Clinical efficacy of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic liver resection: a meta analysis

Summary: To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of robotic-assisted liver resection (RLR) and laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) by the means of meta-analytical techniques. We searched PubMed, Cochrane library, Embase and Web of Science databases, collecting randomized or non-randomized studies...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Ruoyu Guan, Yongjun Chen, Kui Yang, Di Ma, Xiaoyong Gong, Baiyong Shen, Chenghong Peng
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Elsevier 2019-01-01
Series:Asian Journal of Surgery
Online Access:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1015958417306784
id doaj-03d014811edc49408bdb990524d50d9a
record_format Article
spelling doaj-03d014811edc49408bdb990524d50d9a2020-11-25T01:18:29ZengElsevierAsian Journal of Surgery1015-95842019-01-014211931Clinical efficacy of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic liver resection: a meta analysisRuoyu Guan0Yongjun Chen1Kui Yang2Di Ma3Xiaoyong Gong4Baiyong Shen5Chenghong Peng6Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, ChinaCorresponding author. Department of Hepatobiliary surgery, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, 200025, China. Fax: +86 021 54660106.; Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, ChinaDepartment of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, ChinaDepartment of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, ChinaDepartment of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, ChinaDepartment of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, ChinaDepartment of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, ChinaSummary: To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of robotic-assisted liver resection (RLR) and laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) by the means of meta-analytical techniques. We searched PubMed, Cochrane library, Embase and Web of Science databases, collecting randomized or non-randomized studies about robotic-assisted and laparoscopic liver resections. The searching cutoff date was 2017/6/30, all the data obtained were statistically analyzed using RevMan5.3 software recommended by Cochrane Collaboration. A total of thirteen articles, involving 938 patients were enrolled in meta-analysis. Among them, 435 cases underwent RLR, and 503 cases underwent LLR. Compared with LLR, the RLR had longer operative time [MD=65.49, 95%CI (42.00, 88.98) P<0.00001=more intraoperative blood loss [MD=69.88, 95%CI (27.11, 112.65) P=0.001] and a higher cost [MD=4.24, 95%CI (3.08, 5.39) P<0.00001=. There were no significant differences between the two groups in transfusion rate, complication rate, conversion rate, the R1 resection rate and hospital stay. In the subgroup analysis of surgery after 2010, a lower conversion rate was observed in RLR, other clinical outcomes are comparable between RLR and LLR. In the subgroup analysis of minor hepatectomy, RLR is still associated with longer operative time, but there is no difference in other outcomes. In the subgroup analysis of left hemihepatectomy or left lateral hepatectomy, RLR is associated with more blood loss. Although RLR associated with Longer operative time and more intraoperative blood loss, it displays the same safety and effectiveness as LLR for hepatectomies. And the high cost is still a major hindrance for the widely application of robotic surgery. Keywords: Robotic-assisted, Laparoscopic, Liver resection, Meta-analysishttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1015958417306784
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Ruoyu Guan
Yongjun Chen
Kui Yang
Di Ma
Xiaoyong Gong
Baiyong Shen
Chenghong Peng
spellingShingle Ruoyu Guan
Yongjun Chen
Kui Yang
Di Ma
Xiaoyong Gong
Baiyong Shen
Chenghong Peng
Clinical efficacy of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic liver resection: a meta analysis
Asian Journal of Surgery
author_facet Ruoyu Guan
Yongjun Chen
Kui Yang
Di Ma
Xiaoyong Gong
Baiyong Shen
Chenghong Peng
author_sort Ruoyu Guan
title Clinical efficacy of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic liver resection: a meta analysis
title_short Clinical efficacy of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic liver resection: a meta analysis
title_full Clinical efficacy of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic liver resection: a meta analysis
title_fullStr Clinical efficacy of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic liver resection: a meta analysis
title_full_unstemmed Clinical efficacy of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic liver resection: a meta analysis
title_sort clinical efficacy of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic liver resection: a meta analysis
publisher Elsevier
series Asian Journal of Surgery
issn 1015-9584
publishDate 2019-01-01
description Summary: To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of robotic-assisted liver resection (RLR) and laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) by the means of meta-analytical techniques. We searched PubMed, Cochrane library, Embase and Web of Science databases, collecting randomized or non-randomized studies about robotic-assisted and laparoscopic liver resections. The searching cutoff date was 2017/6/30, all the data obtained were statistically analyzed using RevMan5.3 software recommended by Cochrane Collaboration. A total of thirteen articles, involving 938 patients were enrolled in meta-analysis. Among them, 435 cases underwent RLR, and 503 cases underwent LLR. Compared with LLR, the RLR had longer operative time [MD=65.49, 95%CI (42.00, 88.98) P<0.00001=more intraoperative blood loss [MD=69.88, 95%CI (27.11, 112.65) P=0.001] and a higher cost [MD=4.24, 95%CI (3.08, 5.39) P<0.00001=. There were no significant differences between the two groups in transfusion rate, complication rate, conversion rate, the R1 resection rate and hospital stay. In the subgroup analysis of surgery after 2010, a lower conversion rate was observed in RLR, other clinical outcomes are comparable between RLR and LLR. In the subgroup analysis of minor hepatectomy, RLR is still associated with longer operative time, but there is no difference in other outcomes. In the subgroup analysis of left hemihepatectomy or left lateral hepatectomy, RLR is associated with more blood loss. Although RLR associated with Longer operative time and more intraoperative blood loss, it displays the same safety and effectiveness as LLR for hepatectomies. And the high cost is still a major hindrance for the widely application of robotic surgery. Keywords: Robotic-assisted, Laparoscopic, Liver resection, Meta-analysis
url http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1015958417306784
work_keys_str_mv AT ruoyuguan clinicalefficacyofrobotassistedversuslaparoscopicliverresectionametaanalysis
AT yongjunchen clinicalefficacyofrobotassistedversuslaparoscopicliverresectionametaanalysis
AT kuiyang clinicalefficacyofrobotassistedversuslaparoscopicliverresectionametaanalysis
AT dima clinicalefficacyofrobotassistedversuslaparoscopicliverresectionametaanalysis
AT xiaoyonggong clinicalefficacyofrobotassistedversuslaparoscopicliverresectionametaanalysis
AT baiyongshen clinicalefficacyofrobotassistedversuslaparoscopicliverresectionametaanalysis
AT chenghongpeng clinicalefficacyofrobotassistedversuslaparoscopicliverresectionametaanalysis
_version_ 1725142296760942592