Scholarlink

<p>Background and Aim: As robotic surgery gains momentum in colorectal surgery, its role in abdominoperineal resections remains debatable. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to update the current literature. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library up to October 22, 2025. Outcomes were pooled using random-effects models with DerSimonian–Laird for dichotomous and Hartung–Knapp–Sidik–Jonkman for continuous data. Heterogeneity was assessed using I², and study quality was evaluated with ROBINS-I and RoB 2 tools. Subgroup analysis was also performed. Results: Nine studies (<i>n</i> = 10,838; eight observational and one RCT) were included. Robotic APR was associated with longer operative time (MD 21.43&#xa0;min; <i>p</i> = 0.03), lower blood loss (MD − 26.31 mL; <i>p</i> = 0.0002), reduced conversion to open surgery (OR 0.34; <i>p</i> = 0.01), and shorter hospital stay (MD − 1.18 days; <i>p</i> = 0.01) compared with laparoscopy. No significant differences were observed in intraoperative or postoperative complications, reoperation, readmission, oncologic parameters, or costs. In cohorts &gt; 100 patients/arm, only conversion rate remained significant (OR 0.32; <i>p</i> = 0.02). In cohorts &lt; 100 patients/arm, robotic surgery showed lower blood loss (<i>p</i> = 0.03), fewer positive circumferential margins (<i>p</i> = 0.04), and shorter hospital stay (<i>p</i> = 0.04). In propensity-matched studies, only positive circumferential margins favored robotics (OR 0.32; <i>p</i> = 0.01). No significant differences were found in patients ≥ 65 years. In patients &lt; 65 years, robotics was associated with lower blood loss (<i>p</i> = 0.01), lower conversion rates (<i>p</i> = 0.006), shorter hospital stay (<i>p</i> = 0.03), but higher costs (<i>p</i> = 0.02). Conclusion: RAPR demonstrates comparable safety and oncologic outcomes to laparoscopy, while offering advantages in reducing blood loss, conversion to open surgery, and hospital stay. These benefits were more pronounced in younger patients and smaller cohorts. However, operative time and costs remain higher, and overall certainty of evidence ranged from very low to moderate, underscoring the need for further large-scale randomized trials. PROSPERO registration: CRD420261298072.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Robotic versus Laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年3月27日

查看全文
  • Konstantinos Kossenas,
  • Theano Perri,
  • Maximos Frountzas,
  • Spyridon Dritsas,
  • Dimitrios Linardoutsos,
  • Vasileios Tatsis,
  • Georgios Lianos,
  • Dimitrios Patsouras,
  • Dimitrios Schizas

摘要

Background and Aim: As robotic surgery gains momentum in colorectal surgery, its role in abdominoperineal resections remains debatable. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to update the current literature. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library up to October 22, 2025. Outcomes were pooled using random-effects models with DerSimonian–Laird for dichotomous and Hartung–Knapp–Sidik–Jonkman for continuous data. Heterogeneity was assessed using I², and study quality was evaluated with ROBINS-I and RoB 2 tools. Subgroup analysis was also performed. Results: Nine studies (n = 10,838; eight observational and one RCT) were included. Robotic APR was associated with longer operative time (MD 21.43 min; p = 0.03), lower blood loss (MD − 26.31 mL; p = 0.0002), reduced conversion to open surgery (OR 0.34; p = 0.01), and shorter hospital stay (MD − 1.18 days; p = 0.01) compared with laparoscopy. No significant differences were observed in intraoperative or postoperative complications, reoperation, readmission, oncologic parameters, or costs. In cohorts > 100 patients/arm, only conversion rate remained significant (OR 0.32; p = 0.02). In cohorts < 100 patients/arm, robotic surgery showed lower blood loss (p = 0.03), fewer positive circumferential margins (p = 0.04), and shorter hospital stay (p = 0.04). In propensity-matched studies, only positive circumferential margins favored robotics (OR 0.32; p = 0.01). No significant differences were found in patients ≥ 65 years. In patients < 65 years, robotics was associated with lower blood loss (p = 0.01), lower conversion rates (p = 0.006), shorter hospital stay (p = 0.03), but higher costs (p = 0.02). Conclusion: RAPR demonstrates comparable safety and oncologic outcomes to laparoscopy, while offering advantages in reducing blood loss, conversion to open surgery, and hospital stay. These benefits were more pronounced in younger patients and smaller cohorts. However, operative time and costs remain higher, and overall certainty of evidence ranged from very low to moderate, underscoring the need for further large-scale randomized trials. PROSPERO registration: CRD420261298072.