Minimally Invasive Surgery for Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Surgical Techniques.

Shafquat Zaman, Ali Yasen Y Mohamedahmed, Widad Abdelrahman, Hashim E Abdalla, Ali Ahmed Wuheb, Mohamed Talaat Issa, Nameer Faiz, Nuha A Yassin
{"title":"Minimally Invasive Surgery for Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Surgical Techniques.","authors":"Shafquat Zaman, Ali Yasen Y Mohamedahmed, Widad Abdelrahman, Hashim E Abdalla, Ali Ahmed Wuheb, Mohamed Talaat Issa, Nameer Faiz, Nuha A Yassin","doi":"10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjae037","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>We aimed to evaluate outcomes of robotic versus conventional laparoscopic colorectal resections in patients with inflammatory bowel disease [IBD].</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Comparative studies of robotic versus laparoscopic colorectal resections in patients with IBD were included. The primary outcome was total post-operative complication rate. Secondary outcomes included operative time, conversion to open surgery, anastomotic leaks, intra-abdominal abscess formation, ileus occurrence, surgical site infection, re-operation, re-admission rate, length of hospital stay, and 30-day mortality. Combined overall effect sizes were calculated using a random-effects model and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess risk of bias.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eleven non-randomized studies [n = 5566 patients] divided between those undergoing robotic [n = 365] and conventional laparoscopic [n = 5201] surgery were included. Robotic platforms were associated with a significantly lower overall post-operative complication rate compared with laparoscopic surgery [p = 0.03]. Laparoscopic surgery was associated with a significantly shorter operative time [p = 0.00001]. No difference was found in conversion rates to open surgery [p = 0.15], anastomotic leaks [p = 0.84], abscess formation [p = 0.21], paralytic ileus [p = 0.06], surgical site infections [p = 0.78], re-operation [p = 0.26], re-admission rate [p = 0.48], and 30-day mortality [p = 1.00] between the groups. Length of hospital stay was shorter following a robotic sub-total colectomy compared with conventional laparoscopy [p = 0.03].</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Outcomes in the surgical management of IBD are comparable between traditional laparoscopic techniques and robotic-assisted minimally invasive surgery, demonstrating the safety and feasibility of robotic platforms. Larger studies investigating the use of robotic technology in Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis separately may be of benefit with a specific focus on important IBD-related metrics.</p>","PeriodicalId":94074,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Crohn's & colitis","volume":" ","pages":"1342-1355"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11324345/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Crohn's & colitis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjae037","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: We aimed to evaluate outcomes of robotic versus conventional laparoscopic colorectal resections in patients with inflammatory bowel disease [IBD].

Methods: Comparative studies of robotic versus laparoscopic colorectal resections in patients with IBD were included. The primary outcome was total post-operative complication rate. Secondary outcomes included operative time, conversion to open surgery, anastomotic leaks, intra-abdominal abscess formation, ileus occurrence, surgical site infection, re-operation, re-admission rate, length of hospital stay, and 30-day mortality. Combined overall effect sizes were calculated using a random-effects model and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess risk of bias.

Results: Eleven non-randomized studies [n = 5566 patients] divided between those undergoing robotic [n = 365] and conventional laparoscopic [n = 5201] surgery were included. Robotic platforms were associated with a significantly lower overall post-operative complication rate compared with laparoscopic surgery [p = 0.03]. Laparoscopic surgery was associated with a significantly shorter operative time [p = 0.00001]. No difference was found in conversion rates to open surgery [p = 0.15], anastomotic leaks [p = 0.84], abscess formation [p = 0.21], paralytic ileus [p = 0.06], surgical site infections [p = 0.78], re-operation [p = 0.26], re-admission rate [p = 0.48], and 30-day mortality [p = 1.00] between the groups. Length of hospital stay was shorter following a robotic sub-total colectomy compared with conventional laparoscopy [p = 0.03].

Conclusion: Outcomes in the surgical management of IBD are comparable between traditional laparoscopic techniques and robotic-assisted minimally invasive surgery, demonstrating the safety and feasibility of robotic platforms. Larger studies investigating the use of robotic technology in Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis separately may be of benefit with a specific focus on important IBD-related metrics.

炎症性肠病的微创手术:机器人与腹腔镜手术技术的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:评估炎症性肠病(IBD)患者接受机器人与传统腹腔镜结直肠切除术的效果:评估炎症性肠病(IBD)患者接受机器人与传统腹腔镜结直肠切除术的效果:方法:纳入对IBD患者进行机器人与腹腔镜结直肠切除术的比较研究。主要结果是术后总并发症发生率。次要结果包括手术时间、转为开腹手术、吻合口漏、腹腔内脓肿形成、回肠梗阻、手术部位感染、再次手术、再次入院率、住院时间和30天死亡率。采用随机效应模型计算综合总效应大小,并使用纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表评估偏倚风险:共纳入11项非随机研究(5,566名患者),分为机器人手术(365名)和传统腹腔镜手术(5,201名)。与腹腔镜手术相比,机器人平台的术后并发症发生率明显较低(P=0.03)。在转为开腹手术率(P=0.15)、吻合口漏(P=0.84)、脓肿形成(P=0.21)、麻痹性回肠炎(P=0.06)、手术部位感染(P=0.78)、再次手术(P=0.与传统腹腔镜手术相比,机器人结肠次全切除术的住院时间更短(P=0.03):结论:传统腹腔镜技术和机器人辅助微创手术治疗 IBD 的效果相当,这表明了机器人平台的安全性和可行性。对机器人技术在克罗恩病和溃疡性结肠炎中的应用分别进行更大规模的研究,并特别关注与 IBD 相关的重要指标,可能会有所裨益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信