Comparison of robotic‑assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for mid-low rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of robot-assisted comparative laparoscopic surgery in lateral lymph node dissection for rectal cancer

INTRODUCTION

A meta-analysis was conducted on the perioperative and oncological outcomes of robot-assisted and laparoscopic lateral lymph node dissection in rectal cancer. There are few articles and reports on this topic, and a lack of high-quality research results in unreliable research conclusions. This study includes prospective and retrospective studies to obtain more reliable findings.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Databases were searched, including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Web of Science. The search was conducted from the time of database construction to March 2024. The quality of the literature was evaluated using the NOS scoring system. Meta-analysis was performed using R language software. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic, and sensitivity analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Six relevant literatures that met the criteria were finally included, and 652 patients were included, including 316 (48.5%) in the robot-assisted lateral lymph node dissection for rectal cancer group (RLLND) and 336 (51.5%) in the laparoscopic lateral lymph node dissection for rectal cancer group (LLLND). Analysis of the results showed that compared with the laparoscopic group, the robotic group had less mean intraoperative blood loss (MD = - 22, 95% CI - 40.03 to - 3.97, P < 0.05), longer operative time (MD = 51.57, 95%CI 7.69 to 95.45, P < 0.05), and a shorter mean hospital stay (MD = - 1.25, 95%CI - 2.46 to - 0.05, P < 0.05), a low rate of urinary complications (OR 0.39, 95%CI 0.23 to 0.64, P < 0.01), a low overall rate of postoperative complications (OR 0.6, 95%CI 0.42 to 0.87, P < 0.01), and a high number of lateral lymph node dissection (MD = 1.18, 95% CI 0.14 to 2.23, P < 0.05), and there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of postoperative anastomotic leakage, postoperative intestinal obstruction, and total number of lymph nodes obtained (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Compared with laparoscopy, robotic lateral lymph node dissection for rectal cancer reduces intraoperative blood loss, shortens the average length of hospital stay, reduces urologic complications, decreases overall postoperative complications, and collects more lateral lymph nodes. However, the surgical time is prolonged.

Outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Robotic-assisted rectal surgery (RARS) and Laparoscopic-assisted rectal surgery are the two techniques that are increasingly used for rectal cancer, and both have their advantages and disadvantages. This meta-analysis will analyze the outcomes of both techniques to determine their relative performance and suitability.

METHODS

An extensive search was carried out on PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, Embase, and Google Scholar, followed by a meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess both approaches for rectal cancer.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis is comprised of fifteen RCTs. The conversion to open surgery (RR = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.38-0.74, P = 0.0002) was significantly lower in the RARS group. The outcomes like anastomotic leak, postoperative ileus, postoperative urinary retention (POUR), surgical site infection (SSI), and intra-abdominal abscess showed no significant difference between the two groups. The reoperation rate (RR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.34-0.95, P = 0.03) was lower in the robotic group. High heterogeneity was obtained when pooling data on operative time, length of hospital stay, and blood loss. Oncological outcomes, including local recurrence, the number of harvested lymph nodes (LN) and distal resection margin showed no significant distinction among both groups, while the positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) (RR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.49-0.91, P = 0.01) was lower in the RARS group. RARS demonstrated a significantly higher rate of total mesorectal excision (TME) (RR = 1.07, 95% CI: 1.01-1.14, P = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

RARS is safe and feasible for rectal cancer patients and may be superior or equivalent to Laparoscopic-assisted rectal surgery, but high-standard, large-scale trials are required to determine the best approach.

[Robotic rectal surgery]

Colorectal cancer is one of the most frequent cancerous diseases in industrial nations, whereby tumors of the rectum constitute approximately 30-40% of all colorectal cancers. In addition to the implementation and establishment of novel neoadjuvant concepts for the treatment of rectal cancer, there has been a continuous evolution of surgical techniques in recent years towards minimally invasive surgery. In this respect robot-assisted surgery has become more and more popular despite seemingly weak evidence regarding clinical benefits and the not to be ignored economic aspects; however, recently published high-quality studies provide new evidence showing advantages for a robotic resection in patients suffering from rectal cancer. Thus, the progressive implementation of robotic surgical systems is increasingly attaining a scientific foundation.

Short-term outcomes of robotic vs. laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy: a meta-analysis

Background

The effect of robotic surgery (RS) for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy is still controversial, and a comprehensive search and analysis of the current relevant evidence is necessary. Our study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of RS for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (LS).

Methods

Up to August 23, 2023, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were searched for studies of RS for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy. Odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) was used to calculate the effect sizes using RevMan 5.3.

Results

A total of 12 studies reporting on 11,686 participants were included. Compared with LS, RS increased the operative time (MD 35.16 min; 95% CI: 16.24, 54.07), but it did significantly reduce the risk of the conversion to open surgery (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.40, 0.53) and improved the TME incomplete rate (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.17, 0.93). Moreover, there were no difference in total postoperative complications (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.84, 1.52), circumferential resection margin positivity (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.63, 1.27), distal margin positive (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.29, 1.22), blood loss (MD -11.57 ml; 95% CI: -39.09, 15.94), length of hospital stay (MD -0.08 days; 95% CI: -1.26, 1.10), mortality (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.29, 1.21), lymph node harvested (MD 0.69.; 95% CI: -0.43, 1.82), and the time of first flatus (MD -0.47 days; 95% CI: -1.19, 0.25) between the two groups.

Conclusions

RS was associated with superiority over LS in reducing the risk of the conversion to open surgery and improving TME incomplete rate, which suggested that RS could be an effective method for treating rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=460084, PROSPERO (CRD42023460084).