Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of robotic‑assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for mid–low rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Review
  • Published:
Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding authors upon request.

References

  • Benson AB, Venook AP, Al-Hawary MM et al (2022) Rectal cancer, version 2.2022, NCCN Clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 20(10):1139–1167

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bianchi PP, Ceriani C, Locatelli A et al (2010) Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a comparative analysis of oncological safety and short-term outcomes. Surg Endosc 24(11):2888–2894

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Feng Q, Yuan W, Li T et al (2022) Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for middle and low rectal cancer (REAL): short-term outcomes of a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 7(11):991–1004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Heald RJ, Ryall RD (1986) Recurrence and survival after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Lancet 1(8496):1479–1482

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jayne D, Pigazzi A, Marshall H et al (2017) Effect of robotic-assisted vs conventional laparoscopic surgery on risk of conversion to open laparotomy among patients undergoing resection for rectal cancer: the ROLARR randomized clinical trial. JAMA 318(16):1569–1580

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Kamali D, Reddy A, Imam S, Omar K, Jha A, Jha M (2017) Short-term surgical outcomes and patient quality of life between robotic and laparoscopic extralevator abdominoperineal excision for adenocarcinoma of the rectum. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 99(8):607–613

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Kim MJ, Park SC, Park JW et al (2018) Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a phase II open label prospective randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 267(2):243–251

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Law WL, Foo DCC (2017) Comparison of short-term and oncologic outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic resection for mid- and distal rectal cancer. Surg Endosc 31(7):2798–2807

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lee SH, Kim DH, Lim SW (2018) Robotic versus laparoscopic intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis 33(12):1741–1753

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Li X, Wang T, Yao L et al (2017) The safety and effectiveness of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic TME in patients with rectal cancer: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Medicine (baltimore) 96(29):e7585

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Li R, Zhou J, Zhao S, Sun Q, Wang D (2023) Propensity matched analysis of robotic and laparoscopic operations for mid-low rectal cancer: short-term comparison of anal function and oncological outcomes. J Robot Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-023-01656-1

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Luca F, Craigg DK, Senthil M et al (2018) Sexual and urinary outcomes in robotic rectal surgery: review of the literature and technical considerations. Updates Surg 70(3):415–421

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Moszkowicz D, Alsaid B, Bessede T et al (2011) Where does pelvic nerve injury occur during rectal surgery for cancer? Colorectal Dis 13(12):1326–1334

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ng KT, Tsia AKV, Chong VYL (2019) Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis. World J Surg 43(4):1146–1161

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM et al (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372:n71

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Panteleimonitis S, Ahmed J, Ramachandra M, Farooq M, Harper M, Parvaiz A (2017) Urogenital function in robotic vs laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: a comparative study. Int J Colorectal Dis 32(2):241–248

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Park JS, Lee SM, Choi GS et al (2023) Comparison of laparoscopic versus robot-assisted surgery for rectal cancers: the COLRAR randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 278(1):31–38

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Qiu H, Yu D, Ye S, Shan R, Ai J, Shi J (2020) Long-term oncological outcomes in robotic versus laparoscopic approach for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Surg 80:225–230

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Saklani AP, Lim DR, Hur H et al (2013) Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for mid-low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy: comparison of oncologic outcomes. Int J Colorectal Dis 28(12):1689–1698

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Serin KR, Gultekin FA, Batman B et al (2015) Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for mid or low rectal cancer in male patients after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy: comparison of short-term outcomes. J Robot Surg 9(3):187–194

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stefanidis D, Wang F, Korndorffer JR Jr, Dunne JB, Scott DJ (2010) Robotic assistance improves intracorporeal suturing performance and safety in the operating room while decreasing operator workload. Surg Endosc 24(2):377–382

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sun Y, Xu H, Li Z et al (2016) Robotic versus laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol 14:61

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Tang B, Gao GM, Zou Z et al (2020) Efficacy comparison between robot-assisted and laparoscopic surgery for mid-low rectal cancer: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Zhonghua Wei Chang Wai Ke Za Zhi 23(4):377–383

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wang X, Cao G, Mao W, Lao W, He C (2020) Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Cancer Res Ther 16(5):979–989

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wee IJY, Kuo LJ, Ngu JC (2021) Urological and sexual function after robotic and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression. Int J Med Robot 17(1):1–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yamanashi T, Miura H, Tanaka T et al (2023) Short-term outcomes of robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for mid and low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: a propensity score-matched analysis. J Robot Surg 17(3):959–969

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yamaoka Y, Shiomi A, Kagawa H et al (2022) Robotic surgery for clinical T4 rectal cancer: short- and long-term outcomes. Surg Endosc 36(1):91–99

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We sincerely thank all the participants for their help in this study. Thanks are due to Dalian Medical University, Northern Jiangsu People’s Hospital.

Funding

This work was supported by [Galectin-1 and GRP78 interact in the endoplasmic reticulum to activate mesenchymal CAFs and promote the invasion and metastasis of gastric cancer through ATF4-SHH pathway] (81972269) and [Key Laboratory of Basic and Clinical Translation of Digestive/Metabolic Diseases] (YZ2020159).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Northern Jiangsu People’s Hospital Affiliated to Dalian Medical University, Yangzhou, 225001, China

    Qing Yao & Dao-Rong Wang

  2. Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Northern Jiangsu People’s Hospital, No. 98 Nantong West Road, Yangzhou, 225001, Jiangsu, China

    Jun Ren, Liu-Hua Wang & Dao-Rong Wang

  3. General Surgery Institute of Yangzhou, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, 225001, China

    Qing Yao, Jun Ren, Liu-Hua Wang & Dao-Rong Wang

  4. Yangzhou Key Laboratory of Basic and Clinical Transformation of Digestive and Metabolic, Yangzhou, 225001, China

    Qing Yao, Qian-Nan Sun, Jun Ren, Liu-Hua Wang & Dao-Rong Wang

  5. Medical Research Center of Northern Jiangsu People’s Hospital, Yangzhou, 225001, China

    Qian-Nan Sun

Authors
  1. Qing Yao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Qian-Nan Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jun Ren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Liu-Hua Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Dao-Rong Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by [QY] and [Q-NS]. The first draft of the manuscript was written by [QY] and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dao-Rong Wang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was not ethically reviewed, and there were no participants involved in the present study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yao, Q., Sun, QN., Ren, J. et al. Comparison of robotic‑assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for mid–low rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 149, 15207–15217 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00432-023-05228-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00432-023-05228-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation