Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
BACKGROUND: We hypothesized that robotic assistance (RARS) could provide better intraoperative and short-term outcomes than a traditional laparoscopic approach (LARS) to rectal cancer surgery. METHODS: Systematic review of the literature, including electronic searches and communications to international robotic meetings. INCLUSION CRITERIA: studies involving rectal cancer patients and comparing outcomes of robotic surgery vs laparoscopic surgery. Primary end-points: conversion and postoperative short-term complications. Meta-analysis performed using Review Manager 5.0 software. RESULTS: Five case-control studies involving 486 patients (203 RARS-283 LARS) were finally included. Conversion to open rate (RR = 0.31; 95% CI 0.12,0.78) was lower for RARS. No differences were found in oncological outcomes, hospital stay or anastomotic leakage. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis of available non-randomized studies suggests that conversion to open rate may be reduced when using RARS instead of LARS for rectal cancer.
Ortiz‐Oshiro et al. (2012) studied this question.