Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Lateral Lymph Node Dissection for Advanced Pelvic Cancers: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

IF 1.6 Q4 ONCOLOGY
Mohamed Ali Chaouch, Paul Leblanc-Even, Ahmed Loghmari, Adriano Carneiro da Costa, Alessandro Mazzotta, Salah Khayat, Bassem Krimi, Amine Gouader, Jim Khan, Christoph Reissfelder, Wahid Fattal, Hani Oweira
{"title":"Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Lateral Lymph Node Dissection for Advanced Pelvic Cancers: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.","authors":"Mohamed Ali Chaouch, Paul Leblanc-Even, Ahmed Loghmari, Adriano Carneiro da Costa, Alessandro Mazzotta, Salah Khayat, Bassem Krimi, Amine Gouader, Jim Khan, Christoph Reissfelder, Wahid Fattal, Hani Oweira","doi":"10.1007/s12029-025-01251-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Lateral pelvic lymph node dissection (LPND) is a key component in the surgical treatment of advanced pelvic malignancies. Minimally invasive techniques have evolved over the past decade, with laparoscopic surgery as the traditional standard and robotic-assisted surgery emerging as a promising alternative. This study aimed to systematically compare robotic (R-LPND) and laparoscopic (L-LPND) approaches in terms of perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing LPND for advanced pelvic cancers.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. The search was performed until April 1, 2024. The primary outcome was postoperative morbidity. Secondary outcomes included operative time, LPND-specific operative time, hospital stay duration, number of lymph nodes harvested, and rate of major complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eleven studies with 667 robotic and 568 laparoscopic cases were included. Robotic LPND was associated with significantly lower postoperative morbidity (OR 0.52; p = 0.02) and shorter hospital stays (MD - 2.30 days; p = 0.0003). However, robotic procedures had significantly longer operative times (MD 40.58 min; p = 0.003). No significant differences were observed in the number of lymph nodes harvested, LPND time, or rates of major complications. Heterogeneity was moderate to high for most outcomes, and the overall certainty of evidence ranged from low to moderate.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Robotic LPND may offer clinical benefits in terms of reduced morbidity and shorter hospitalization compared to laparoscopic surgery, although it is associated with longer operative time. These findings are based on evidence of low to moderate certainty and should be interpreted with caution due to the predominance of retrospective studies and notable inter-study heterogeneity.</p>","PeriodicalId":15895,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Gastrointestinal Cancer","volume":"56 1","pages":"151"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Gastrointestinal Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12029-025-01251-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Lateral pelvic lymph node dissection (LPND) is a key component in the surgical treatment of advanced pelvic malignancies. Minimally invasive techniques have evolved over the past decade, with laparoscopic surgery as the traditional standard and robotic-assisted surgery emerging as a promising alternative. This study aimed to systematically compare robotic (R-LPND) and laparoscopic (L-LPND) approaches in terms of perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing LPND for advanced pelvic cancers.

Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. The search was performed until April 1, 2024. The primary outcome was postoperative morbidity. Secondary outcomes included operative time, LPND-specific operative time, hospital stay duration, number of lymph nodes harvested, and rate of major complications.

Results: Eleven studies with 667 robotic and 568 laparoscopic cases were included. Robotic LPND was associated with significantly lower postoperative morbidity (OR 0.52; p = 0.02) and shorter hospital stays (MD - 2.30 days; p = 0.0003). However, robotic procedures had significantly longer operative times (MD 40.58 min; p = 0.003). No significant differences were observed in the number of lymph nodes harvested, LPND time, or rates of major complications. Heterogeneity was moderate to high for most outcomes, and the overall certainty of evidence ranged from low to moderate.

Conclusion: Robotic LPND may offer clinical benefits in terms of reduced morbidity and shorter hospitalization compared to laparoscopic surgery, although it is associated with longer operative time. These findings are based on evidence of low to moderate certainty and should be interpreted with caution due to the predominance of retrospective studies and notable inter-study heterogeneity.

机器人与腹腔镜侧淋巴结清扫治疗晚期盆腔癌:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:盆腔外侧淋巴结清扫术(lnd)是晚期盆腔恶性肿瘤手术治疗的关键组成部分。微创技术在过去十年中不断发展,腹腔镜手术是传统的标准手术,机器人辅助手术是一种很有前途的选择。本研究旨在系统比较机器人(r - lnd)和腹腔镜(l - lnd)入路对晚期盆腔癌患者行lnd手术的围手术期预后。方法:按照PRISMA 2020指南进行系统评价和荟萃分析。搜寻工作一直持续到2024年4月1日。主要结局是术后发病率。次要结局包括手术时间、lnd特异性手术时间、住院时间、淋巴结数量和主要并发症发生率。结果:纳入11项研究,机器人667例,腹腔镜568例。机器人lpd与较低的术后发病率相关(OR 0.52;p = 0.02)和较短的住院时间(MD - 2.30天;p = 0.0003)。然而,机器人手术的手术时间明显更长(MD 40.58分钟;p = 0.003)。在淋巴结数量、lpd时间或主要并发症发生率方面没有观察到显著差异。大多数结果的异质性从中等到高度不等,证据的总体确定性从低到中等不等。结论:与腹腔镜手术相比,机器人lnd在降低发病率和缩短住院时间方面可能具有临床优势,尽管它与较长的手术时间相关。这些发现基于低至中等确定性的证据,由于回顾性研究占主导地位,且研究间存在显著异质性,因此应谨慎解释。
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
3.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
121
期刊介绍: The Journal of Gastrointestinal Cancer is a multidisciplinary medium for the publication of novel research pertaining to cancers arising from the gastrointestinal tract.The journal is dedicated to the most rapid publication possible.The journal publishes papers in all relevant fields, emphasizing those studies that are helpful in understanding and treating cancers affecting the esophagus, stomach, liver, gallbladder and biliary tree, pancreas, small bowel, large bowel, rectum, and anus. In addition, the Journal of Gastrointestinal Cancer publishes basic and translational scientific information from studies providing insight into the etiology and progression of cancers affecting these organs. New insights are provided from diverse areas of research such as studies exploring pre-neoplastic states, risk factors, epidemiology, genetics, preclinical therapeutics, surgery, radiation therapy, novel medical therapeutics, clinical trials, and outcome studies.In addition to reports of original clinical and experimental studies, the journal also publishes: case reports, state-of-the-art reviews on topics of immediate interest or importance; invited articles analyzing particular areas of pancreatic research and knowledge; perspectives in which critical evaluation and conflicting opinions about current topics may be expressed; meeting highlights that summarize important points presented at recent meetings; abstracts of symposia and conferences; book reviews; hypotheses; Letters to the Editors; and other items of special interest, including:Complex Cases in GI Oncology:  This is a new initiative to provide a forum to review and discuss the history and management of complex and involved gastrointestinal oncology cases. The format will be similar to a teaching case conference where a case vignette is presented and is followed by a series of questions and discussion points. A brief reference list supporting the points made in discussion would be expected.
×
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