Redefining Precision: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Comparing...

Area of Science:

• Oncology
• Surgical Innovation
• Minimally Invasive Surgery

Background:

• Minimally invasive surgery, including laparoscopic surgery (LS) and robotic-assisted surgery (RAS), has become standard for colorectal cancer (CRC) treatment.
• Comparing the efficacy and safety of these approaches is crucial for optimizing patient outcomes.

Purpose of the Study:

• To systematically review and meta-analyze randomized controlled trials comparing RAS and LS in CRC management.
• To evaluate perioperative, oncological, and long-term outcomes between RAS and LS.

Main Methods:

• Systematic review and meta-analysis of nine randomized controlled trials.
• Inclusion of 2,758 patients comparing RAS versus LS for colorectal cancer.

Main Results:

• Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) demonstrated longer operative times but showed reduced conversion rates, increased lymph node retrieval, and lower positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) rates compared to laparoscopic surgery (LS).
• Both RAS and LS exhibited comparable safety profiles, with similar rates of mortality and overall complications.

Conclusions:

• Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) presents potential advantages in specific oncological outcomes for colorectal cancer (CRC) management compared to laparoscopic surgery (LS).
• Further investigation is warranted to establish the cost-effectiveness and definitive long-term oncological benefits of RAS.