Gahunia S, Wyatt J, Powell S G, Mahdi S, Ahmed S, Altaf K
Department of Colorectal Surgery, Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, L7 8XP, UK.
Institute of Life Course and Medical Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L1 8JX, UK.
Tech Coloproctol. 2025 Apr 8;29(1):98. doi: 10.1007/s10151-025-03141-3.
Evidence of superiority of robotic-assisted surgery for colorectal resections remains limited. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare robotic-assisted and laparoscopic surgical techniques in high-risk patients undergoing resections for colorectal cancer.
Systematic searches were performed using Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane library databases from inception until December 2024. Randomised and non-randomised studies reporting outcomes of robotic-assisted or laparoscopic resections in the following high-risk categories were included: obesity, male gender, the elderly, low rectal cancer, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and previous abdominal surgery. Comparative meta-analyses for all sufficiently reported outcomes were completed. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I and RoB 2 tools for non-randomised and randomised studies, respectively.
48 studies, including a total of 34,846 patients were eligible for inclusion and 32 studies were utilised in the comparative meta-analyses. Conversion to open rates were significantly lower for robotic-assisted surgery in patients with obesity, male patients and patients with low rectal tumours (obese OR 0.41 [CI 0.32-0.51], p < 0.00001); male gender (OR 0.28 [CI 0.22-0.34], p < 0.00001); low tumours OR 0.10 [CI 0.02-0.58], p = 0.01). Length of stay was significantly reduced for robotic-assisted surgery in patients with obesity (SMD 0.25 [CI - 0.41 to - 0.09], p = 0.002). Operative time was significantly longer in all subgroups (obesity SMD 0.57 [CI 0.31-0.83], p < 0.0001; male gender SMD 0.77 [CI 0.17-1.37], p = 0.01; elderly SMD 0.50 [CI 0.18-0.83], p = 0.002; low rectal tumours SMD 0.48 [CI 0.12-0.84], p = 0.008; neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy SMD 0.72 [CI 0.34-1.09], p = 0.0002; previous surgery SMD 1.55 [CI 0.05-3.06], p = 0.04). When calculable, blood loss, length of stay, complication rate and lymph node yield were comparable in all subgroups.
This review provides further evidence of non-inferiority of robotic-assisted surgery for colorectal cancer and demonstrates conversion rates are superior in specific, technically challenging operations.
机器人辅助手术用于结直肠切除术的优势证据仍然有限。本系统评价和荟萃分析旨在比较机器人辅助手术与腹腔镜手术技术在接受结直肠癌切除术的高危患者中的效果。
使用PubMed、Embase和Cochrane图书馆数据库进行系统检索,检索时间从数据库建立至2024年12月。纳入报告以下高危类别中机器人辅助或腹腔镜切除术结果的随机和非随机研究:肥胖、男性、老年人、低位直肠癌、新辅助放化疗以及既往腹部手术。对所有充分报告结局进行比较性荟萃分析。分别使用ROBINS-I和RoB 2工具评估非随机和随机研究的偏倚风险。
48项研究,共34846例患者符合纳入标准,32项研究用于比较性荟萃分析。肥胖患者、男性患者和低位直肠肿瘤患者中,机器人辅助手术的中转开腹率显著更低(肥胖患者:OR 0.41 [CI 0.32 - 0.51];p < 0.00001;男性:OR 0.28 [CI 0.22 - 0.34];p < 0.00001;低位肿瘤:OR 0.10 [CI 0.02 - 0.58];p = 0.01)。肥胖患者中,机器人辅助手术的住院时间显著缩短(SMD 0.25 [CI - 0.41至 - 0.09];p = 0.002)。所有亚组中,机器人辅助手术的手术时间均显著更长(肥胖:SMD 0.57 [CI 0.31 - 0.83];p < 0.0001;男性:SMD 0.77 [CI 0.17 - 1.37];p = 0.01;老年人:SMD 0.50 [CI 0.18 - 0.83];p = 0.002;低位直肠肿瘤:SMD 0.48 [CI 0.12 - 0.84];p = 0.008;新辅助放化疗:SMD 0.72 [CI 0.34 - 1.09];p = 0.0002;既往手术:SMD 1.55 [CI 0.05 - 3.06];p = 0.04)。在可计算的情况下,所有亚组中的失血量、住院时间、并发症发生率和淋巴结获取数相当。
本评价为机器人辅助手术用于结直肠癌的非劣效性提供了进一步证据,并表明在特定的、技术上具有挑战性的手术中,机器人辅助手术的中转率更高。