Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Konkret geht es um den Diabetes-Patienten mit kardiovaskulären Erkrankungen oder Risiken, die Herzinsuffizienz sowie die kardiovaskuläre Primär- und Sekundärprävention. Sind Sie hier schon auf dem neuesten Stand? Unsere Experten beleuchten, wo und warum das bisherige Procedere geändert werden soll und was in der Praxis sinnvoll ist. Holen Sie sich Ihr Update und 2 CME-Punkte beim MMW-Webinar am 24. April von 17.30 bis 19 Uhr. 
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Surgical Endoscopy
Erschienen in: Surgical Endoscopy 12/2016

11.07.2016 | Endoluminal Surgery

Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery for colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis

Erschienen in: Surgical Endoscopy | Ausgabe 12/2016

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background and objectives

Robotic surgery is positioned at the cutting edge of minimally invasive management of colorectal cancer. We performed a meta-analysis of data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs (NRCTs) that compared the clinicopathological outcomes of robotic-assisted colorectal surgery (RACS) with those of laparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgery (LACS). Inferences on the feasibility and the relative safety and efficacy have been drawn.

Methods

A literature search for relevant studies was performed on MEDLINE, Ovid, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases. Inter-group differences in the standardized mean differences and relative risk were assessed. Operation times, conversion rates to open surgery, estimated blood loss (EBL), early postoperative morbidity, and length of hospital stay (LHS) were compared. Oncologic outcomes assessed were number of lymph nodes harvested and lengths of proximal and distal resection margins.

Results

Twenty-four studies (2 RCTs and 22 NRCTs [5 prospective plus 17 retrospective]) with a total of 3318 patients were included. Of these, 1466 (44.18 %) patients underwent RACS and 1852 (55.82 %) underwent LACS. Conversion rates, EBL and LHS were significantly lower, while the operation times and total costs were similar between RACS and LACS. Complication rates and oncological accuracy of resection showed no significant difference.

Conclusion

Based on this meta-analysis, RACS appears to be a promising surgical approach with its safety and efficacy comparable to that of LACS in patients undergoing colorectal surgery. Further studies are required to evaluate the long-term cost-efficiency as well as the functional and oncologic outcomes of RACS.
Literatur
1.
Denoya P, Wang H, Sands D et al (2010) Short-term outcomes of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Surg Endosc 24(4):933–938CrossRefPubMed
2.
Sara S, Poncet G, Voirin D et al (2010) Can adequate lymphadenectomy be obtained by laparoscopic resection in rectal cancer? Results of a case–control study in 200 patients. J Gastrointest Surg 14:1244–1247CrossRefPubMed
3.
Leroy J, Jamali F, Forbes L et al (2004) Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer surgery: long-term outcomes. Surg Endosc 18(2):281–289CrossRefPubMed
4.
Veldkamp R, Kuhry E, Hop WC et al (2005) Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: short-term outcomes of a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 6:477CrossRefPubMed
5.
Kim JG, Heo YJ, Son GM et al (2009) Impact of laparoscopic surgery on the long-term outcomes for patients with rectal cancer. ANZ J Surg 79(11):817–823CrossRefPubMed
6.
Colon Cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection Study G, Buunen M, Veldkamp R, Hop WC, Kuhry E, Jeekel J et al (2009) Survival after laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: long-term outcome of a randomised clinical trial. Lancet Oncol 10(1):44–52CrossRefPubMed
7.
Wexner SD, Bergamaschi R, Lacy A et al (2009) The current status of robotic pelvic surgery: results of a multinational interdisciplinary consensus conference. Surg Endosc 23:438CrossRefPubMed
8.
Sammour T, Kahokehr A, Srinivasa S et al (2011) Laparoscopic colorectal surgery is associated with a higher intraoperative complication rate than open surgery. Ann Surg 253:35–43CrossRefPubMed
9.
Weber PA, Merola S, Wasielewski A, Ballantyne GH (2002) Telerobotic-assisted laparoscopic right and sigmoid colectomies for benign disease. Dis Colon Rectum 45:1689–1694CrossRefPubMed
10.
Balch GC (2009) Emerging role of laparoscopic and robotic surgery for rectal cancers. Ann Surg Oncol 16:1451–1453CrossRefPubMed
11.
Pigazzi A, García-Aguilar J (2010) Robotic colorectal surgery: for whom and for what? Dis Colon Rectum 53:969–970CrossRefPubMed
12.
Rashid TG, Kini M, Ind TE (2010) Comparing the learning curve for robotically assisted and straight stick laparoscopic procedures in surgical novices. Int J Med Robot 6:306–310CrossRefPubMed
13.
Kim JY, Kim NK, Lee KY, Hur H, Min BS, Kim JH (2012) A comparative study of voiding and sexual function after total mesorectal excision with autonomic nerve preservation for rectal cancer: laparoscopic versus robotic surgery. Ann Surg Oncol 19:2485–2493CrossRefPubMed
14.
Rawlings AL, Woodland JH, Vegunta RK, Crawford DL (2007) Robotic versus laparoscopic colectomy. Surg Endosc 21:1701–1708CrossRefPubMed
15.
Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJM, Gavaghan DJ et al (1996) Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 17(1):1–12CrossRefPubMed
16.
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(9):603–6055CrossRefPubMed
17.
Higgins JP, Thompson SG (2002) Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 21:1539CrossRefPubMed
18.
Jimenez RR, Diaz PJ, de La Portilla DJF et al (2011) Prospective randomised study: robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery in colorectal cancer resection. Cir Esp 89:432–438CrossRef
19.
Park JS, Choi GS, Park SY et al (2012) Randomized clinical trial of robot-assisted versus standard laparoscopic right colectomy. Br J Surg 99(9):1219–1226CrossRefPubMed
20.
Bertani E, Chiappa A, Biffi R et al (2011) Assessing appropriateness for elective colorectal cancer surgery: clinical, oncological, and quality-of-life short-term outcomes employing different treatment approaches. Int J Colorectal Dis 26:1317–1327CrossRefPubMed
21.
Deutsch GB, Sathyanarayana SA et al (2012) Robotic vs. laparoscopic colorectal surgery: an institutional experience. Surg Endosc 26:956–963CrossRefPubMed
22.
Lim DR, Min BS, Kim MS et al (2013) Robotic versus laparoscopic anterior resection of sigmoid colon cancer: comparative study of long-termoncologic outcomes. Surg Endosc 27(4):1379–1385CrossRefPubMed
23.
Trastulli S, Coratti A, Guarino S, Piagnerelli R, Annecchiarico M, Coratti F (2015) Robotic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis in comparison with the laparoscopic approach with extracorporeal and intracorporeal anastomosis: a retrospective multicentre study. Surg Endosc 29(6):1512–1521. doi:10.​1007/​s00464-014-3835-9 CrossRefPubMed
24.
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 24:2888–2894CrossRefPubMed
25.
Popescu I, Vasilescu C, Tomulescu V et al (2010) The minimally invasive approach, laparoscopic and robotic, in rectal resection for cancer. A single center experience. Acta Chir Iugosl 57:29–35CrossRefPubMed
26.
Park JS, Choi GS, Lim KH et al (2010) Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery for low rectal cancer: case-matched analysis of short-term outcomes. Ann Surg Oncol 17:3195–3202CrossRefPubMed
27.
Park JS, Choi GS, Lim KH et al (2011) S052: a comparison of robot assisted, laparoscopic, and open surgery in the treatment of rectal cancer. Surg Endosc 25:240–248CrossRefPubMed
28.
Kwak JM, Kim SH, Kim J et al (2011) Robotic vs laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer: short-term outcomes of a case–control study. Dis Colon Rectum 54(2):151–156CrossRefPubMed
29.
Baek SJ, Kim SH, Cho JS et al (2012) Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a cost analysis from a single institute in Korea. World J Surg 36(11):2722–2729CrossRefPubMed
30.
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):1689–1698CrossRefPubMed
31.
Baek SJ, Al-Asari S, Jeong DH et al (2013) Robotic versus laparoscopic coloanal anastomosis with or without intersphincteric resection for rectal cancer. Surg Endosc 27(11):4157–4163CrossRefPubMed
32.
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, androbotic surgery. Ann Surg 257(1):95–101CrossRefPubMed
33.
Fernandez R, Anaya DA, Li LT, Orcutt ST et al (2013) Laparoscopic versus robotic rectal resection for rectal cancer in a veteran population. Ann J Surg. 206(4):509–517CrossRef
34.
D’Annibale A, Pernazza G, Monsellato I et al (2013) Total mesorectal excision: a comparison of oncological and functional outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. Surg Endosc 27(6):1887–1895CrossRefPubMed
35.
Park SY, Choi GS, Park JS et al (2013) Short-term clinical outcome of robot-assisted intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: a retrospective comparison with conventional laparoscopy. Surg Endosc 27(1):48–55CrossRefPubMed
36.
Kim YS, Kim MJ et al (2016) Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer after preoperative chemoradiotherapy: case-matched study of short-term outcomes. Cancer Res Treat 48(1):225–231. doi:10.​4143/​crt.​2014.​365
37.
Cho MS, Baek SJ, Hur H et al (2015) Short and long-term outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excisionfor rectal cancer: a case-matched retrospective study. Medicine (Baltimore) 94(11):e522CrossRef
38.
Patel CB, Ragupathi M et al (2011) A three-arm (laparoscopic, hand-assisted, and robotic) matched-case analysis of intraoperative and postoperative outcomes in minimally invasive colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 54:144–150CrossRefPubMed
39.
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(1):19–26CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
40.
41.
Sawada H et al (2015) Initial experiences of robotic versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer, focusing on short-term outcomes: a matched case-control study. World J Surg Oncol 13:103CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
42.
Buunen M, Veldkamp R, Hop WC et al (2009) Survival after laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: long-term outcome of a randomised clinical trial. Lancet Oncol 10:44–52CrossRefPubMed
43.
Scandola M, Grespan L et al (2011) Robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy vs traditional laparoscopic hysterectomy: five meta-analyses. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 18:705–715CrossRefPubMed
44.
Abraham NS, Byrne CJ et al (2010) Meta-analysis of well-designed nonrandomized comparative studies of surgical procedures is as good as randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol 63:238–245CrossRefPubMed
45.
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 16:1279–1286CrossRefPubMed
46.
Liao et al (2014) Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis of four randomized controlled trials. World J Surg Oncol 12:122CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
47.
Xiong Binghong, Ma Li et al (2014) Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis. J surg research 188:404–414CrossRef
48.
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 19:3727–3736CrossRefPubMed
49.
Trastulli S, Cirocchi R, Desiderio J, Coratti A, Guarino S, Renzi C et al (2015) Robotic versus laparoscopic approach in colonic resections for cancer and benign diseases: systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 10(7):e0134062CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
50.
51.
Amato A, Pescatori M (2006) Perioperative blood transfusions for the recurrence of colorectal cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 7:D5033
52.
Morner ME, Gunnarsson U et al (2012) The importance of blood loss during colon cancer surgery for long-term survival: an epidemiological study based on a population based register. Ann Surg 255:1126–1128CrossRefPubMed
53.
Zimmern A, Prasad L, Desouza A et al (2010) Robotic colon and rectal surgery: a series of 131cases. World J Surg 34:1954–1958CrossRefPubMed
54.
Baek JH, McKenzie S et al (2010) Oncologic outcomes of robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision for the treatment of rectal cancer. Ann Surg 251:882–886CrossRefPubMed
55.
Pigazzi A, Luca F, Patriti A et al (2010) Multicentric study on robotic tumor-specific mesorectal excision for the treatment of rectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 17:1614–1620CrossRefPubMed
56.
57.
DeSouza AL, Prasad LM, Park JJ et al (2010) Robotic assistance in right hemicolectomy: is there a role? Dis Colon Rectum 53:1000–1006CrossRefPubMed
58.
Halabi WJ, Kang CY, Jafari MD et al (2013) Robotic-assisted colorectal surgery in the United States: a nationwide analysis of trends and outcomes. World J Surg 37:2782–2790CrossRefPubMed
59.
Wedmid A, Llukani E, Lee DI (2011) Future perspectives in robotic surgery. BJU Int 108(6 Pt 2):1028–1036CrossRefPubMed
60.
Hasegawa H, Ishii Y, Endo T, Ochiai H, Kitagawa Y (2011) Current status of robotic surgery for colorectal cancer and its future perspectives. Nihon Rinsho 69(Suppl 3):414–417PubMed
61.
Jiang ZW, Li JS (2012) [Current status and future perspectives of robotic surgery and laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer]. Zhonghua wei chang wai ke za zhi. Chin J Gastrointest Surg 15(8):776–777
62.
Wilson TG (2014) Advancement of technology and its impact on urologists: release of the da Vinci Xi, a new surgical robot. Eur Urol 66(5):793–794CrossRefPubMed
63.
Wortman TD, Meyer A, Dolghi O, Lehman AC, McCormick RL, Farritor SM et al (2012) Miniature surgical robot for laparoendoscopic single-incision colectomy. Surg Endosc Other Interv Tech 26(3):727–731CrossRef
64.
Rivera-Serrano CM, Johnson P, Zubiate B, Kuenzler R, Choset H, Zenati M et al (2012) A transoral highly flexible robot: novel technology and application. Laryngoscope 122(5):1067–1071CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery for colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis
Publikationsdatum
11.07.2016
Erschienen in
Surgical Endoscopy / Ausgabe 12/2016
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-4892-z

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 12/2016

Surgical Endoscopy 12/2016 Zur Ausgabe

Video

Laparoscopic bilateral cortical-sparing adrenalectomy for pheochromocytoma

Dynamic Manuscript

Pushing the envelope: laparoscopy and primary anastomosis are technically feasible in stable patients with Hinchey IV perforated acute diverticulitis and gross faeculent peritonitis

OriginalPaper

Face and content validation of a Virtual Translumenal Endoscopic Surgery Trainer (VTEST™)

OriginalPaper

Stenosis rates after endoscopic submucosal dissection of large rectal tumors involving greater than three quarters of the luminal circumference

OriginalPaper

Deviating colostomy construction versus stent placement as bridge to surgery for malignant left-sided colonic obstruction

OriginalPaper

Laparoscopic management of antenatally detected choledochal cyst: a 10-year review

Neu im Fachgebiet Chirurgie

23.04.2024 | Ablationstherapie | Nachrichten

Wie erfolgreich ist eine Re-Ablation nach Rezidiv?

23.04.2024 | Appendizitis | Nachrichten

Hinter dieser Appendizitis steckte ein Erreger

23.04.2024 | Operationsvorbereitung | Nachrichten

Mehr Schaden als Nutzen durch präoperatives Aussetzen von GLP-1-Agonisten?

19.04.2024 | EAU 2024 | Kongressbericht | Nachrichten

Ureterstriktur: Innovative OP-Technik bewährt sich
weitere anzeigen

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
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

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
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

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
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.