nach oben

Erschienen in:

09.09.2020 | Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses

Laparoscopic versus robotic right colectomy with extra-corporeal or intra-corporeal anastomosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

verfasst von: Pietro Genova, Gianni Pantuso, Calogero Cipolla, Mario Adelfio Latteri, Solafah Abdalla, Jean-Christophe Paquet, Francesco Brunetti, Nicola de’Angelis, Salomone Di Saverio

Erschienen in: Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery | Ausgabe 5/2021

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC) versus robotic right colectomy (RRC) using homogeneous subgroup analyses for extra-corporeal anastomosis (EA) and intra-corporeal anastomosis (IA).

Methods

MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched up to April 2020 for prospective or retrospective studies comparing LRC versus RRC on at least one short- or long-term outcome. The primary outcome was the length of hospital stay (LOS). The secondary outcomes included operative and pathological results, survival, and total costs. LRC and RRC were compared using three homogeneous subgroups: without distinction by the type of anastomosis, EA only, and IA only. Pooled data analyses were performed using mean difference (MD) and random effects model.

Results

Thirty-seven of 448 studies were selected. The included patients were 21,397 for the LRC group and 2796 for the RRC group. Regardless for the type of anastomosis, RRC showed shorter LOS, lower blood loss, lower conversion rate, shorter time to flatus, and lower overall complication rate compared with LRC, but longer operative time and higher total costs. In the EA subgroup, RRC showed similar LOS, longer operative time, and higher costs compared with LRC, the other outcomes being similar. In the IA subgroup, RRC showed shorter LOS and longer operative time compared with LRC, with no difference for the remaining outcomes.

Conclusions

Most included articles are retrospective, providing low-quality evidence and limiting conclusions. The more frequent use of the IA seems to explain the advantages of RRC over LRC.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Yu-Min H, Yuan-Wen L, Yan-Jiun H, Po-Li W (2020) Comparison of clinical outcomes between laparoscopic and open surgery for left-sided colon cancer: a nationwide population-based study. Scientific Reports (Nature Publisher Group):10

Munasinghe A, Singh B, Mahmoud N, Joy M, Chang D, Penninckx F, Faiz O (2015) Reduced perioperative death following laparoscopic colorectal resection: results of an international observational study. Surg Endosc 29:3628–3639PubMedCrossRef

Neudecker J, Klein F, Bittner R, Carus T, Stroux A, Schwenk W (2009) Short-term outcomes from a prospective randomized trial comparing laparoscopic and open surgery for colorectal cancer. Br J Surg: Incorporating Eur J Surg Swiss Surg 96:1458–1467CrossRef

Aziz O, Constantinides V, Tekkis PP, Athanasiou T, Purkayastha S, Paraskeva P, Darzi AW, Heriot AG (2006) Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 13:413–424PubMedCrossRef

Schwenk W, Haase O, Neudecker JJ, Müller JM (2005) Short term benefits for laparoscopic colorectal resection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev,

Guillou PJ, Quirke P, Thorpe H, Walker J, Jayne DG, Smith AM, Heath RM, Brown JM, group MCt (2005) Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 365:1718–1726PubMedCrossRef

Group CCLoORS (2005) Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: short-term outcomes of a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 6:477–484CrossRef

Braga M, Vignali A, Zuliani W, Frasson M, Di Serio C, Di Carlo V (2005) Laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery: cost-benefit analysis in a single-center randomized trial. Ann Surg 242:890–896PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Group COoSTS (2004) A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. N Engl J Med 350:2050–2059CrossRef

10.

Abraham N, Young J, Solomon M (2004) Meta-analysis of short-term outcomes after laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 91:1111–1124PubMedCrossRef

11.

Lacy AM, García-Valdecasas JC, Delgado S, Castells A, Taurá P, Piqué JM, Visa J (2002) Laparoscopy-assisted colectomy versus open colectomy for treatment of non-metastatic colon cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet 359:2224–2229PubMedCrossRef

12.

Bandar M, Sabilah J, Kim N (2015) The current scope of robotic surgery in colorectal cancer. Adv Robot Autom S 2:2

13.

Sivathondan P, Jayne D (2018) The role of robotics in colorectal surgery. Ann Royal Coll Surg England 100:42–53CrossRef

14.

de’Angelis N, Lizzi V, Azoulay D, Brunetti F (2016) Robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy for colon cancer: analysis of the initial simultaneous learning curve of a surgical fellow. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 26:882–892

15.

Akram WM, Al-Natour RH, Albright J, Wu J, Ferraro J, Shanker B-A, McClure AM, Cleary RK (2018) A propensity score-matched comparison of intracorporeal and extracorporeal techniques for robotic-assisted right colectomy in an Enhanced Recovery Pathway. Am J Surg 216:1095–1100PubMedCrossRef

16.

Cheng CL, Rezac C (2018) The role of robotics in colorectal surgery. Bmj 360:j5304PubMedCrossRef

17.

de’Angelis N, Moroni P, Brunetti F, Martínez-Pérez A (2019) Indocyanine green fluorescence guided robotic right colectomy with intra-corporeal anastomosis–a video vignette. Color Dis 21:1459–1460CrossRef

18.

Milone M, Elmore U, Vignali A, Gennarelli N, Manigrasso M, Burati M, Milone F, De Palma GD, Delrio P, Rosati R (2018) Recovery after intracorporeal anastomosis in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Langenbeck's Arch Surg 403:1–10CrossRef

19.

Cleary RK, Kassir A, Johnson CS, Bastawrous AL, Soliman MK, Marx DS, Giordano L, Reidy TJ, Parra-Davila E, Obias VJ (2018) Intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis for minimally invasive right colectomy: a multi-center propensity score-matched comparison of outcomes. PLoS One 13:e0206277PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

20.

Wu Q, Jin C, Hu T, Wei M, Wang Z (2017) Intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis in laparoscopic right colectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 27:348–357CrossRef

21.

van Oostendorp S, Elfrink A, Borstlap W, Schoonmade L, Sietses C, Meijerink J, Tuynman J (2017) Intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis in right hemicolectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 31:64–77PubMedCrossRef

22.

Ricci C, Casadei R, Alagna V, Zani E, Taffurelli G, Pacilio CA, Minni F (2017) A critical and comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomosis in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy. Langenbeck's Arch Surg 402:417–427CrossRef

23.

Vignali A, Bissolati M, De Nardi P, Di Palo S, Staudacher C (2016) Extracorporeal vs. intracorporeal ileocolic stapled anastomoses in laparoscopic right colectomy: an interim analysis of a randomized clinical trial. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 26:343–348CrossRef

24.

Feroci F, Lenzi E, Garzi A, Vannucchi A, Cantafio S, Scatizzi M (2013) Intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis after laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Color Dis 28:1177–1186CrossRef

25.

Emile S, Elfeki H, Shalaby M, Sakr A, Bassuni M, Christensen P, Wexner S (2019) Intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis in minimally invasive right colectomy: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Techniques in coloproctology:1–13

26.

Bou Saleh N, Voron T, De’Angelis N, Franco I, Canoui-Poitrine F, Mutter D, Brunetti F, Gagnière J, Memeo R, Pezet D, Monange B, Pereira B, Le Roy B (2020) Intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: results from the CLIMHET study group. Tech Coloproctol 24:585–592. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-020-02202-zCrossRefPubMed

27.

Ma S, Chen Y, Chen Y, Guo T, Yang X, Lu Y, Tian J, Cai H (2019) Short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted right colectomy compared with laparoscopic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Asian J Surg 42:589–598PubMedCrossRef

28.

Solaini L, Bazzocchi F, Cavaliere D, Avanzolini A, Cucchetti A, Ercolani G (2018) Robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 32:1104–1110PubMedCrossRef

29.

Rondelli F, Balzarotti R, Villa F, Guerra A, Avenia N, Mariani E, Bugiantella W (2015) Is robot-assisted laparoscopic right colectomy more effective than the conventional laparoscopic procedure? A meta-analysis of short-term outcomes. Int J Surg 18:75–82PubMedCrossRef

30.

Petrucciani N, Sirimarco D, Nigri GR, Magistri P, La Torre M, Aurello P, D’Angelo F, Ramacciato G (2015) Robotic right colectomy: a worthwhile procedure? Results of a meta-analysis of trials comparing robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy. J Minim Access Surg 11:22–28PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

31.

Xu H, Li J, Sun Y, Li Z, Zhen Y, Wang B, Xu Z (2014) Robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy: a meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol 12:274PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

32.

Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, Shekelle P, Stewart LA, Group P-P (2015) Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev 4:1PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

33.

Methley AM, Campbell S, Chew-Graham C, McNally R, Cheraghi-Sohi S (2014) PICO, PICOS and SPIDER: a comparison study of specificity and sensitivity in three search tools for qualitative systematic reviews. BMC Health Serv Res 14:579PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

34.

Ljungqvist O, Scott M, Fearon KC (2017) Enhanced recovery after surgery: a review. JAMA Surgery 152:292–298PubMedCrossRef

35.

Chuang MT, Hu Y, Lo CL (2018) Predicting the prolonged length of stay of general surgery patients: a supervised learning approach. Int Trans Oper Res 25:75–90CrossRef

36.

Krell RW, Girotti ME, Dimick JB (2014) Extended length of stay after surgery: complications, inefficient practice, or sick patients? JAMA Surgery 149:815–820PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

37.

Goossen K, Tenckhoff S, Probst P, Grummich K, Mihaljevic AL, Buechler MW, Diener MK (2018) Optimal literature search for systematic reviews in surgery. Langenbeck's Arch Surg 403:119–129CrossRef

38.

Higgins J, Sterne J, Savović J, Page M, Hróbjartsson A, Boutron I, Reeves B, Eldridge S (2016) A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials. In: Chandler J, McKenzie J, Boutron I, Welch V (eds) Cochrane methods. Cochrane Database Syst Rev

39.

Sterne JA, Hernan MA, Reeves BC, Savovic J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, Henry D, Altman DG, Ansari MT, Boutron I, Carpenter JR, Chan AW, Churchill R, Deeks JJ, Hrobjartsson A, Kirkham J, Juni P, Loke YK, Pigott TD, Ramsay CR, Regidor D, Rothstein HR, Sandhu L, Santaguida PL, Schunemann HJ, Shea B, Shrier I, Tugwell P, Turner L, Valentine JC, Waddington H, Waters E, Wells GA, Whiting PF, Higgins JP (2016) ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. Bmj 355:i4919PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

40.

Stang A (2010) Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol 25:603–605PubMedCrossRef

41.

Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, Schunemann HJ, Group GW (2008) GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Bmj 336:924–926PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

42.

Andrews JC, Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Pottie K, Meerpohl JJ, Coello PA, Rind D, Montori VM, Brito JP, Norris S (2013) GRADE guidelines: 15. Going from evidence to recommendation—determinants of a recommendation’s direction and strength. J Clin Epidemiol 66:726–735PubMedCrossRef

43.

Luo D, Wan X, Liu J, Tong T (2018) Optimally estimating the sample mean from the sample size, median, mid-range, and/or mid-quartile range. Stat Methods Med Res 27:1785–1805CrossRefPubMed

44.

Wan X, Wang W, Liu J, Tong T (2014) Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range. BMC Med Res Methodol 14:135PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

45.

Higgins J, Wells G (2011) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions

46.

Tierney JF, Stewart LA, Ghersi D, Burdett S, Sydes MR (2007) Practical methods for incorporating summary time-to-event data into meta-analysis. Trials 8:16PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

47.

Park J, Choi GS, Park S, Kim H, Ryuk J (2012) Randomized clinical trial of robot-assisted versus standard laparoscopic right colectomy. Br J Surg 99:1219–1226PubMedCrossRef

48.

Park JS, Kang H, Park SY, Kim HJ, Woo IT, Park I-K, Choi G-S (2019) Long-term oncologic after robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy: a prospective randomized study. Surg Endosc 33:2975–2981PubMedCrossRef

49.

Milone M, Elmore U, Allaix M, Bianchi P, Biondi A, Boni L, Bracale U, Cassinotti E, Ceccarelli G, Corcione F (2020) Fashioning enterotomy closure after totally laparoscopic ileocolic anastomosis for right colon cancer: a multicenter experience. Surg Endosc 34:557–563PubMedCrossRef

50.

Migliore M, Giuffrida MC, Marano A, Pellegrino L, Giraudo G, Barili F, Borghi F (2020) Robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy within a systematic ERAS protocol: a propensity-weighted analysis. Updates in Surgery:1–8

51.

Yozgatli TK, Aytac E, Ozben V, Bayram O, Gurbuz B, Baca B, Balik E, Hamzaoglu I, Karahasanoglu T, Bugra D (2019) Robotic complete mesocolic excision versus conventional laparoscopic hemicolectomy for right-sided colon cancer. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 29:671–676CrossRef

52.

Solaini L, Cavaliere D, Pecchini F, Perna F, Bazzocchi F, Avanzolini A, Marchi D, Checcacci P, Cucchetti A, Coratti A (2019) Robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis: a multicenter comparative analysis on short-term outcomes. Surg Endosc 33:1898–1902PubMedCrossRef

53.

Merola G, Sciuto A, Pirozzi F, Andreuccetti J, Pignata G, Corcione F, Milone M, De Palma GD, Castaldo R, Pecchia L (2019) Is robotic right colectomy economically sustainable? A multicentre retrospective comparative study and cost analysis. Surg Endosc:1–7

54.

Megevand J, Amboldi M, Lillo E, Lenisa L, Ganio E, Ambrosi A, Rusconi A (2019) Right colectomy: consecutive 100 patients treated with laparoscopic and robotic technique for malignancy. Cumulative experience in a single centre. Updat Surg 71:151–156CrossRef

55.

Khorgami Z, Li WT, Jackson TN, Howard CA, Sclabas GM (2019) The cost of robotics: an analysis of the added costs of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery using the National Inpatient Sample. Surg Endosc 33:2217–2221PubMedCrossRef

56.

Gerbaud F, Valverde A, Danoussou D, Goasguen N, Oberlin O, Lupinacci RM (2019) Experience with transitioning from laparoscopic to robotic right colectomy. JSLS: J Soc Laparoend Surg 23:e2019.00044CrossRef

57.

Blumberg D (2019) Robotic colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis is feasible with no operative conversions during the learning curve for an experienced laparoscopic surgeon developing a robotics program. J Robot Surg 13:545–555PubMedCrossRef

58.

Spinoglio G, Bianchi PP, Marano A, Priora F, Lenti LM, Ravazzoni F, Petz W, Borin S, Ribero D, Formisano G (2018) Robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy with complete mesocolic excision for the treatment of colon cancer: perioperative outcomes and 5-year survival in a consecutive series of 202 patients. Ann Surg Oncol 25:3580–3586PubMedCrossRef

59.

Scotton G, Contardo T, Zerbinati A, Tosato SM, Orsini C, Morpurgo E (2018) From laparoscopic right colectomy with extracorporeal anastomosis to robot-assisted intracorporeal anastomosis to totally robotic right colectomy for cancer: the evolution of robotic multiquadrant abdominal surgery. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 28:1216–1222CrossRef

60.

Nolan HR, Smith BE, Honaker MD (2018) Operative time and length of stay is similar between robotic assisted and laparoscopic colon and rectal resections. J Robot Surg 12:659–664PubMedCrossRef

61.

Ngu JC-Y, Ng YY-R (2018) Robotics confers an advantage in right hemicolectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis when matched against conventional laparoscopy. J Robot Surg 12:647–653PubMedCrossRef

62.

Lujan HJ, Plasencia G, Rivera BX, Molano A, Fagenson A, Jane LA, Holguin D (2018) Advantages of robotic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis. Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques 28:36–41CrossRef

63.

Kelley SR, Duchalais E, Larson DW (2018) Short-term outcomes with robotic right colectomy. Am Surg 84:1768–1773PubMedCrossRef

64.

Haskins IN, Ju T, Skancke M, Kuang X, Amdur RL, Brody F, Obias V, Agarwal S (2018) Right colon resection for colon cancer: does surgical approach matter? J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 28:1202–1206CrossRef

65.

Widmar M, Keskin M, Strombom P, Beltran P, Chow OS, Smith JJ, Nash GM, Shia J, Russell D, Garcia-Aguilar J (2017) Lymph node yield in right colectomy for cancer: a comparison of open, laparoscopic and robotic approaches. Color Dis 19:888–894CrossRef

66.

Dolejs SC, Waters JA, Ceppa EP, Zarzaur BL (2017) Laparoscopic versus robotic colectomy: a national surgical quality improvement project analysis. Surg Endosc 31:2387–2396PubMedCrossRef

67.

Widmar M, Keskin M, Beltran P, Nash GM, Guillem JG, Temple LK, Paty PB, Weiser MR, Garcia-Aguilar J (2016) Incisional hernias after laparoscopic and robotic right colectomy. Hernia 20:723–728PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

68.

Miller PE, Dao H, Paluvoi N, Bailey M, Margolin D, Shah N, Vargas H (2016) Comparison of 30-day postoperative outcomes after laparoscopic vs robotic colectomy. J Am Coll Surg 223:369–373PubMedCrossRef

69.

Kang J, Park YA, Baik SH, Sohn S-K, Lee KY (2016) A comparison of open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgery in the treatment of right-sided colon cancer. Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques 26:497–502CrossRef

70.

Ferrara F, Piagnerelli R, Scheiterle M, Di Mare G, Gnoni P, Marrelli D, Roviello F (2016) Laparoscopy versus robotic surgery for colorectal cancer: a single-center initial experience. Surg Innov 23:374–380PubMedCrossRef

71.

Cardinali L, Belfiori G, Ghiselli R, Ortenzi M, Guerrieri M (2016) Robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy for cancer: short-term outcomes and influence of body mass index on conversion rate. Minerva Chir 71:217–222PubMed

72.

Trastulli S, Coratti A, Guarino S, Piagnerelli R, Annecchiarico M, Coratti F, Di Marino M, Ricci F, Desiderio J, Cirocchi R (2015) Robotic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis compared with laparoscopic right colectomy with extracorporeal and intracorporeal anastomosis: a retrospective multicentre study. Surg Endosc 29:1512–1521PubMedCrossRef

73.

Guerrieri M, Campagnacci R, Sperti P, Belfiori G, Gesuita R, Ghiselli R (2015) Totally robotic vs 3D laparoscopic colectomy: a single centers preliminary experience. World J Gastroenterol 21:13152–13159PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

74.

Trinh BB, Jackson NR, Hauch AT, Hu T, Kandil E (2014) Robotic versus laparoscopic colorectal surgery. JSLS: J Soc Laparoend Surg 18

75.

Davis BR, Yoo AC, Moore M, Gunnarsson C (2014) Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic colectomy: cost and clinical outcomes. JSLS: J Soc Laparoend Surg 18:211–224CrossRef

76.

Casillas MA Jr, Leichtle SW, Wahl WL, Lampman RM, Welch KB, Wellock T, Madden EB, Cleary RK (2014) Improved perioperative and short-term outcomes of robotic versus conventional laparoscopic colorectal operations. Am J Surg 208:33–40PubMedCrossRef

77.

Morpurgo E, Contardo T, Molaro R, Zerbinati A, Orsini C, D’Annibale A (2013) Robotic-assisted intracorporeal anastomosis versus extracorporeal anastomosis in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for cancer: a case control study. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 23:414–417CrossRef

78.

Lujan HJ, Maciel VH, Romero R, Plasencia G (2013) Laparoscopic versus robotic right colectomy: a single surgeon’s experience. J Robot Surg 7:95–102PubMedCrossRef

79.

Shin JY (2012) Comparison of short-term surgical outcomes between a robotic colectomy and a laparoscopic colectomy during early experience. J Korean Soc Coloproctol 28:19–26PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

80.

Deutsch GB, Sathyanarayana SA, Gunabushanam V, Mishra N, Rubach E, Zemon H, Klein JD, DeNoto G (2012) Robotic vs. laparoscopic colorectal surgery: an institutional experience. Surg Endosc 26:956–963PubMedCrossRef

81.

deSouza AL, Prasad LM, Park JJ, Marecik SJ, Blumetti J, Abcarian H (2010) Robotic assistance in right hemicolectomy: is there a role? Dis Colon Rectum 53:1000–1006PubMedCrossRef

82.

Rawlings A, Woodland J, Vegunta R, Crawford D (2007) Robotic versus laparoscopic colectomy. Surg Endosc 21:1701–1708PubMedCrossRef

83.

Delaney CP, Lynch AC, Senagore AJ, Fazio VW (2003) Comparison of robotically performed and traditional laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 46:1633–1639PubMedCrossRef

84.

Moroni P, Payá-Llorente C, Lauka L, Reitano E, Memeo R, Gavriilidis P, Brunetti F, Martínez-Pérez A (2019) Minimally invasive right colectomy-from conventional laparoscopic resection to robotic-assisted surgery: a narrative review

85.

Parisi A, Scrucca L, Desiderio J, Gemini A, Guarino S, Ricci F, Cirocchi R, Palazzini G, D’Andrea V, Minelli L (2017) Robotic right hemicolectomy: analysis of 108 consecutive procedures and multidimensional assessment of the learning curve. Surg Oncol 26:28–36PubMedCrossRef

86.

Li JC, Hon SS, Ng SS, Lee JF, Yiu RY, Leung KL (2009) The learning curve for laparoscopic colectomy: experience of a surgical fellow in an university colorectal unit. Surg Endosc 23:1603–1608PubMedCrossRef

87.

Brasel KJ, Lim HJ, Nirula R, Weigelt JA (2007) Length of stay: an appropriate quality measure? Arch Surg 142:461–466PubMedCrossRef

88.

Hall WB, Willis LE, Medvedev S, Carson SS (2012) The implications of long-term acute care hospital transfer practices for measures of in-hospital mortality and length of stay. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 185:53–57PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Titel: Laparoscopic versus robotic right colectomy with extra-corporeal or intra-corporeal anastomosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
verfasst von: Pietro Genova
Gianni Pantuso
Calogero Cipolla
Mario Adelfio Latteri
Solafah Abdalla
Jean-Christophe Paquet
Francesco Brunetti
Nicola de’Angelis
Salomone Di Saverio
Publikationsdatum: 09.09.2020
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery / Ausgabe 5/2021
Print ISSN: 1435-2443
Elektronische ISSN: 1435-2451
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-020-01985-x

Neu im Fachgebiet Chirurgie

Vorsicht, erhöhte Blutungsgefahr nach PCI!

10.05.2024 Koronare Herzerkrankung Nachrichten

Nach PCI besteht ein erhöhtes Blutungsrisiko, wenn die Behandelten eine verminderte linksventrikuläre Ejektionsfraktion aufweisen. Das Risiko ist umso höher, je stärker die Pumpfunktion eingeschränkt ist.

Darf man die Behandlung eines Neonazis ablehnen?

08.05.2024 Gesellschaft Nachrichten

In einer Leseranfrage in der Zeitschrift Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology möchte ein anonymer Dermatologe bzw. eine anonyme Dermatologin wissen, ob er oder sie einen Patienten behandeln muss, der eine rassistische Tätowierung trägt.

Deutlich weniger Infektionen: Wundprotektoren schützen!

08.05.2024 Postoperative Wundinfektion Nachrichten

Der Einsatz von Wundprotektoren bei offenen Eingriffen am unteren Gastrointestinaltrakt schützt vor Infektionen im Op.-Gebiet – und dient darüber hinaus der besseren Sicht. Das bestätigt mit großer Robustheit eine randomisierte Studie im Fachblatt JAMA Surgery.

Chirurginnen und Chirurgen sind stark suizidgefährdet

07.05.2024 Suizid Nachrichten

Der belastende Arbeitsalltag wirkt sich negativ auf die psychische Gesundheit der Angehörigen ärztlicher Berufsgruppen aus. Chirurginnen und Chirurgen bilden da keine Ausnahme, im Gegenteil.

Update Chirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Aktuelle BDC Leitlinien-Webinare

S3-Leitlinie „Diagnostik und Therapie des Karpaltunnelsyndroms“

Karpaltunnelsyndrom BDC Leitlinien Webinare

CME: 2 Punkte

Das Karpaltunnelsyndrom ist die häufigste Kompressionsneuropathie peripherer Nerven. Obwohl die Anamnese mit dem nächtlichen Einschlafen der Hand (Brachialgia parästhetica nocturna) sehr typisch ist, ist eine klinisch-neurologische Untersuchung und Elektroneurografie in manchen Fällen auch eine Neurosonografie erforderlich. Im Anfangsstadium sind konservative Maßnahmen (Handgelenksschiene, Ergotherapie) empfehlenswert. Bei nicht Ansprechen der konservativen Therapie oder Auftreten von neurologischen Ausfällen ist eine Dekompression des N. medianus am Karpaltunnel indiziert.

Prof. Dr. med. Gregor Antoniadis

S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“

Radiusfraktur BDC Leitlinien Webinare

CME: 2 Punkte

Das Webinar beschäftigt sich mit Fragen und Antworten zu Diagnostik und Klassifikation sowie Möglichkeiten des Ausschlusses von Zusatzverletzungen. Die Referenten erläutern, welche Frakturen konservativ behandelt werden können und wie. Das Webinar beantwortet die Frage nach aktuellen operativen Therapiekonzepten: Welcher Zugang, welches Osteosynthesematerial? Auf was muss bei der Nachbehandlung der distalen Radiusfraktur geachtet werden?

PD Dr. med. Oliver Pieske

Dr. med. Benjamin Meyknecht

S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“

Appendizitis BDC Leitlinien Webinare

CME: 2 Punkte

Inhalte des Webinars zur S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“ sind die Darstellung des Projektes und des Erstellungswegs zur S1-Leitlinie, die Erläuterung der klinischen Relevanz der Klassifikation EAES 2015, die wissenschaftliche Begründung der wichtigsten Empfehlungen und die Darstellung stadiengerechter Therapieoptionen.

Dr. med. Mihailo Andric

Die Highlights vom Kongress des American College of Cardiology 2024

Springer Medizin

Laparoscopic versus robotic right colectomy with extra-corporeal or intra-corporeal anastomosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Neu im Fachgebiet Chirurgie

Vorsicht, erhöhte Blutungsgefahr nach PCI!

Darf man die Behandlung eines Neonazis ablehnen?

Deutlich weniger Infektionen: Wundprotektoren schützen!

Chirurginnen und Chirurgen sind stark suizidgefährdet

Update Chirurgie

Aktuelle BDC Leitlinien-Webinare

S3-Leitlinie „Diagnostik und Therapie des Karpaltunnelsyndroms“

S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“

S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“

Die Highlights vom Kongress des American College of Cardiology 2024

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 5/2021

Successful transition from open to minimally invasive approach in Ivor Lewis esophagectomy: a single-center experience in Japan

Staple-line reinforcement using barbed sutures in 1008 sleeve gastrectomies

Short-term outcome after robot-assisted hiatal hernia and anti-reflux surgery—is there a benefit for the patient?

Transient delayed gastric emptying following laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication for gastroesophageal reflux disease

Is it possible to reduce recurrences after Altemeier’s procedure for complete rectal prolapse? Twenty-year experience in 130 consecutive patients

Nutritional jejunostomy in esophagectomy for cancer, a national register-based cohort study of associations with postoperative outcomes and survival

Update Chirurgie