Home > DARE Reviews > Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic...

PubMed Health. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews [Internet]. York (UK): Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (UK); 1995-.

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews [Internet].

Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis of four randomized controlled trials

Review published: 2014.

Bibliographic details: Liao G, Zhao Z, Lin S, Li R, Yuan Y, Du S, Chen J, Deng H.  Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis of four randomized controlled trials. World Journal of Surgical Oncology 2014; 12: 122. [PMC free article: PMC4002581] [PubMed: 24767102]

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Robotic-assisted laparoscopy is popularly performed for colorectal disease. The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted colorectal surgery (RCS) and laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LCS) for colorectal disease based on randomized controlled trial studies.

METHODS: Literature searches of electronic databases (Pubmed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) were performed to identify randomized controlled trial studies that compared the clinical or oncologic outcomes of RCS and LCS. This meta-analysis was performed using the Review Manager (RevMan) software (version 5.2) that is provided by the Cochrane Collaboration. The data used were mean differences and odds ratios for continuous and dichotomous variables, respectively. Fixed-effects or random-effects models were adopted according to heterogeneity.

RESULTS: Four randomized controlled trial studies were identified for this meta-analysis. In total, 110 patients underwent RCS, and 116 patients underwent LCS. The results revealed that estimated blood losses (EBLs), conversion rates and times to the recovery of bowel function were significantly reduced following RCS compared with LCS. There were no significant differences in complication rates, lengths of hospital stays, proximal margins, distal margins or harvested lymph nodes between the two techniques.

CONCLUSIONS: RCS is a promising technique and is a safe and effective alternative to LCS for colorectal surgery. The advantages of RCS include reduced EBLs, lower conversion rates and shorter times to the recovery of bowel function. Further studies are required to define the financial effects of RCS and the effects of RCS on long-term oncologic outcomes.

CRD has determined that this article meets the DARE scientific quality criteria for a systematic review.

Copyright © 2014 University of York.

PMID: 24767102

PubMed Health Blog...

read all...

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...