Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Techniques in Coloproctology
Published in: Techniques in Coloproctology 3/2019

01-03-2019 | Rectal Cancer | Review Article

Laparoscopic vs. robotic rectal cancer surgery and the effect on conversion rates: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity-score-matched studies

Authors: K. Phan, H. R. Kahlaee, S. H. Kim, J. W. T. Toh

Published in: Techniques in Coloproctology | Issue 3/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The usage of robotic surgery in rectal cancer is increasing, but there is an ongoing debate as to whether it provides any benefit. The aim of the present study was to determine if robotic surgery results in less conversion to an open operation than laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery.

Methods

A meta-analysis was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using Ovid Medline, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, ACP Journal Club and Database of Abstracts of Review of Effectiveness. Included were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity-score-matched (PSM) studies comparing a robotic vs. laparoscopic approach to rectal cancer surgery. The primary endpoint was conversion to open. All statistical analyses and data synthesis were conducted using STATA/IC version 14·2, Windows 64 bit (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX, USA)

Results

Six hundred and twenty-one studies were identified through electronic database search. After application of selection criteria as per PRISMA and MOOSE criteria, six RCTs and five PSM articles were analyzed. From the six RCTs, 512 robotic and 519 laparoscopic cases were evaluated. There was a significantly lower rate of conversion for the robotic surgery arm (4.1% vs. 8.1%, OR 0.28; 95% CI 0.00–0.57). Of the five PSM studies, 2097 robotic and 3053 laparoscopic cases were evaluated. There was a significantly lower conversion to open rate found in the robotic surgery cohort (7.4% vs. 15.6%; OR 0.39; 95% CI 0.30–0.47). Pooled RCT and PSM data demonstrated significantly lower conversion rates for robotic surgery (6.7% vs. 14.5%; OR 0.38; 95% CI 0.30–0.46).

Conclusions

Robotic surgery for rectal cancer is associated with reduced conversion to open surgery compared to a laparoscopic approach.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Yang Y, Wang F, Zhang P et al (2012) Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal disease, focusing on rectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 19(12):3727–3736CrossRefPubMed
2.
3.
Stevenson AR, Solomon MJ, Lumley JW et al (2015) Effect of laparoscopic-assisted resection vs open resection on pathological outcomes in rectal cancer: the ALaCaRT randomized clinical trial. JAMA 314(13):1356–1363CrossRefPubMed
4.
Fleshman J, Branda M, Sargent DJ et al (2015) Effect of laparoscopic-assisted resection vs open resection of stage II or III rectal cancer on pathologic outcomes: the ACOSOG Z6051 randomized clinical trial. JAMA 314(13):1346–1355CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Baik SH, Ko YT, Kang CM et al (2008) Robotic tumor-specific mesorectal excision of rectal cancer: short-term outcome of a pilot randomized trial. Surg Endosc 22(7):1601–1608CrossRefPubMed
6.
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. JAMA 318(16):1569CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
Ortiz-Oshiro E, Sanchez-Egido I, Moreno-Sierra J, Perez CF, Diaz JS, Fernandez-Represa JA (2012) Robotic assistance may reduce conversion to open in rectal carcinoma laparoscopic surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg MRCAS 8(3):360–370CrossRef
8.
Kim CW, Baik SH, Roh YH et al (2015) Cost-effectiveness of robotic surgery for rectal cancer focusing on short-term outcomes: a propensity score-matching analysis. Medicine 94(22):e823CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Pai A, Marecik SJ, Park JJ, Melich G, Sulo S, Prasad LM (2015) Oncologic and clinicopathologic outcomes of robot-assisted total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 58(7):659–667CrossRefPubMed
10.
11.
12.
Memon S, Heriot AG, Murphy DG, Bressel M, Lynch AC (2012) Robotic versus laparoscopic proctectomy for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 19(7):2095–2101CrossRefPubMed
13.
14.
Clancy C, O’Leary DP, Burke JP et al (2015) A meta-analysis to determine the oncological implications of conversion in laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery. Colorectal Dis 17(6):482–490CrossRefPubMed
15.
Chan AC, Poon JT, Fan JK, Lo SH, Law WL (2008) Impact of conversion on the long-term outcome in laparoscopic resection of colorectal cancer. Surg Endosc 22(12):2625–2630CrossRefPubMed
16.
Rottoli M, Bona S, Rosati R et al (2009) Laparoscopic rectal resection for cancer: effects of conversion on short-term outcome and survival. Ann Surg Oncol 16(5):1279–1286CrossRefPubMed
17.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 151(4):264–269 (W264) CrossRefPubMed
18.
Phan K, Tian DH, Cao C, Black D, Yan TD (2015) Systematic review and meta-analysis: techniques and a guide for the academic surgeon. Ann Cardiothorac Surg 4(2):112–122PubMedPubMedCentral
19.
20.
D’Agostino RB Jr (2007) Propensity scores in cardiovascular research. Circulation 115(17):2340–2343CrossRefPubMed
21.
Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC et al (2000) Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 283(15):2008–2012CrossRefPubMed
22.
Jimenez Rodriguez RM, Diaz Pavon JM, de Juan FDLP, Prendes Sillero E, Hisnard Cadet Dussort JM, Padillo J (2011) Prospective randomised study: robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery in colorectal cancer resection. Cirugia Espanola 89(7):432–438CrossRefPubMed
23.
Patriti A, Ceccarelli G, Bartoli A, Spaziani A, Biancafarina A, Casciola L (2009) Short- and medium-term outcome of robot-assisted and traditional laparoscopic rectal resection. JSLS J Soc Laparoendosc Surg 13(2):176–183
24.
Wei Y, Xu J, Ren L et al (2017) Robotic vs. laparoscopic vs. open abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer: short-term outcomes of a single-center prospective randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 35(15_suppl):3603–3603CrossRef
25.
Kim MJ, Park SC, Park JW et al (2017) Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. Ann Surg 2017:1
26.
Ackerman SJ, Daniel S, Baik R et al (2017) Comparison of complication and conversion rates between robotic-assisted and laparoscopic rectal resection for rectal cancer: which patients and providers could benefit most from robotic-assisted surgery? J Med Econ 2017:1–8
27.
Cho MS, Baek SJ, Hur H et al (2015) Short and long-term outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a case-matched retrospective study. Medicine 94(11):e522CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
Park JS, Kim NK, Kim SH et al (2015) Multicentre study of robotic intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer. Br J Surg 102(12):1567–1573CrossRefPubMed
29.
Kang J, Yoon KJ, Min BS et al (2013) The impact of robotic surgery for mid and low rectal cancer: a case-matched analysis of a 3-arm comparison–open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgery. Ann Surg 257(1):95–101CrossRefPubMed
30.
Kim J, Baek SJ, Kang DW et al (2017) Robotic resection is a good prognostic factor in rectal cancer compared with laparoscopic resection: long-term survival analysis using propensity score matching. Dis Colon Rectum 60(3):266–273PubMed
31.
Speicher PJ, Englum BR, Ganapathi AM, Nussbaum DP, Mantyh CR, Migaly J (2015) Robotic low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a national perspective on short-term oncologic outcomes. Ann Surg 262(6):1040–1045CrossRefPubMed
32.
33.
van der Pas MH, Haglind E, Cuesta MA et al (2013) Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer (COLOR II): short-term outcomes of a randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 14(3):210–218CrossRefPubMed
34.
35.
Metadata
Title
Laparoscopic vs. robotic rectal cancer surgery and the effect on conversion rates: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity-score-matched studies
Authors
K. Phan
H. R. Kahlaee
S. H. Kim
J. W. T. Toh
Publication date
01-03-2019
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Techniques in Coloproctology / Issue 3/2019
Print ISSN: 1123-6337
Electronic ISSN: 1128-045X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-018-1920-0

Other articles of this Issue 3/2019

Techniques in Coloproctology 3/2019 Go to the issue

Original Article

Stapled transanal rectal resection for the treatment of rectocele associated with obstructed defecation syndrome: a large series of 262 consecutive patients

The Last Image

Ring-shaped fibroepithelial polyps of the anus

Short Communication

Level of inferior mesenteric artery ligation in low rectal cancer surgery: high tie preferred over low tie

Congress Report

An update of the aims and achievements during the first year of the Young Group of the Italian Society of Colorectal Surgery (Y-SICCR)

Correction

Correction to: Topical antimicrobial prophylaxis in colorectal surgery for the prevention of surgical wound infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Review

Purse-string vs. linear skin closure at loop ileostomy reversal: a systematic review and meta-analysis