Robotic colectomy with CME versus laparoscopic colon resection with or without CME for colon cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

This systematic review with meta-analysis aimed to compare the robotic complete mesocolon excision (RCME) to laparoscopic colectomy (LC) with (LCME) or without CME (LC non-CME) in postoperative outcomes, harvested lymph nodes and disease-free survival. We performed a systematic review with meta-anal...

Full description

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Published in:	Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England Vol. 105; no. 2; pp. 113 - 125
Main Authors:	Oweira, H, Reissfelder, C, Elhadedy, H, Rahbari, N, Mehrabi, A, Fattal, W, Khan, J S, Chaouch, M A
Format:	Journal Article
Language:	English
Published:	England Royal College of Surgeons 01-02-2023
Subjects:	Colectomy - adverse effects Colonic Neoplasms - pathology Colonic Neoplasms - surgery Humans Laparoscopy - adverse effects Lymph Node Excision Operative Time Review Robotic Surgical Procedures - adverse effects Treatment Outcome Colectomy Colon cancer Conventional colectomy Laparoscopic Robotic Complete mesocolon excision
Online Access:	Get full text
Tags:	Add Tag No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

Description
Summary:	This systematic review with meta-analysis aimed to compare the robotic complete mesocolon excision (RCME) to laparoscopic colectomy (LC) with (LCME) or without CME (LC non-CME) in postoperative outcomes, harvested lymph nodes and disease-free survival. We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis according to PRISMA 2020 and AMSTAR 2 guidelines. The literature search yielded seven comparative studies including 677 patients: 269 patients in the RCME group and 408 in the LC group. The pooled analysis concluded to a lower conversion rate in the RCME group (OR=0.17; 95% CI [0.04, 0.74], =0.02). There was no difference between the two groups in terms of morbidity (OR=1.03; 95% CI [0.70, 1.53], =0.87), anastomosis leakage (OR=0.83; 95% CI [0.18, 3.72], =0.81), bleeding (OR=1.90; 95% CI [0.64, 5.58], =0.25), wound infection (OR=1.37; 95% CI [0.51, 3.68], =0.53), operative time (mean difference (MD)=36.32; 95% CI [-24.30, 96.93], =0.24), hospital stay (MD=-0.94; 95% CI [-2.03, 0.15], =0.09) and disease-free survival (OR=1.29; 95% CI [0.71, 2.35], =0.41). In the subgroup analysis, the operative time was significantly shorter in the LCME group than RCME group (MD=50.93; 95% CI [40.05, 61.81], <0.01) and we noticed a greater number of harvested lymph nodes in the RCME group compared with LC non-CME group (MD=8.96; 95% CI [5.98, 11.93], <0.01). The robotic approach for CME ensures a lower conversion rate than the LC. RCME had a longer operative time than the LCME subgroup and a higher number of harvested lymph nodes than the LC non-CME group.
Bibliography:	ObjectType-Article-2 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-1 content type line 23 ObjectType-Undefined-3
ISSN:	0035-8843 1478-7083
DOI:	10.1308/rcsann.2022.0051