Background: This study aimed to review the new evidence to understand whether the robotic approach could find some clear indication also in left colectomy. Methods: A systematic review of studies published from 2004 to 2022 in the Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus databases and comparing laparoscopic (LLC) and robotic left colectomy (RLC) was performed. All comparative studies evaluating robotic left colectomy (RLC) versus laparoscopic (LLC) left colectomy with at least 20 patients in the robotic arm were included. Abstract, editorials, and reviews were excluded. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale for cohort studies was used to assess the methodological quality. The random-effect model was used to calculate pooled effect estimates. Results: Among the 139 articles identified, 11 were eligible, with a total of 52,589 patients (RLC, n = 13,506 versus LLC, n = 39,083). The rate of conversion to open surgery was lower for robotic procedures (RR 0.5, 0.5–0.6; p < 0.001). Operative time was longer for the robotic procedures in the pooled analysis (WMD 39.1, 17.3–60.9, p = 0.002). Overall complications (RR 0.9, 0.8–0.9, p < 0.001), anastomotic leaks (RR 0.7, 0.7–0.8; p < 0.001), and superficial wound infection (RR 3.1, 2.8–3.4; p < 0.001) were less common after RLC. There were no significant differences in mortality (RR 1.1; 0.8–1.6, p = 0.124). There were no differences between RLC and LLC with regards to postoperative variables in the subgroup analysis on malignancies. Conclusions: Robotic left colectomy requires less conversion to open surgery than the standard laparoscopic approach. Postoperative morbidity rates seemed to be lower during RLC, but this was not confirmed in the procedures performed for malignancies.

Solaini L., Bocchino A., Avanzolini A., Annunziata D., Cavaliere D., Ercolani G. (2022). Robotic versus laparoscopic left colectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COLORECTAL DISEASE, 37(7), 1497-1507 [10.1007/s00384-022-04194-8].

Robotic versus laparoscopic left colectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Solaini L.
;
Bocchino A.;Annunziata D.;Ercolani G.
2022

Abstract

Background: This study aimed to review the new evidence to understand whether the robotic approach could find some clear indication also in left colectomy. Methods: A systematic review of studies published from 2004 to 2022 in the Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus databases and comparing laparoscopic (LLC) and robotic left colectomy (RLC) was performed. All comparative studies evaluating robotic left colectomy (RLC) versus laparoscopic (LLC) left colectomy with at least 20 patients in the robotic arm were included. Abstract, editorials, and reviews were excluded. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale for cohort studies was used to assess the methodological quality. The random-effect model was used to calculate pooled effect estimates. Results: Among the 139 articles identified, 11 were eligible, with a total of 52,589 patients (RLC, n = 13,506 versus LLC, n = 39,083). The rate of conversion to open surgery was lower for robotic procedures (RR 0.5, 0.5–0.6; p < 0.001). Operative time was longer for the robotic procedures in the pooled analysis (WMD 39.1, 17.3–60.9, p = 0.002). Overall complications (RR 0.9, 0.8–0.9, p < 0.001), anastomotic leaks (RR 0.7, 0.7–0.8; p < 0.001), and superficial wound infection (RR 3.1, 2.8–3.4; p < 0.001) were less common after RLC. There were no significant differences in mortality (RR 1.1; 0.8–1.6, p = 0.124). There were no differences between RLC and LLC with regards to postoperative variables in the subgroup analysis on malignancies. Conclusions: Robotic left colectomy requires less conversion to open surgery than the standard laparoscopic approach. Postoperative morbidity rates seemed to be lower during RLC, but this was not confirmed in the procedures performed for malignancies.
2022
Solaini L., Bocchino A., Avanzolini A., Annunziata D., Cavaliere D., Ercolani G. (2022). Robotic versus laparoscopic left colectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COLORECTAL DISEASE, 37(7), 1497-1507 [10.1007/s00384-022-04194-8].
Solaini L.; Bocchino A.; Avanzolini A.; Annunziata D.; Cavaliere D.; Ercolani G.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
s00384-022-04194-8.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipo: Versione (PDF) editoriale
Licenza: Licenza per Accesso Aperto. Creative Commons Attribuzione (CCBY)
Dimensione 2.44 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
2.44 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri
384_2022_4194_MOESM1_ESM.docx

accesso aperto

Tipo: File Supplementare
Licenza: Licenza per Accesso Aperto. Creative Commons Attribuzione (CCBY)
Dimensione 25.52 kB
Formato Microsoft Word XML
25.52 kB Microsoft Word XML Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11585/899661
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 1
  • Scopus 30
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 22
social impact