Purpose: The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC) versus robotic right colectomy (RRC) using homogeneous subgroup analyses for extra-corporeal anastomosis (EA) and intra-corporeal anastomosis (IA). Methods: MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched up to April 2020 for prospective or retrospective studies comparing LRC versus RRC on at least one short- or long-term outcome. The primary outcome was the length of hospital stay (LOS). The secondary outcomes included operative and pathological results, survival, and total costs. LRC and RRC were compared using three homogeneous subgroups: without distinction by the type of anastomosis, EA only, and IA only. Pooled data analyses were performed using mean difference (MD) and random effects model. Results: Thirty-seven of 448 studies were selected. The included patients were 21,397 for the LRC group and 2796 for the RRC group. Regardless for the type of anastomosis, RRC showed shorter LOS, lower blood loss, lower conversion rate, shorter time to flatus, and lower overall complication rate compared with LRC, but longer operative time and higher total costs. In the EA subgroup, RRC showed similar LOS, longer operative time, and higher costs compared with LRC, the other outcomes being similar. In the IA subgroup, RRC showed shorter LOS and longer operative time compared with LRC, with no difference for the remaining outcomes. Conclusions: Most included articles are retrospective, providing low-quality evidence and limiting conclusions. The more frequent use of the IA seems to explain the advantages of RRC over LRC.

Laparoscopic versus robotic right colectomy with extra-corporeal or intra-corporeal anastomosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

de Angelis N;
2020

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC) versus robotic right colectomy (RRC) using homogeneous subgroup analyses for extra-corporeal anastomosis (EA) and intra-corporeal anastomosis (IA). Methods: MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched up to April 2020 for prospective or retrospective studies comparing LRC versus RRC on at least one short- or long-term outcome. The primary outcome was the length of hospital stay (LOS). The secondary outcomes included operative and pathological results, survival, and total costs. LRC and RRC were compared using three homogeneous subgroups: without distinction by the type of anastomosis, EA only, and IA only. Pooled data analyses were performed using mean difference (MD) and random effects model. Results: Thirty-seven of 448 studies were selected. The included patients were 21,397 for the LRC group and 2796 for the RRC group. Regardless for the type of anastomosis, RRC showed shorter LOS, lower blood loss, lower conversion rate, shorter time to flatus, and lower overall complication rate compared with LRC, but longer operative time and higher total costs. In the EA subgroup, RRC showed similar LOS, longer operative time, and higher costs compared with LRC, the other outcomes being similar. In the IA subgroup, RRC showed shorter LOS and longer operative time compared with LRC, with no difference for the remaining outcomes. Conclusions: Most included articles are retrospective, providing low-quality evidence and limiting conclusions. The more frequent use of the IA seems to explain the advantages of RRC over LRC.
2020
Genova, P; Pantuso, G; Cipolla, C; Latteri, Ma; Abdalla, S; Paquet, Jc; Brunetti, F; de Angelis, N; Di Saverio, S.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
s00423-020-01985-x.pdf

solo gestori archivio

Tipologia: Full text (versione editoriale)
Licenza: NON PUBBLICO - Accesso privato/ristretto
Dimensione 7.3 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
7.3 MB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11392/2533759
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 9
  • Scopus 28
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 29
social impact