Left colectomy for diverticular disease: systematic review and meta-analysis comparing robotic and laparoscopic resections.

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
H A Eltyeb, A Y Y Mohamedahmed, G A Mills, J Khan
{"title":"Left colectomy for diverticular disease: systematic review and meta-analysis comparing robotic and laparoscopic resections.","authors":"H A Eltyeb, A Y Y Mohamedahmed, G A Mills, J Khan","doi":"10.1007/s10151-025-03155-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Around 50% of people aged 60 years and above are affected by diverticular disease, and 25% of these individuals will require surgical intervention. Our objective is to compare the results of left colonic resection for sigmoid diverticular disease using both robotic and laparoscopic approaches. Our primary aim is to conduct a meta-analysis while investigating the rates of conversion to open surgery, stoma and complications between the two methods.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>A systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. A meta-analysis was performed using RevMan Version 5.4 software. The random-effect model was employed to pool dichotomous outcomes and estimate risk and odds ratios (OR).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight studies were thought to fulfil the eligibility criteria: 1892 patients (49.2%) had robotic surgery, and 1952 patients (50.84%) underwent a laparoscopic approach. There were fewer conversions to open surgery in the robotic group when compared to the laparoscopic group (P < 0.00001), a lower rate of postoperative ileus (P = 0.005), shorter length of stay (mean difference (MD) 0.18 P = 0.003) and fewer morbidities (P = 0.002). There were similar rates of stoma formation (4.7%, P = 1.00), anastomotic leak (2.6%, P = 0.85) and mortality (0.3% vs 0.2%, P = 0.59). The operative time was shorter in the robotic approach, although the difference was not significant (P = 0.47).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Robotic surgery is feasible for diverticular disease compared to laparoscopic left colectomy. Our study observed a reduction in the conversion to open rate, reduced morbidity, and less ileus while demonstrating similar rates of stoma formation, anastomotic leak, and mortality. However, more high-quality research needs to be conducted to investigate this further. The study is registered in Prospero (reg # CRD42023440509).</p>","PeriodicalId":51192,"journal":{"name":"Techniques in Coloproctology","volume":"29 1","pages":"121"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12104100/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Techniques in Coloproctology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-025-03155-x","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Around 50% of people aged 60 years and above are affected by diverticular disease, and 25% of these individuals will require surgical intervention. Our objective is to compare the results of left colonic resection for sigmoid diverticular disease using both robotic and laparoscopic approaches. Our primary aim is to conduct a meta-analysis while investigating the rates of conversion to open surgery, stoma and complications between the two methods.

Methodology: A systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. A meta-analysis was performed using RevMan Version 5.4 software. The random-effect model was employed to pool dichotomous outcomes and estimate risk and odds ratios (OR).

Results: Eight studies were thought to fulfil the eligibility criteria: 1892 patients (49.2%) had robotic surgery, and 1952 patients (50.84%) underwent a laparoscopic approach. There were fewer conversions to open surgery in the robotic group when compared to the laparoscopic group (P < 0.00001), a lower rate of postoperative ileus (P = 0.005), shorter length of stay (mean difference (MD) 0.18 P = 0.003) and fewer morbidities (P = 0.002). There were similar rates of stoma formation (4.7%, P = 1.00), anastomotic leak (2.6%, P = 0.85) and mortality (0.3% vs 0.2%, P = 0.59). The operative time was shorter in the robotic approach, although the difference was not significant (P = 0.47).

Conclusion: Robotic surgery is feasible for diverticular disease compared to laparoscopic left colectomy. Our study observed a reduction in the conversion to open rate, reduced morbidity, and less ileus while demonstrating similar rates of stoma formation, anastomotic leak, and mortality. However, more high-quality research needs to be conducted to investigate this further. The study is registered in Prospero (reg # CRD42023440509).

憩室疾病的左结肠切除术:比较机器人和腹腔镜切除术的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:大约50%的60岁及以上的人患有憩室疾病,其中25%的人需要手术干预。我们的目的是比较机器人和腹腔镜下左结肠切除术治疗乙状结肠憩室疾病的结果。我们的主要目的是进行一项meta分析,同时调查两种方法之间转换为开放手术的比率、造口和并发症。方法:按照PRISMA指南进行系统评价。采用RevMan Version 5.4软件进行meta分析。随机效应模型用于汇总二分类结果并估计风险和优势比(OR)。结果:8项研究被认为符合资格标准:1892例患者(49.2%)接受了机器人手术,1952例患者(50.84%)接受了腹腔镜手术。与腹腔镜组相比,机器人组转向开放手术的次数较少(P结论:与腹腔镜左结肠切除术相比,机器人手术治疗憩室疾病是可行的。我们的研究观察到转开率降低,发病率降低,肠梗阻减少,同时显示出相似的造口率,吻合口漏和死亡率。然而,需要进行更多高质量的研究来进一步调查。该研究已在Prospero注册(注册号:CRD42023440509)。
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
Techniques in Coloproctology
Techniques in Coloproctology GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-SURGERY
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
9.10%
发文量
176
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Techniques in Coloproctology is an international journal fully devoted to diagnostic and operative procedures carried out in the management of colorectal diseases. Imaging, clinical physiology, laparoscopy, open abdominal surgery and proctoperineology are the main topics covered by the journal. Reviews, original articles, technical notes and short communications with many detailed illustrations render this publication indispensable for coloproctologists and related specialists. Both surgeons and gastroenterologists are represented on the distinguished Editorial Board, together with pathologists, radiologists and basic scientists from all over the world. The journal is strongly recommended to those who wish to be updated on recent developments in the field, and improve the standards of their work. Manuscripts submitted for publication must contain a statement to the effect that all human studies have been reviewed by the appropriate ethics committee and have therefore been performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in an appropriate version of the 1965 Declaration of Helsinki. It should also be stated clearly in the text that all persons gave their informed consent prior to their inclusion in the study. Details that might disclose the identity of the subjects under study should be omitted. Reports of animal experiments must state that the Principles of Laboratory Animal Care (NIH publication no. 86-23 revised 1985) were followed as were applicable national laws (e.g. the current version of the German Law on the Protection of Animals). The Editor-in-Chief reserves the right to reject manuscripts that do not comply with the above-mentioned requirements. Authors will be held responsible for false statements or for failure to fulfill such requirements.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信