摘要
AIM: To conduct a meta-analysis to determine the relative merits of robotic surgery (RS) and laparoscopic surgery (LS) for rectal cancer. METHODS: A literature search was performed to identify comparative studies reporting perioperative outcomes for RS and LS for rectal cancer. Pooled odds ratios and weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated using either the fixed effects model or random effects model. RESULTS: Eight studies matched the selection criteria and reported on 661 subjects, of whom 268 underwent RS and 393 underwent LS for rectal cancer. Compared the perioperative outcomes of RS with LS, reports of RS indicated favorable outcomes considering conversion(WMD: 0.25; 95% CI: 0.11-0.58; P = 0.001). Meanwhile, operative time (WMD: 27.92, 95% CI: -13.43 to 69.27; P = 0.19); blood loss (WMD: -32.35, 95% CI: -86.19 to 21.50; P = 0.24); days to passing flatus (WMD: -0.18, 95% CI: -0.96 to 0.60; P = 0.65); length of stay (WMD: -0.04; 95% CI: -2.28 to 2.20; P = 0.97); complications (WMD: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.71-1.55; P = 0.82) and pathological details, including lymph nodes harvested (WMD: 0.41, 95% CI: -0.67 to 1.50; P = 0.46), distal resection margin (WMD: -0.35, 95% CI: -1.27 to 0.58; P = 0.46), and positive circumferential resection margin (WMD: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.12-2.39; P = 0.42) were similar between RS and LS. CONCLUSION: RS for rectal cancer is superior to LS in terms of conversion. RS may be an alternative treatment for rectal cancer. Further studies are required.
AIM： To conduct a meta-analysis to determine the relative merits of robotic surgery （RS） and laparoscopic surgery （LS） for rectal cancer. METHODS： A literature search was performed to identify comparative studies reporting perioperative outcomes for RS and LS for rectal cancer. Pooled odds ratios and weighted mean differences （WMDs） with 95% confidence intervals （95% CIs） were calculated using either the fixed effects model or random effects model. RESULTS： Eight studies matched the selection criteria and reported on 661 subjects, of whom 268 underwent RS and 393 underwent LS for rectal cancer. Compared the perioperative outcomes of RS with LS, reports of RS indicated favorable outcomes considering conversion（WMD： 0.25; 95% CI： 0.11-0.58; P = 0.001）. Meanwhile, operative time （WMD： 27.92, 95% CI： -13.43 to 69.27; P = 0.19）; blood loss （WMD： -32.35, 95% CI： -86.19 to 21.50; P = 0.24）; days to passing flatus （WMD： -0.18, 95% CI： -0.96 to 0.60; P = 0.65）; length of stay （WMD： -0.04; 95% CI： -2.28 to 2.20; P = 0.97）; complications （WMD： 1.05; 95% CI： 0.71-1.55; P = 0.82） and pathological details, including lymph nodes harvested （WMD： 0.41, 95% CI： -0.67 to 1.50; P = 0.46）, distal resection margin （WMD： -0.35, 95% CI： -1.27 to 0.58; P = 0.46）, and positive circumferential resection margin （WMD： 0.54, 95% CI： 0.12-2.39; P = 0.42） were similar between RS and LS. CONCLUSION： RS for rectal cancer is superior to LS in terms of conversion. RS may be an alternative treatment for rectal cancer. Further studies are required.
基金
Supported by The National Natural Science Foundation of China, No. 81071964
Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China, No. Y2110019
