Short-term outcomes in robot-assisted compared to laparoscopic colon cancer resections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Pedja Cuk, Mie Dilling Kjær, Christian Backer Mogensen, Michael Festersen Nielsen, Andreas Kristian Pedersen, Mark Bremholm Ellebæk

Journal: Surgical endoscopy 2022;36(1):32-46

PMID: 34724576

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted surgery is increasingly adopted in colorectal surgery. However, evidence for the implementation of robot-assisted surgery for colon cancer is sparse. This study aims to evaluate the short-term outcomes of robot-assisted colon surgery (RCS) for cancer compared to laparoscopic colon surgery (LCS).

METHODS

Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library were searched between January 1, 2005 and October 2, 2020. Randomized clinical trials and observational studies were included. Non-original literature was excluded. Primary endpoints were anastomotic leakage rate, conversion to open surgery, operative time, and length of hospital stay. Secondary endpoints were surgical efficacy and postoperative morbidity. We evaluated risk of bias using RoB2 and ROBINS-I quality assessment tools. We performed a pooled analysis of primary and secondary endpoints. Heterogeneity was assessed by I, and possible causes were explored by sensitivity- and meta-regression analyses. Publication bias was evaluated by Funnel plots and Eggers linear regression test. The level of evidence was assessed by GRADE.

RESULTS

Twenty studies enrolling 13,799 patients (RCS 1740 (12.6%) and LCS 12,059 (87.4%) were included in the meta-analysis that demonstrated RCS was superior regarding: anastomotic leakage (odds ratio (OR) = 0.54, 95% CI [0.32, 0.94]), conversion (OR = 0.31, 95% CI [0.23, 0.41]), overall complication rate (OR = 0.85, 95% CI [0.73, 1.00]) and time to regular diet (MD =  - 0.29, 95% CI [- 0.56, 0.02]). LCS proved to have a shortened operative time compared to RCS (MD = 42.99, 95% CI [28.37, 57.60]). Level of evidence was very low according to GRADE.

CONCLUSION

RCS showed advantages in colonic cancer surgery regarding surgical efficacy and morbidity compared to LCS despite a predominant inclusion of non-RCT with serious risk of bias assessment and a very low level of evidence.

© 2021. The Author(s).

Address: Surgical Department, University Hospital of Southern Jutland, Kresten Philipsens Vej 15, 6200, Aabenraa, Denmark. [email protected].; Institute of Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark. [email protected].; Research Unit for Surgery, Odense University Hospital and University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.; Institute of Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.; Surgical Department, University Hospital of Southern Jutland, Kresten Philipsens Vej 15, 6200, Aabenraa, Denmark.
Bant logo

© Copyright 2026, Nutrition Evidence

NED wishes to thank the following organisations for their support:

We use cookies to improve your experience and analyze site traffic with Google Analytics. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more.