Search

Purpose: Scarce research has reported the comparison between robotic and laparoscopic surgery in mid–low rectal cancer. Therefore, this meta-analysis is aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of the two surgical approaches. Methods: A comprehensive search of the databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Web of Science) was performed for studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic surgery. The outcomes of interest acquired from eight articles included three aspects: intraoperative conditions, postoperative status of patients, and complications. All data (robotic = 1350 patients, laparoscopic = 1330 patients) enrolled were analyzed using Rev Man 5.4. Results: Compared to the laparoscopic group, the robotic group indicated a noticeable superiority in estimated blood loss (P < 0.0001), number of lymph nodes dissected (P = 0.004), time to first flatus (P = 0.001), time to first fluid diet (P = 0.001), hospital stay (P < 0.0001), conversion (P = 0.009), and urinary retention (P = 0.0006), but devoted much more operation time (P = 0.0004). Conclusion: Robotic surgery was associated with superiority over laparoscopic surgery in increasing surgical safety, accelerating postoperative recovery, and reducing complications, which suggested that robotic surgery could be a safe and effective method for treating mid–low rectal cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The feasibility and effectiveness of selecting an intracorporeal or extracorporeal technique in left hemicolectomy remain poorly understood. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the difference between the two approaches regarding intraoperative and postoperative outcomes. Methods: A thorough exploration of online databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science) was executed to identify randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case control studies. The outcomes contained four aspects: intraoperative outcomes, postoperative complications, postoperative patient conditions, and postoperative outcomes. All of these data were analyzed using RevMan 5.4. Seven retrospective control trials (intracorporeal, 396 patients; extracorporeal, 426 patients) were evaluated. Results: Compared to the extracorporeal group, the intracorporeal group demonstrated superiority in incision length (P = 0.005), overall complications (P = 0.01), time to first flatus (P < 0.001), time to first stool (P = 0.005), time to first diet (P < 0.001) and hospital stay duration (P = 0.001). Conclusions: The intracorporeal technique is associated with superiority over the extracorporeal technique in reducing postoperative complications, promoting postoperative recovery of gastrointestinal function, and reducing hospital stay duration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]