-
International Journal of Colorectal... Jul 2022This study aimed to review the new evidence to understand whether the robotic approach could find some clear indication also in left colectomy. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis 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.
Topics: Colectomy; Humans; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Operative Time; Postoperative Complications; Robotic Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 35650261
DOI: 10.1007/s00384-022-04194-8 -
International Journal of Surgery... Jul 2018Single-incision laparoscopic surgery has gained widespread attention because of its potential benefits such as less skin incision and faster recovery. Up to now, only... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Single-incision laparoscopic surgery has gained widespread attention because of its potential benefits such as less skin incision and faster recovery. Up to now, only one meta-analysis (performed in 2013; including 9 studies, a total of 585 cases) compared single-incision laparoscopic right colectomy (SILRC) with conventional laparoscopic right colectomy (CLRC). An updated meta-analysis was undertaken to explore more convinced comparative findings between SILRC and CLRC.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The search for studies that compared SILRC with CLRC was done on PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. A total of 17 studies (including 1778 cases) were identified, the data of appointed outcomes were extracted and analyzed.
RESULTS
Patient demographics (age, gender, body mass index and previous abdominal operation) did not differ significantly. No significant differences were found between SILRC and CLRC in operative time, conversion, reoperation, perioperative complications, postoperative mortality, and 30-days readmission. Pathological outcomes, including lymph nodes harvested, proximal resection margin, and distal resection margin, were similar. SILRC showed less estimated blood loss (weighted mean difference [WMD]: -15.67 ml; 95% confidence interval [CI], -24.36 to -6.98; p = 0.0004), less skin incisions (WMD: -1.56 cm; 95%CI, -2.63 to -0.49; p = 0.004) and shorter hospital stay (WMD: -0.73d; 95%CI, -1.04 to -0.41; p < 0.00001), without publication bias.
CONCLUSION
SILRC may provide a safe and feasible alternative to CLRC with similar short-term outcomes and aesthetic advantage of less skin incision. Well-designed randomized controlled trials, involving large cases and carrying long-term outcomes, are needed.
Topics: Aged; Colectomy; Colorectal Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Male; Operative Time; Postoperative Period; Surgical Wound; Treatment Outcome; Wound Healing
PubMed: 29777881
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2018.05.013 -
Journal of Visceral Surgery Dec 2017Hemicolectomy is the treatment of choice for intestinal obstruction from right colon cancer. This review compares the laparoscopic vs open access in hemicolectomy for... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Hemicolectomy is the treatment of choice for intestinal obstruction from right colon cancer. This review compares the laparoscopic vs open access in hemicolectomy for patients with right colon cancer.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies published after January 2017 was performed according to the Prisma guidelines. The study has been recorded on the Prospero register (CRD42016044108).
RESULTS
Five studies were included for review. Only one anastomotic leak was reported in conventional open anastomosis group (1.9%) and none of the studies included in the meta-analysis reported re-operations during the first 30 postoperative days. The 30-day postoperative mortality did not differ between the two groups. The length of incision, blood loss, early mobilization after surgery, the 30-day postoperative overall complication rate and hospital length of stay were significantly shorter in the laparoscopic group. The difference in the duration of procedure was statistically significant in favor of the open group. The number of dissected lymph nodes, the overall survival at 5 years and time to flatus were described only in one study, without any significant difference. Finally, none of the trials reported any information concerning differences in the costs between the two techniques.
CONCLUSIONS
The better outcomes described in this study achieved with laparoscopy, must be interpreted with caution because of the small number of patients involved, the selection and publication bias and the low level of evidence of the analysed trials. Indeed, the advantages of a minimally invasive approach, which have been demonstrated by the present meta-analysis, should encourage the use of laparoscopy also in emergency setting.
Topics: Colectomy; Colonic Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Intestinal Obstruction; Laparoscopy; Laparotomy; Male; Postoperative Complications; Prognosis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Reoperation; Survival Analysis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29113714
DOI: 10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2017.09.002 -
Robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy for colon cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Wideochirurgia I Inne Techniki... Mar 2023The aim of the study was to compare the short-term surgical outcomes of robotic right colectomy (RRC) with laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC) for colon cancer, to...
AIM
The aim of the study was to compare the short-term surgical outcomes of robotic right colectomy (RRC) with laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC) for colon cancer, to evaluate the safety and feasibility of the robotic surgery system.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A systematic literature review was conducted using the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases regarding the comparison of RRC vs. LRC for colon cancer in the last 5 years. Studies were included as per the PICOS criteria, and relevant event data were extracted.
RESULTS
Fifteen studies (RRC: 1116 patients; LRC: 4036 patients) were evaluated. RRC demonstrated lower conversion to laparotomy (p = 0.03) and shorter length of hospital stay (p = 0.01), compared with LRC. However, operation times were longer in RRC than in LRC (p < 0.001). The estimated blood loss, retrieved lymph nodes, and overall postoperative complications were similar between RRC and LRC (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
RRC can be regarded as a feasible and safe technique for colon cancer.
PubMed: 37064568
DOI: 10.5114/wiitm.2022.120960 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Apr 2022Background: There is a rapidly growing literature available on right hemicolectomy comparing the short- and long-term outcomes of robotic right colectomy (RRC) to that... (Review)
Review
Background: There is a rapidly growing literature available on right hemicolectomy comparing the short- and long-term outcomes of robotic right colectomy (RRC) to that of laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC). The aim of this meta-analysis is to revise current comparative literature systematically. Methods: A systematic review of comparative studies published between 2000 to 2021 in PubMed, Scopus and Embase was performed. The primary endpoint was postoperative morbidity, mortality and long-term oncological results. Secondary endpoints consist of blood loss, conversion rates, complications, time to first flatus, hospital stay and incisional hernia rate. Results: 25 of 322 studies were considered for data extraction. A total of 16,099 individual patients who underwent RRC (n = 1842) or LRC (n = 14,257) between 2002 and 2020 were identified. Operative time was significantly shorter in the LRC group (LRC 165.31 min ± 43.08 vs. RRC 207.38 min ± 189.13, MD: −42.01 (95% CI: −51.06−32.96), p < 0.001). Blood loss was significantly lower in the RRC group (LRC 63.57 ± 35.21 vs. RRC 53.62 ± 34.02, MD: 10.03 (95% CI: 1.61−18.45), p = 0.02) as well as conversion rate (LRC 1155/11,629 vs. RRC 94/1534, OR: 1.65 (1.28−2.13), p < 0.001) and hospital stay (LRC 6.15 ± 31.77 vs. RRC 5.31 ± 1.65, MD: 0.84 (95% CI: 0.29−1.38), p = 0.003). Oncological long-term results did not differ between both groups. Conclusion: The advantages of robotic colorectal procedures were clearly demonstrated. RRC can be regarded as safe and feasible. Most of the included studies were retrospective with a limited level of evidence. Further randomized trials would be suitable.
PubMed: 35566512
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11092387 -
Familial Cancer Oct 2022Desmoid tumours (DT) are one of the main causes of death in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). Surgical trauma is a risk factor for DT, yet a colectomy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Desmoid tumours (DT) are one of the main causes of death in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). Surgical trauma is a risk factor for DT, yet a colectomy is inevitable in FAP to prevent colorectal cancer. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to synthesize the available evidence on DT risk related to type, approach and timing of colectomy. A search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library. Studies were considered eligible when DT incidence was reported after different types, approaches and timing of colectomy. Twenty studies including 6452 FAP patients were selected, all observational. No significant difference in DT incidence was observed after IRA versus IPAA (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.69-1.42) and after open versus laparoscopic colectomy (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.42-1.86). Conflicting DT incidences were seen after early versus late colectomy and when analysing open versus laparoscopic colectomy according to colectomy type. Three studies reported a (non-significantly) higher DT incidence after laparoscopic IPAA compared to laparoscopic IRA, with OR varying between 1.77 and 4.09. A significantly higher DT incidence was observed in patients with a history of abdominal surgery (OR 3.40, 95% CI 1.64-7.03, p = 0.001). Current literature does not allow to state firmly whether type, approach, or timing of colectomy affects DT risk in FAP patients. Fewer DT were observed after laparoscopic IRA compared to laparoscopic IPAA, suggesting laparoscopic IRA as the preferred choice if appropriate considering rectal polyp burden. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020161424.
Topics: Humans; Fibromatosis, Aggressive; Colectomy; Adenomatous Polyposis Coli; Laparoscopy; Incidence; Proctocolectomy, Restorative
PubMed: 35022961
DOI: 10.1007/s10689-022-00288-y -
International Journal of Surgery... Dec 2017Several different operative approaches have been applied nowadays in laparoscopic right hemi-colectomy. This study aims to evaluate the potential benefits of different... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
Several different operative approaches have been applied nowadays in laparoscopic right hemi-colectomy. This study aims to evaluate the potential benefits of different approaches by conducting a network meta-analysis (NMA).
METHOD
A comprehensive literature research of the PubMed, Embase, Medline, the Cochrane Central Library, Wan Fang and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases was performed. Original articles comparing two of three different approaches including medial to lateral (MtL) approach, lateral to medial (LtM) approach and cranial to caudal (CtC) approach of laparoscopic right colon resection for patients with both neoplastic and benign diseases were included.
RESULTS
3 RCTs and 3 NRCTs with a total of 571 patients were included in this NMA. The result revealed that LtM approach needs shorter postoperative flatus recovery time than both MtL approach with a WMD of 1.40 (95% CI: 0.13 to 2.67, P < 0.05) and CtC approach (WMD = -1.25, 95% CI: -1.90 to -0.61, P < 0.05). The length of hospital stay of LtM approach is shorter than that of MtL approach (WMD = 0.29, 95% CI: 0.08 to 0.50, P < 0.05). CtC approach can achieve less postoperative complications (OR = 3.37, 95% CI: 1.06 to 10.70, P < 0.05) compared with MtL approach.
CONCLUSION
All three approaches are safe and acceptable in laparoscopic right hemi-colectomy since the pooled evidence revealed that most aspects of different approaches are comparable in general. The postoperative flatus recovery time and hospitalization time of LtM approach is shorter compared with MtL approach. And CtC approach may have slight superiority in postoperative complications compared with MtL approach.
Topics: Aged; Colectomy; Female; Humans; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Male; Middle Aged; Network Meta-Analysis; Postoperative Complications; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29032159
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.10.029 -
Robotic Surgery (Auckland) 2019Robotic surgery has been increasingly used in fashioning various surgical anastomoses. Our aim was to collect and analyze outcomes related to anastomoses performed using... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Robotic surgery has been increasingly used in fashioning various surgical anastomoses. Our aim was to collect and analyze outcomes related to anastomoses performed using a robotic approach and compare them with those done using laparoscopic or open approaches through meta-analysis.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted for articles comparing robotic with laparoscopic and/or open operations (colectomy, low anterior resection, gastrectomy, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), pancreaticoduodenectomy, radical cystectomy, pyeloplasty, radical prostatectomy, renal transplant) published up to June 2019 searching Medline, Scopus, Google Scholar, Clinical Trials and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Studies containing information about outcomes related to hand-sewn anastomoses were included for meta-analysis. Studies with stapled anastomoses or without relevant information about the anastomotic technique were excluded. We also excluded studies in which the anastomoses were performed extracorporeally in laparoscopic or robotic operations.
RESULTS
We included 83 studies referring to the aforementioned operations (4 randomized controlled and 79 non-randomized, 10 prospective and 69 retrospective) apart from colectomy and low anterior resection. Anastomoses done using robotic instruments provided similar results to those done using laparoscopic or open approach in regards to anastomotic leak or stricture. However, there were lower rates of stenosis in robotic than in laparoscopic RYGB (p=0.01) and in robotic than in open radical prostatectomy (p<0.00001). Moreover, all anastomoses needed more time to be performed using the robotic rather than the open approach in renal transplant (p≤0.001).
CONCLUSION
Robotic anastomoses provide equal outcomes with laparoscopic and open ones in most operations, with a few notable exceptions.
PubMed: 31921934
DOI: 10.2147/RSRR.S186768 -
Surgical Endoscopy Dec 2017In colon cancer, T4 stage is still assumed to be a relative contraindication for laparoscopic surgery considering the oncological safety. The aim of this systematic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
In colon cancer, T4 stage is still assumed to be a relative contraindication for laparoscopic surgery considering the oncological safety. The aim of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to evaluate short- and long-term oncological outcomes after laparoscopic surgery for T4 colon cancer, and to compare these with open surgery.
METHODS
Using systematic review of literature, studies reporting on radicality of resection, disease-free survival (DFS), and/or overall survival (OS) after laparoscopic surgery for T4 colon cancer were identified, with or without a control group of open surgery. Pooled proportions and risk ratios were calculated using an inverse variance method.
RESULTS
Thirteen observational cohort studies published between 2012 and 2017 were included, together consisting of 1217 patients that received laparoscopic surgery and 1357 with an open procedure. The proportion of multivisceral resections was larger in the open group in five studies. Based on 11 studies, the pooled proportion of R0 resection was 0.96 (95% CI: 0.91-0.99) and 0.96 (95% CI: 0.90-0.98) after laparoscopic and open surgery, respectively. Analysing (mainly) T4a subgroups in 6 evaluable studies revealed pooled R0 resection rates of 0.94 in both groups. No significant differences were found between laparoscopic and open surgery for any survival measure: RR 1.07 (95% CI: 0.96-1.20) for 3-year DFS, RR 1.04 (95% CI: 0.95-1.15) for 5-year DFS, RR 1.07 (95% CI: 0.99-1.14) for 3-year OS, and RR 1.05 (95% CI: 0.98-1.12) for 5-year OS.
CONCLUSION
Literature on laparoscopic surgery for T4 colon cancer is restricted to non-randomized comparisons with substantial allocation bias. Laparoscopic surgery for T4a tumours might be safe, whereas for T4b colon cancer requiring multivisceral resection it should be applied with caution.
Topics: Colectomy; Colonic Neoplasms; Humans; Laparoscopy; Neoplasm Staging; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28432461
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-017-5544-7 -
BioMed Research International 2022Pelvic abscess surgery consists mostly of open laparotomy and laparoscopic surgery. Open surgery is regarded as a classic procedure. With the rise and promotion of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pelvic abscess surgery consists mostly of open laparotomy and laparoscopic surgery. Open surgery is regarded as a classic procedure. With the rise and promotion of laparoscopic indications in recent years, comparative studies of the two's postoperative effectiveness have been limited.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the clinical effects of laparoscopic exploratory surgery and open surgery in the treatment of pelvic abscess.
METHODS
Through computer searches of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, and Weipu databases, we found publicly available case-control research on laparoscopic surgery and open surgery for treating pelvic abscess. The papers that met the evaluation criteria were screened, and meta-analysis was used to look at 8 papers on laparoscopic surgery and open surgery for treating pelvic abscess from 2010 to 2021.
RESULTS
The results of this study showed that compared with the open laparotomy group, the incidence of laparoscopic group in the incision infection rate (RR = 0.29, 95% CI (0.20, 0.41), and < 0.00001), the incidence of intestinal injury (RR = 0.08, 95% CI (0.04, 0.14), and < 0.00001), incidence of intestinal obstruction (RR = 0.26, 95% CI (0.08, 0.90), and = 0.03 < 0.05), and postoperative pelvic abscess recurrence rate (RR = 0.34, 95% CI (0.13, 0.86), and = 0.02 < 0.05) are lower than open surgery, and the difference of these four items is statistically significant. There was no difference in the risk of urinary tract injury between laparoscopic surgery and open surgery (RR = 0.92, 95% CI (0.27, 3.17), and = 0.89 > 0.05).
CONCLUSION
In terms of incision infection, intestinal damage, intestinal obstruction, and recurrence of pelvic abscess, the laparoscopic group clearly outperforms the open group, and it merits clinical promotion and use.
Topics: Abscess; Colectomy; Humans; Intestinal Obstruction; Laparoscopy; Laparotomy; Postoperative Complications; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35832848
DOI: 10.1155/2022/3650213