ObjectivesThe aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare robotic colectomy (RC) with laparoscopic colectomy (LC) in terms of intraoperative and postoperative outcomes.Materials and MethodsA systematic literature search was performed to retrieve comparative studies of robotic and laparoscopic colectomy. The databases searched were PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from January 2000 to October 2014. The Odds ratio, Risk difference and Mean difference were used as the summary statistics.ResultsA total of 12 studies, which included a total of 4,148 patients who had undergone robotic or laparoscopic colectomy, were included and analyzed. RC demonstrated a longer operative time (MD 41.52, P<0.00001) and higher cost (MD 2.42, P<0.00001) than did LC. The time to first flatus passage (MD -0.51, P = 0.003) and the length of hospital stay (MD -0.68, P = 0.01) were significantly shorter after RC. Additionally, the intraoperative blood loss (MD -16.82, P<0.00001) was significantly less in RC. There was also a significantly lower incidence of overall postoperative complications (OR 0.74, P = 0.02) and wound infections (RD -0.02, P = 0.03) after RC. No differences in the postoperative ileus, in the anastomotic leak, or in the conversion to open surgery rate and in the number of harvested lymph nodes outcomes were found between the approaches.ConclusionsThe present meta-analysis, mainly based on observational studies, suggests that RC is more time-consuming and expensive than laparoscopy but that it results in faster recovery of bowel function, a shorter hospital stay, less blood loss and lower rates of both overall postoperative complications and wound infections.
IntroductionThe goal of non-operative management (NOM) for blunt splenic trauma (BST) is to preserve the spleen. The advantages of NOM for minor splenic trauma have been extensively reported, whereas its value for the more severe splenic injuries is still debated. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the available published evidence on NOM in patients with splenic trauma and to compare it with the operative management (OM) in terms of mortality, morbidity and duration of hospital stay.MethodsFor this systematic review we followed the "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses" statement. A systematic search was performed on PubMed for studies published from January 2000 to December 2011, without language restrictions, which compared NOM vs. OM for splenic trauma injuries and which at least 10 patients with BST.ResultsWe identified 21 non randomized studies: 1 Clinical Controlled Trial and 20 retrospective cohort studies analyzing a total of 16,940 patients with BST. NOM represents the gold standard treatment for minor splenic trauma and is associated with decreased mortality in severe splenic trauma (4.78% vs. 13.5% in NOM and OM, respectively), according to the literature. Of note, in BST treated operatively, concurrent injuries accounted for the higher mortality. In addition, it was not possible to determine post-treatment morbidity in major splenic trauma. The definition of hemodynamic stability varied greatly in the literature depending on the surgeon and the trauma team, representing a further bias. Moreover, data on the remaining analyzed outcomes (hospital stay, number of blood transfusions, abdominal abscesses, overwhelming post-splenectomy infection) were not reported in all included studies or were not comparable, precluding the possibility to perform a meaningful cumulative analysis and comparison.ConclusionsNOM of BST, preserving the spleen, is the treatment of choice for the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma grades I and II. Conclusions are more difficult to outline for higher grades of splenic injury, because of the substantial heterogeneity of expertise among different hospitals, and potentially inappropriate comparison groups.
Colovesical fistulas originating from complicated sigmoid diverticular disease are rare. The primary aim of this review was to evaluate the role of laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of this complication. The secondary aim was to determine the best surgical treatment for this disease. A systematic search was conducted for studies published between 1992 and 2012 in PubMed, the Cochrane Register of Controlled Clinical Trials, Scopus, and Publish or Perish. Studies enrolling adults undergoing fully laparoscopic, laparoscopic-assisted, or hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery for colovesical fistula secondary to complicated sigmoid diverticular disease were considered. Data extracted concerned the surgical technique, intraoperative outcomes, and postoperative outcomes based on the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group's template. Descriptive statistics were reported according to the PRISMA statement. In all, 202 patients from 25 studies were included in this review. The standard treatment was laparoscopic colonic resection and primary anastomosis or temporary colostomy with or without resection of the bladder wall. Operative time ranged from 150 to 321 min. It was not possible to evaluate the conversion rate to open surgery because colovesical fistulas were not distinguished from other types of enteric fistulas in most of the studies. One anastomotic leak after bowel anastomosis was reported. There was zero mortality. Few studies conducted follow-up longer than 12 months. One patient required two reoperations. Laparoscopic treatment of colovesical fistulas secondary to sigmoid diverticular disease appears to be a feasible and safe approach. However, further studies are needed to establish whether laparoscopy is preferable to other surgical approaches.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.