Background:The aim of this study was to assess the safety and effectiveness of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) in patients with rectal cancer.Methods:We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, Web of science, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database up to July 2016 to identify case-controlled studies that compared robotic TME (RTME) with laparoscopic TME (LTME) for rectal cancer. GRADE was used to interpret the primary outcomes of this meta-analysis.Results:We included 17 case–control studies (3601 participants: 1726 underwent RTME and 1875 LTME for rectal cancer) that compared RTME with LTME for rectal cancer. We found no statistically significant differences between techniques for local recurrence [odds ratio (OR) = 0.68, P = .216] and overall survival at 3 years (OR = 0.71, P = 1.140), complications (OR = 1.02, P = .883), positive circumferential resection margin (PCRM) (OR = 0.80, P = .256), the first passing flatus [weighted mean difference (WMD) = −0.11, P = .130], reoperation (OR = 0.66, P = .080), estimated blood loss (EBL) (WMD = −12.45, P = .500), and length of stay in hospital (LOS) (WMD = −0.69, P = .089). Compared with LTME, RTME was associated with lower rate of conversion (OR = 0.35, P < .001), urinary retention (OR = 0.41, P = .025), and longer operative time (WMD = 57.43, P < .001). The overall quality of evidence was poor in all outcomes.Conclusion:RTME in patients with rectal cancer was associated with a lower rate of conversion and less incidence of urinary retention. Generally, operative time in RTME was significantly longer than in LTME. The long-term oncological and function outcomes of RTME seem to be equivalent with LTME. Therefore, analysis of current studies to date did not indicate a major benefit of RTME over LTME.

No abstract

This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effectiveness and safety of RAH and LLR for liver neoplasms. A systematic search was performed in PubMed, EMbase, the Cochrane Library, Web of science, and China Biology Medicine disc up to July 2016 for studies that provided comparisons between the surgical outcomes of RAH and LLR for liver neoplasms. WMD, OR and 95% CI were calculated and data combined using the random-effect model. The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE methods. A total of 17 studies were included in the meta-analysis, in which 487 patients were in the RAH group and 902 patients were in the LLR group. The meta-analysis results indicated: compared to LLR, RAH was associated with more estimated blood loss, longer operative time, and longer time to first nutritional intake (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in length of hospital stay, conversion rate during operation, R0 resection rate, complications and mortality (p > 0.05). Three studies reported the total cost, and the result showed a higher cost in the RAH group when compared with the LLR group (p < 0.05). This meta-analysis indicated that RAH and LLR display similar effectiveness and safety in hepatectomy. Considering the lack of high quality original studies, prospective clinical trials should be conducted to provide strong evidence for clinical guidelines formation, and the insurance coverage policies should be established to promote the application of robotic surgery in the future.

Background:Recently, in order to overcome the shortcomings of laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of low rectal cancer, a new kind of surgical procedure, transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME), has rapidly become a research hotspot in the field of rectal cancer surgery study. Our study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for the patients with rectal cancer.Methods:Relevant studies were searched from the databases of the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, Web of science. All relevant studies were collected to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TaTME for patients with rectal cancer. The quality of the included studies was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS) and Cochrane Library Handbook 5.1.0. Data analysis was conducted using the Review Manager 5.3 software.Results:Thirteen studies including 859 patients were included in our analysis. In terms of efficacy, compared with laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LaTME), meta-analysis showed that the rate of complete tumor resection increased and the risk of positive circumferential margins decreased in the TaTME group. For complete tumor resection and positive circumferential margins in the TaTME group, the odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were 1.93 and 1.09 to 3.42 (P = .02) and 0.43 and 0.22 to 0.82 (P = .01), respectively. Concerning safety, results showed that the rates of postoperative complications were similar in the 2 groups, and differences in the risk of ileus and anastomotic leakage were not statistically significant (OR = 0.75, 95%CI = 0.51–1.09, P = .13; OR = 0.91, 95%CI = 0.46–1.78, P = .78; OR = 0.79, 95%CI = 0.45–1.38, P = .40).Conclusions:The results of this meta-analysis show that TaTME is associated with a reduced positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) rate, and could achieve complete tumor resection and improved the long-term survival in patients with mid- and low-rectal cancer.