Outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PurposeRobotic-assisted rectal surgery (RARS) and Laparoscopic-assisted rectal surgery are the two techniques that are increasingly used for rectal cancer, and both have their advantages and disadvantages. This meta-analysis will analyze the outcomes of both techniques to determine their relative performance and suitability.MethodsAn extensive search was carried out on PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, Embase, and Google Scholar, followed by a meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess both approaches for rectal cancer.ResultsThis meta-analysis is comprised of fifteen RCTs. The conversion to open surgery (RR = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.38-0.74, P = 0.0002) was significantly lower in the RARS group. The outcomes like anastomotic leak, postoperative ileus, postoperative urinary retention (POUR), surgical site infection (SSI), and intra-abdominal abscess showed no significant difference between the two groups. The reoperation rate (RR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.34-0.95, P = 0.03) was lower in the robotic group. High heterogeneity was obtained when pooling data on operative time, length of hospital stay, and blood loss. Oncological outcomes, including local recurrence, the number of harvested lymph nodes (LN) and distal resection margin showed no significant distinction among both groups, while the positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) (RR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.49-0.91, P = 0.01) was lower in the RARS group. RARS demonstrated a significantly higher rate of total mesorectal excision (TME) (RR = 1.07, 95% CI: 1.01-1.14, P = 0.03).ConclusionRARS is safe and feasible for rectal cancer patients and may be superior or equivalent to Laparoscopic-assisted rectal surgery, but high-standard, large-scale trials are required to determine the best approach.