Advertisement

Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: an overview of systematic reviews with quality assessment of current evidence

  • Nobuaki HoshinoEmail author
  • Takashi Sakamoto
  • Koya Hida
  • Yoshiharu Sakai
Review Article
  • 36 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

The clinical benefits of robotic surgery for patients with rectal cancer have been reported and many systematic reviews have been published. However, they have investigated a variety of outcomes and differ remarkably in quality. In this overview, we summarize the findings of these reviews and evaluate their quality.

Methods

The PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were comprehensively searched to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses that compared robotic and laparoscopic surgery. We assessed the quality of the reviews using the AMSTAR-2 tool.

Results

The literature search identified 17 eligible reviews, all of which reported that the incidence of conversion to open surgery was lower for robotic surgery than for laparoscopic surgery. Most of the reviews reported no difference in the other outcomes between robotic surgery and laparoscopic surgery. However, the quality of the reviews was judged to be low or critically low.

Conclusions

Critically low quality evidence suggests that robotic surgery for rectal cancer decreases the likelihood of conversion to open surgery, but other clinical benefits remain unclear. High-quality systematic reviews in which selection of high-quality studies is combined with adequate methodology are needed to clarify the true efficacy of robotic surgery for rectal cancer.

Keywords

Rectal neoplasms Robot Systematic review Meta-analysis Overview 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

We have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Supplementary material

595_2019_1763_MOESM1_ESM.eps (893 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (EPS 892 KB)
595_2019_1763_MOESM2_ESM.eps (886 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (EPS 886 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Jacobs M, Verdeja JC, Goldstein HS. Minimally invasive colon resection (laparoscopic colectomy). Surg Laparosc Endosc. 1991;1:144–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Toda S, Kuroyanagi H. Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: current status and future perspective. Asian J Endosc Surg. 2014;7:2–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bonjer HJ, Deijen CL, Haglind E, Group CIS. A randomized trial of laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:194.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jeong SY, Park JW, Nam BH, Kim S, Kang SB, Lim SB, et al. Open versus laparoscopic surgery for mid-rectal or low-rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (COREAN trial): survival outcomes of an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:767–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baek SK, Carmichael JC, Pigazzi A. Robotic surgery: colon and rectum. Cancer J. 2013;19:140–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Weber PA, Merola S, Wasielewski A, Ballantyne GH. Telerobotic-assisted laparoscopic right and sigmoid colectomies for benign disease. Dis Colon Rectum. 2002;45:1689–94 (discussion 1695–1686).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pigazzi A, Ellenhorn JD, Ballantyne GH, Paz IB. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Surg Endosc. 2006;20:1521–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wexner SD, Bergamaschi R, Lacy A, Udo J, Brolmann H, Kennedy RH, et al. The current status of robotic pelvic surgery: results of a multinational interdisciplinary consensus conference. Surg Endosc. 2009;23:438–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017;358:j4008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Higgins JPT, Green S, editors (2011) Cochrane handbook for systematic review of intervention 5. 1. 0. The cochrane collaboration.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Broholm M, Pommergaard HC, Gogenur I. Possible benefits of robot-assisted rectal cancer surgery regarding urological and sexual dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Colorectal Dis. 2015;17:375–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cui Y, Li C, Xu Z, Wang Y, Sun Y, Xu H, et al. Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic operation in anus-preserving rectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2017;13:1247–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Huang J, Zhang Z, Wang S. Efficacy of the Da Vinci surgical system in colorectal surgery comparing with traditional laparoscopic surgery or open surgery: a meta-analysis. IJARS 2016;13:1–13.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lee SH, Lim S, Kim JH, Lee KY. Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg Treat Res. 2015;89:190–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Li X, Wang T, Yao L, Hu L, Jin P, Guo T, et al. The safety and effectiveness of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic TME in patients with rectal cancer: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Med (Baltim). 2017;96:e7585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lin S, Jiang HG, Chen ZH, Zhou SY, Liu XS, Yu JY. Meta-analysis of robotic and laparoscopic surgery for treatment of rectal cancer. World J Gastroenterol. 2011;17:5214–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lorenzon L, Bini F, Balducci G, Ferri M, Salvi PF, Marinozzi F. Laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted colectomy and rectal resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2016;31:161–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Memon S, Heriot AG, Murphy DG, Bressel M, Lynch AC. Robotic versus laparoscopic proctectomy for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:2095–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ohtani H, Maeda K, Nomura S, Shinto O, Mizuyama Y, Nakagawa H, et al. Meta-analysis of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. In Vivo. 2018;32:611–23.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ortiz-Oshiro E, Sanchez-Egido I, Moreno-Sierra J, Perez CF, Diaz JS, Fernandez-Represa JA. Robotic assistance may reduce conversion to open in rectal carcinoma laparoscopic surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Med Robot. 2012;8:360–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Prete FP, Pezzolla A, Prete F, Testini M, Marzaioli R, Patriti A. Robotic versus laparoscopic minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ann Surg. 2018;267:1034–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sun Y, Xu H, Li Z, Han J, Song W, Wang J, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol. 2016;14:61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Trastulli S, Farinella E, Cirocchi R, Cavaliere D, Avenia N, Sciannameo F, et al. Robotic resection compared with laparoscopic rectal resection for cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of short-term outcome. Colorectal Dis. 2012;14:e134–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wang Y, Zhao GH, Yang H, Lin J. A pooled analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2016;26:259–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wilder FG, Burnett A, Oliver J, Demyen MF, Chokshi RJ. A review of the long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic surgery versus laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer. Indian J Surg. 2016;78:214–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Xiong B, Ma L, Huang W, Zhao Q, Cheng Y, Liu J. Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of eight studies. J Gastrointest Surg. 2015;19:516–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yang Y, Wang F, Zhang P, Shi C, Zou Y, Qin H, et al. Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal disease, focusing on rectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:3727–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SurgeryKyoto University Graduate School of MedicineKyotoJapan

Personalised recommendations