Difference in surgical outcomes of rectal cancer by study design: meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials, case-matched studies, and cohort studies.
Journal
BJS open
ISSN: 2474-9842
Titre abrégé: BJS Open
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101722685
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 03 2021
05 03 2021
Historique:
received:
18
06
2020
accepted:
07
12
2020
entrez:
16
3
2021
pubmed:
17
3
2021
medline:
23
11
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
RCTs are considered the standard in surgical research, whereas case-matched studies and propensity score matching studies are conducted as an alternative option. Both study designs have been used to investigate the potential superiority of robotic surgery over laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. However, no conclusion has been reached regarding whether there are differences in findings according to study design. This study aimed to examine similarities and differences in findings relating to robotic surgery for rectal cancer by study design. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane CENTRAL to identify RCTs, case-matched studies, and cohort studies that compared robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. Primary outcomes were incidence of postoperative overall complications, incidence of anastomotic leakage, and postoperative mortality. Meta-analyses were performed for each study design using a random-effects model. Fifty-nine articles were identified and reviewed. No differences were observed in incidence of anastomotic leakage, mortality, rate of positive circumferential resection margins, conversion rate, and duration of operation by study design. With respect to the incidence of postoperative overall complications and duration of hospital stay, the superiority of robotic surgery was most evident in cohort studies (risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95 per cent c.i. 0.74 to 0.92, P < 0.001; mean difference (MD) -1.11 (95 per cent c.i. -1.86 to -0.36) days, P = 0.004; respectively), and least evident in RCTs (RR 1.12, 0.91 to 1.38, P = 0.27; MD -0.28 (-1.44 to 0.88) days, P = 0.64; respectively). Results of case-matched studies were often similar to those of RCTs in terms of outcomes of robotic surgery for rectal cancer. However, case-matched studies occasionally overestimated the effects of interventions compared with RCTs.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
RCTs are considered the standard in surgical research, whereas case-matched studies and propensity score matching studies are conducted as an alternative option. Both study designs have been used to investigate the potential superiority of robotic surgery over laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. However, no conclusion has been reached regarding whether there are differences in findings according to study design. This study aimed to examine similarities and differences in findings relating to robotic surgery for rectal cancer by study design.
METHODS
A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane CENTRAL to identify RCTs, case-matched studies, and cohort studies that compared robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. Primary outcomes were incidence of postoperative overall complications, incidence of anastomotic leakage, and postoperative mortality. Meta-analyses were performed for each study design using a random-effects model.
RESULTS
Fifty-nine articles were identified and reviewed. No differences were observed in incidence of anastomotic leakage, mortality, rate of positive circumferential resection margins, conversion rate, and duration of operation by study design. With respect to the incidence of postoperative overall complications and duration of hospital stay, the superiority of robotic surgery was most evident in cohort studies (risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95 per cent c.i. 0.74 to 0.92, P < 0.001; mean difference (MD) -1.11 (95 per cent c.i. -1.86 to -0.36) days, P = 0.004; respectively), and least evident in RCTs (RR 1.12, 0.91 to 1.38, P = 0.27; MD -0.28 (-1.44 to 0.88) days, P = 0.64; respectively).
CONCLUSION
Results of case-matched studies were often similar to those of RCTs in terms of outcomes of robotic surgery for rectal cancer. However, case-matched studies occasionally overestimated the effects of interventions compared with RCTs.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33724337
pii: 6173855
doi: 10.1093/bjsopen/zraa067
pmc: PMC7962725
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Society Ltd.
Références
Ann Surg. 2017 May;265(5):901-909
pubmed: 27232253
Stat Med. 1998 Oct 15;17(19):2265-81
pubmed: 9802183
Surg Endosc. 2017 Jul;31(7):2798-2807
pubmed: 27785627
Int J Colorectal Dis. 2018 Aug;33(8):1079-1086
pubmed: 29577170
J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Oct;64(10):1076-84
pubmed: 21482068
J Med Econ. 2018 Mar;21(3):254-261
pubmed: 29065737
JSLS. 2014 Jul-Sep;18(3):
pubmed: 25392653
Ann Surg Oncol. 2009 Jun;16(6):1480-7
pubmed: 19290486
Surg Endosc. 2013 Jan;27(1):48-55
pubmed: 22752275
Ann Surg. 2018 Feb;267(2):243-251
pubmed: 28549014
Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2014 Oct;24(5):452-6
pubmed: 25275815
Surg Endosc. 2013 Jun;27(6):1887-95
pubmed: 23292566
Ann Intern Med. 2002 Oct 15;137(8):693-5
pubmed: 12379071
Ann Surg Oncol. 2015 Apr;22(4):1219-25
pubmed: 25326398
Ann Surg Oncol. 2012 Aug;19(8):2485-93
pubmed: 22434245
Hepatogastroenterology. 2015 Jan-Feb;62(137):34-9
pubmed: 25911863
Surg Endosc. 2017 Apr;31(4):1728-1737
pubmed: 27631313
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015 Jul;150(1):14-9
pubmed: 25963441
Surg Today. 2019 Jul;49(7):556-570
pubmed: 30635740
Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2018 Aug;28(4):245-249
pubmed: 29912779
Surg Endosc. 2013 Nov;27(11):4157-63
pubmed: 23708725
Br J Surg. 2006 Apr;93(4):389-94
pubmed: 16400708
Surg Oncol. 2019 Jun;29:71-77
pubmed: 31196497
Int J Colorectal Dis. 2017 Feb;32(2):241-248
pubmed: 27770247
World J Surg. 2014 Jul;38(7):1834-42
pubmed: 24366278
Int J Colorectal Dis. 2017 Oct;32(10):1423-1429
pubmed: 28791457
Eur Heart J. 2012 Aug;33(15):1893-901
pubmed: 22711757
Minim Invasive Surg. 2018 Sep 2;2018:5836562
pubmed: 30245874
JAMA. 2001 Aug 15;286(7):821-30
pubmed: 11497536
JSLS. 2009 Apr-Jun;13(2):176-83
pubmed: 19660212
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005 Apr 20;5:13
pubmed: 15840177
JSLS. 2016 Jan-Mar;20(1):
pubmed: 27081292
Surg Endosc. 2018 May;32(5):2466-2473
pubmed: 29124406
Am J Surg. 2013 Oct;206(4):509-17
pubmed: 23809672
Surg Today. 2016 Aug;46(8):957-62
pubmed: 26482845
Int J Med Robot. 2017 Mar;13(1):
pubmed: 26748601
J Clin Epidemiol. 2015 Feb;68(2):112-21
pubmed: 25433444
Surgery. 2015 Jun;157(6):1121-9
pubmed: 25737005
Int J Colorectal Dis. 2018 Nov;33(11):1575-1581
pubmed: 29971488
Colorectal Dis. 2017 Dec;19(12):1092-1099
pubmed: 28644545
J Clin Oncol. 2007 Jul 20;25(21):3061-8
pubmed: 17634484
Surg Endosc. 2010 Nov;24(11):2888-94
pubmed: 20526623
Surg Endosc. 2018 Nov;32(11):4562-4570
pubmed: 29761276
Int J Med Robot. 2019 Feb;15(1):e1965
pubmed: 30318725
Medicine (Baltimore). 2017 Oct;96(40):e8171
pubmed: 28984767
Ann Surg. 2015 Jan;261(1):129-37
pubmed: 24662411
BMJ. 2019 Aug 28;366:l4898
pubmed: 31462531
Int J Med Robot. 2014 Sep;10(3):300-5
pubmed: 24692203
Am Surg. 2019 Mar 1;85(3):294-302
pubmed: 30947778
Dis Colon Rectum. 2017 Mar;60(3):266-273
pubmed: 28177988
Surg Innov. 2015 Aug;22(4):368-75
pubmed: 25377216
Surg Endosc. 2008 Jul;22(7):1601-8
pubmed: 18270772
Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2013 Jun;23(3):316-9
pubmed: 23752000
J Robot Surg. 2015 Sep;9(3):187-94
pubmed: 26531198
Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2017 Nov;99(8):607-613
pubmed: 29022779
Updates Surg. 2019 Jun;71(2):331-338
pubmed: 31028665
World J Gastroenterol. 2016 Apr 7;22(13):3602-10
pubmed: 27053852
Int J Colorectal Dis. 2013 Dec;28(12):1689-98
pubmed: 23948968
Br J Surg. 2015 Nov;102(12):1567-73
pubmed: 26312601
Ann Surg. 2006 Nov;244(5):668-76
pubmed: 17060757
Tech Coloproctol. 2017 May;21(5):355-361
pubmed: 28560480
Int J Colorectal Dis. 2018 Mar;33(3):285-289
pubmed: 29242972
J Atr Fibrillation. 2018 Dec 31;11(4):2130
pubmed: 31139292
Acta Chir Iugosl. 2010;57(3):29-35
pubmed: 21066980
Int J Colorectal Dis. 2014 May;29(5):555-62
pubmed: 24562546
Cancer Res Treat. 2016 Jan;48(1):225-31
pubmed: 25779367
Colorectal Dis. 2018 May;20(5):O103-O113
pubmed: 29460997
Ann Surg Oncol. 2010 Dec;17(12):3195-202
pubmed: 20589436
World J Surg. 2016 Apr;40(4):1010-6
pubmed: 26552907
Surg Endosc. 2006 Oct;20(10):1521-5
pubmed: 16897284
Ann Surg. 2017 Jul;266(1):21-22
pubmed: 28350566
Surg Endosc. 2011 Feb;25(2):521-5
pubmed: 20607559
Colorectal Dis. 2016 Nov;18(11):1063-1071
pubmed: 27154266