IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0239909.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The severity of postoperative complications after robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression

Author

Listed:
  • Yanlei Wang
  • Yanfei Liu
  • Gaoyang Han
  • Bo Yi
  • Shaihong Zhu

Abstract

Objective: Robotic surgery (RS) has been increasingly used for the resection of rectal cancer, and its advantages over laparoscopic surgery (LS) have been demonstrated. However, few studies focused on the severity of postoperative complications. This study aimed to compared the postoperative complications within 30 days after RS over LS according to the Clavien-Dindo (C-D) classification. Methods: A literature research of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were systematically performed. The studies comparing the complications of RS and LS for rectal cancer based on the C-D classification were enrolled. Primary outcomes were C-D grade III, IV, V, III-V (severe complications). Results: Seventeen studies (3193 patients) were included in the final analysis: 1554 underwent RS and 1639 underwent LS. The RS group was associated with significantly lower rates of severe complications (OR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.53–0.90, P = 0.005), C-D grade IV (OR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.53–0.90, P = 0.005), and anastomotic leak (OR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.48–0.91, P = 0.01). There was no significant difference in C-D grade III, C-D grade I, II, I-II (minor complications), overall complications, bleeding, wound complications, postoperative ileus, urinary retention, readmission, reoperation between two groups. Conclusions: Robotic surgery is safe for rectal cancer and may be an effective alternative to laparoscopic surgery, with lower rates of severe complications, C-D grade IV, and anastomotic leak. Further large randomized controlled trials are necessary to confirm this conclusion.

Suggested Citation

  • Yanlei Wang & Yanfei Liu & Gaoyang Han & Bo Yi & Shaihong Zhu, 2020. "The severity of postoperative complications after robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(10), pages 1-15, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0239909
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0239909
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0239909
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0239909&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0239909?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. S. A. Høyland & K. A. Holte & B. Gjerstad & I. L. Teig, 2023. "A System Perspective on Implementation and Usage of the Da Vinci Technology at a Large Norwegian Regional Hospital’," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(3), pages 21582440231, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0239909. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.