Completeness of total mesorectum excision of laparoscopic versus robotic surgery: a review with a meta-analysis.
Laparoscopic surgery
Robotic surgery
Total mesorectum excision
Journal
International journal of colorectal disease
ISSN: 1432-1262
Titre abrégé: Int J Colorectal Dis
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8607899
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2019
Jun 2019
Historique:
accepted:
25
04
2019
pubmed:
6
5
2019
medline:
16
11
2019
entrez:
7
5
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
TME has revolutionized the surgical management of rectal cancer, and since the introduction of robotic TME (RTME), many reports have shown the feasibility and the safety of this approach. However, concerns persist regarding the advantages of robotic in surgery for the completeness of TME. The aim of this review is to compare robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) in rectal cancer, focusing on the completeness of TME. A systematic search was performed in the electronic databases for all available studies comparing RTME versus conventional laparoscopic LTME with declared grade of mesorectum excision. Data regarding sample size, clinical and demographic characteristics, number of complete, nearly complete, and incomplete TME were extracted. Primary outcome was the number of complete TME in robotic and laparoscopic procedures. Secondary outcomes were the numbers of nearly complete and incomplete TME in robotic and laparoscopic rectal resections. Twelve articles were included in the final analysis. Complete TME was reported by all authors, involving 1510 procedures, showing a significant difference in favor of robotic surgery (OR = 1.83, 95% CI 1.08-3.10, p = 0.03). Nearly complete and incomplete TME showed no significant difference between the procedures. Meta-regression analysis showed that none of patients' and tumors' characteristics significantly impacted on complete TME. Our results underline that the robotic approach to rectal resection is the better way to obtain a complete TME. However, it is mandatory that randomized clinical trials should be performed to assess definitively if robotic minimally invasive surgery is better than a laparoscopic resection.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
TME has revolutionized the surgical management of rectal cancer, and since the introduction of robotic TME (RTME), many reports have shown the feasibility and the safety of this approach. However, concerns persist regarding the advantages of robotic in surgery for the completeness of TME. The aim of this review is to compare robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) in rectal cancer, focusing on the completeness of TME.
METHODS
METHODS
A systematic search was performed in the electronic databases for all available studies comparing RTME versus conventional laparoscopic LTME with declared grade of mesorectum excision. Data regarding sample size, clinical and demographic characteristics, number of complete, nearly complete, and incomplete TME were extracted. Primary outcome was the number of complete TME in robotic and laparoscopic procedures. Secondary outcomes were the numbers of nearly complete and incomplete TME in robotic and laparoscopic rectal resections.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Twelve articles were included in the final analysis. Complete TME was reported by all authors, involving 1510 procedures, showing a significant difference in favor of robotic surgery (OR = 1.83, 95% CI 1.08-3.10, p = 0.03). Nearly complete and incomplete TME showed no significant difference between the procedures. Meta-regression analysis showed that none of patients' and tumors' characteristics significantly impacted on complete TME.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Our results underline that the robotic approach to rectal resection is the better way to obtain a complete TME. However, it is mandatory that randomized clinical trials should be performed to assess definitively if robotic minimally invasive surgery is better than a laparoscopic resection.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31056732
doi: 10.1007/s00384-019-03307-0
pii: 10.1007/s00384-019-03307-0
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
983-991Références
Biometrics. 2000 Jun;56(2):455-63
pubmed: 10877304
BMJ. 2001 Jul 14;323(7304):101-5
pubmed: 11451790
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005 Apr 20;5:13
pubmed: 15840177
PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097
pubmed: 19621072
Br J Surg. 2010 Nov;97(11):1638-45
pubmed: 20629110
Eur J Epidemiol. 2010 Sep;25(9):603-5
pubmed: 20652370
BMJ. 2011 Oct 18;343:d5928
pubmed: 22008217
Lancet Oncol. 2013 Mar;14(3):210-8
pubmed: 23395398
Colorectal Dis. 2014 Aug;16(8):603-9
pubmed: 24750995
J Gastrointest Surg. 2015 Mar;19(3):516-26
pubmed: 25394387
Cancer Res Treat. 2016 Jan;48(1):225-31
pubmed: 25779367
Surg Endosc. 2016 Apr;30(4):1337-43
pubmed: 26173546
JAMA. 2015 Oct 6;314(13):1346-55
pubmed: 26441179
JAMA. 2015 Oct 6;314(13):1356-63
pubmed: 26441180
Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2015 Sep;28(3):131-4
pubmed: 26491403
J Robot Surg. 2015 Sep;9(3):187-94
pubmed: 26531198
World J Surg. 2016 Apr;40(4):1010-6
pubmed: 26552907
Ann Surg Oncol. 2016 May;23(5):1594-600
pubmed: 26714950
Colorectal Dis. 2016 Nov;18(11):1063-1071
pubmed: 27154266
Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2016 Jun;26(3):259-64
pubmed: 27213786
Ann Surg. 2017 May;265(5):960-968
pubmed: 27232247
Surg Endosc. 2017 Apr;31(4):1728-1737
pubmed: 27631313
Surg Endosc. 2017 Oct;31(10):4085-4091
pubmed: 28271268
Medicine (Baltimore). 2017 Jul;96(29):e7585
pubmed: 28723798
Ann Surg. 2018 Jun;267(6):1034-1046
pubmed: 28984644
Br J Surg. 2017 Nov;104(12):1609-1619
pubmed: 29044484
JAMA. 2017 Oct 24;318(16):1569-1580
pubmed: 29067426
World J Gastroenterol. 2017 Nov 28;23(44):7906-7916
pubmed: 29209132
Surg Endosc. 2019 Feb;33(2):460-470
pubmed: 29967992
Int J Colorectal Dis. 2018 Nov;33(11):1575-1581
pubmed: 29971488
Br J Surg. 1982 Oct;69(10):613-6
pubmed: 6751457