Comparison of short-term outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy for patients ≥ 65 years of age: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies.

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Konstantinos Kossenas, Olga Moutzouri, Filippos Georgopoulos
{"title":"Comparison of short-term outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy for patients ≥ 65 years of age: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies.","authors":"Konstantinos Kossenas, Olga Moutzouri, Filippos Georgopoulos","doi":"10.1007/s11701-025-02222-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Robotic right colectomy (RRC) has been researched and compared in the past to the laparoscopic approach (LRC). However, it remains unclear whether RRC outperforms LRC in patients aged 65 or older with colon cancer or adenoma. Thus, this systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare the short-term outcomes of RRC to LRC in this particular age group. PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library were searched for related literature. Studies and data were extracted by two independent reviewers. Inverse variances weighted mean differences (WMD) with random effects model were used for continuous values, and odds ratios (OR) with random effects model using the Mantel-Haenszel's formula were used for dichotomous values. Heterogeneity using Higgins I<sup>2</sup> and p values were calculated. A sensitivity analysis was performed for operative duration and number of harvested lymph nodes. In total 382 patients, 157 in RRC and 225 in LRC, were included in this study. A statistically significant increase of 43.91 min [95%CI: 19.61, 68.22], P = 0.001, was observed regarding operative duration in the RRC group, compared to LRC, but with high heterogeneity, I<sup>2</sup> = 89%. However, a statistically significant decrease of 42% [OR = 0.58 (0.34, 0.98), P = 0.04, I<sup>2</sup>=2%] was observed with regard to overall complications in RRC compared to LRC. Non-significant differences between the two approaches were observed in the number of harvested lymph nodes [WMD = 0.44 (95%CI: -3.94, 4.82), P = 0.85, I<sup>2</sup> = 52%], wound infections [OR = 0.63 (95%CI: 0.11, 3.52), P = 0.60, I<sup>2</sup> = 13%], rate of ileus [OR = 0.29 (95%CI: 0.08, 1.00), P = 0.05, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%], length of hospitalization [WMD = 0.18 (95%CI: - 0.74, 1.11), P = 0.70, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%], and anastomotic leakage [OR = 0.52 (95%CI: 0.09, 3.11), P = 0.47, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%]. The results of the operative duration and number of harvested lymph nodes remained statistically significant and non-significant, respectively, after sensitivity analysis. Robotic right colectomy appears to require a longer operative duration, but possibly offers lower rates of overall complications, compared to laparoscopic right colectomy in patients ≥ 65 years of age. Due to the lack of studies identified in the literature, and the ones included being non-randomized, no solid conclusions can be drawn and cautious interpretation of the results is advised. Future studies are necessary to further examine both short- and long-term outcomes. Prospero registration: CRD42024603354.</p>","PeriodicalId":47616,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Robotic Surgery","volume":"19 1","pages":"60"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Robotic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-025-02222-7","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Robotic right colectomy (RRC) has been researched and compared in the past to the laparoscopic approach (LRC). However, it remains unclear whether RRC outperforms LRC in patients aged 65 or older with colon cancer or adenoma. Thus, this systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare the short-term outcomes of RRC to LRC in this particular age group. PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library were searched for related literature. Studies and data were extracted by two independent reviewers. Inverse variances weighted mean differences (WMD) with random effects model were used for continuous values, and odds ratios (OR) with random effects model using the Mantel-Haenszel's formula were used for dichotomous values. Heterogeneity using Higgins I2 and p values were calculated. A sensitivity analysis was performed for operative duration and number of harvested lymph nodes. In total 382 patients, 157 in RRC and 225 in LRC, were included in this study. A statistically significant increase of 43.91 min [95%CI: 19.61, 68.22], P = 0.001, was observed regarding operative duration in the RRC group, compared to LRC, but with high heterogeneity, I2 = 89%. However, a statistically significant decrease of 42% [OR = 0.58 (0.34, 0.98), P = 0.04, I2=2%] was observed with regard to overall complications in RRC compared to LRC. Non-significant differences between the two approaches were observed in the number of harvested lymph nodes [WMD = 0.44 (95%CI: -3.94, 4.82), P = 0.85, I2 = 52%], wound infections [OR = 0.63 (95%CI: 0.11, 3.52), P = 0.60, I2 = 13%], rate of ileus [OR = 0.29 (95%CI: 0.08, 1.00), P = 0.05, I2 = 0%], length of hospitalization [WMD = 0.18 (95%CI: - 0.74, 1.11), P = 0.70, I2 = 0%], and anastomotic leakage [OR = 0.52 (95%CI: 0.09, 3.11), P = 0.47, I2 = 0%]. The results of the operative duration and number of harvested lymph nodes remained statistically significant and non-significant, respectively, after sensitivity analysis. Robotic right colectomy appears to require a longer operative duration, but possibly offers lower rates of overall complications, compared to laparoscopic right colectomy in patients ≥ 65 years of age. Due to the lack of studies identified in the literature, and the ones included being non-randomized, no solid conclusions can be drawn and cautious interpretation of the results is advised. Future studies are necessary to further examine both short- and long-term outcomes. Prospero registration: CRD42024603354.

65岁以上患者机器人与腹腔镜右结肠切除术的短期疗效比较:前瞻性研究的系统回顾和荟萃分析
机器人右结肠切除术(RRC)与腹腔镜手术(LRC)在过去的研究中进行了比较。然而,对于65岁及以上结肠癌或腺瘤患者,RRC是否优于LRC仍不清楚。因此,本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在比较RRC和LRC在该特定年龄组的短期结果。检索PubMed、Scopus和Cochrane图书馆相关文献。研究和数据由两名独立审稿人提取。连续值采用随机效应模型的逆方差加权平均差(WMD),二分类值采用Mantel-Haenszel公式随机效应模型的比值比(OR)。采用Higgins I2和p值计算异质性。对手术时间和淋巴结数量进行敏感性分析。本研究共纳入382例患者,其中RRC 157例,LRC 225例。RRC组手术时间较LRC组增加43.91分钟[95%CI: 19.61, 68.22], P = 0.001,具有统计学意义,但异质性较高,I2 = 89%。然而,与LRC相比,RRC的总并发症减少了42% [OR = 0.58 (0.34, 0.98), P = 0.04, I2=2%],具有统计学意义。与这两种方法之间的差异数量的观察收获淋巴结(大规模杀伤性武器= 0.44(95%置信区间ci: -3.94, 4.82), P = 0.85, I2 = 52%),伤口感染(或= 0.63(95%置信区间ci: 0.11, 3.52), P = 0.60, I2 = 13%),肠梗阻率(或= 0.29(95%置信区间ci: 0.08, 1.00), P = 0.05, I2 = 0%),住院时间(大规模杀伤性武器= 0.18(95%可信区间:0.74,1.11),P = 0.70, I2 = 0%),和脓疡(或= 0.52(95%置信区间ci: 0.09, 3.11), P = 0.47, I2 = 0%)。经敏感性分析,手术时间和淋巴结清扫数的差异均有统计学意义,无统计学意义。与年龄≥65岁的患者相比,机器人右结肠切除术似乎需要更长的手术时间,但可能提供更低的总并发症率。由于文献中没有确定的研究,并且纳入的研究是非随机的,因此无法得出可靠的结论,建议谨慎解释结果。未来的研究需要进一步检查短期和长期的结果。普洛斯彼罗注册:CRD42024603354。
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
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
8.70%
发文量
145
期刊介绍: The aim of the Journal of Robotic Surgery is to become the leading worldwide journal for publication of articles related to robotic surgery, encompassing surgical simulation and integrated imaging techniques. The journal provides a centralized, focused resource for physicians wishing to publish their experience or those wishing to avail themselves of the most up-to-date findings.The journal reports on advance in a wide range of surgical specialties including adult and pediatric urology, general surgery, cardiac surgery, gynecology, ENT, orthopedics and neurosurgery.The use of robotics in surgery is broad-based and will undoubtedly expand over the next decade as new technical innovations and techniques increase the applicability of its use. The journal intends to capture this trend as it develops.
×
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