Innovation, CHU Clermont-Ferrand, Clermont-Ferrand, France 

Corresponding author. Service de chirurgie gynécologique et pelvienne, CHU de Clermont-Ferrand, place Lucie-Aubrac, 63003 Clermont-Ferrand, France.Service de chirurgie gynécologique et pelvienne, CHU de Clermont-Ferrandplace Lucie-AubracClermont-Ferrand63003France

Summary

Introduction

Robotic surgery (RS) is experiencing major development, particularly in the context of rectal cancer. The aim of this meta-analysis was to summarize data from the literature, focusing specifically on the safety and effectiveness of robotic surgery in mid-low rectal cancers, based on the hypothesis that that robotic surgery can find its most rational indication in this anatomical location.

Method

The meta-analysis was conducted according to the PRISMA 2000 recommendations, including all randomized trials that compared robotic surgery versus laparoscopic surgery (LS) that were found in the Medline-PICO, Cochrane Database, Scopus and Google databases. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers. The risk of bias was analyzed according to the Cochrane Handbook method and the certainty of the evidence according to the GRADE method. The analysis was carried out with R software Version 4.2-3 using the Package for Meta-Analysis “meta” version 6.5-0.

Results

Eight randomized trials were included (with a total of 2342 patients), including four that focused specifically on mid-low rectal cancer (n=1,734 patients). No statistically significant difference was found for overall morbidity, intra-operative morbidity, anastomotic leakage, post-operative mortality, quality of mesorectal specimen, and resection margins. The main differences identified were a lower conversion rate for RS (RR=0.48 [0.24–0.95], p=0.04, I2=0%), and a longer operative time for RS (mean difference=39.11min [9.39–68.83], p<0.01, I2=96%). The other differences had no real clinical relevance, i.e., resumption of flatus passage (5hours earlier after RS), and lymph node dissection (one more lymph node for LS).

Conclusion

This meta-analysis does not confirm the initial hypothesis and does not show a statistically significant or clinically relevant benefit of RS compared to LS for mid-low rectal cancer.

El texto completo de este artículo está disponible en PDF.

Keywords : Robotic surgery, Laparoscopy, Meta-analysis


Esquema


© 2024  Elsevier Masson SAS. Reservados todos los derechos.
Añadir a mi biblioteca Eliminar de mi biblioteca Imprimir
Exportación

    Exportación citas

  • Fichero

  • Contenido

Vol 161 - N° 2

P. 76-89 - avril 2024 Regresar al número
Artículo precedente Artículo precedente
  • Component separation techniques on the abdominal wall: “A word of caution”
  • Benoît Romain, French Society of Wall Surgery-Club Hernia (SFCP-CH)
| Artículo siguiente Artículo siguiente
  • Retroperitoneal soft tissue sarcomas: Predictive factors for incomplete resection
  • Pierre-Olivier Jouppe, Nicolas Regenet, Ephrem Salame, Matthias Tallegas, Aymeric Amelot, Arthur David, Nicolas Michot

Bienvenido a EM-consulte, la referencia de los profesionales de la salud.
El acceso al texto completo de este artículo requiere una suscripción.

¿Ya suscrito a @@106933@@ revista ?

Mi cuenta


Declaración CNIL

EM-CONSULTE.COM se declara a la CNIL, la declaración N º 1286925.

En virtud de la Ley N º 78-17 del 6 de enero de 1978, relativa a las computadoras, archivos y libertades, usted tiene el derecho de oposición (art.26 de la ley), el acceso (art.34 a 38 Ley), y correcta (artículo 36 de la ley) los datos que le conciernen. Por lo tanto, usted puede pedir que se corrija, complementado, clarificado, actualizado o suprimido información sobre usted que son inexactos, incompletos, engañosos, obsoletos o cuya recogida o de conservación o uso está prohibido.
La información personal sobre los visitantes de nuestro sitio, incluyendo su identidad, son confidenciales.
El jefe del sitio en el honor se compromete a respetar la confidencialidad de los requisitos legales aplicables en Francia y no de revelar dicha información a terceros.


Todo el contenido en este sitio: Copyright © 2024 Elsevier, sus licenciantes y colaboradores. Se reservan todos los derechos, incluidos los de minería de texto y datos, entrenamiento de IA y tecnologías similares. Para todo el contenido de acceso abierto, se aplican los términos de licencia de Creative Commons.