|
1
|
Flynn J, Larach JT, Kong JCH, Warrier SK, Heriot A. Robotic versus laparoscopic ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA): a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis 2021; 36:1345-1356. [PMID: 33611619 DOI: 10.1007/s00384-021-03868-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 38] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 01/27/2021] [Indexed: 02/04/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Restorative proctocolectomy with ileal-pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA) is a curative and cancer preventative procedure in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) and familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). It can be technically difficult laparoscopically, and hence the robotic platform has been suggested as a way to enable minimally invasive surgery in more patients. This systematic review examines robotic proctectomy or proctocolectomy with IPAA. A limited meta-analysis was performed on data comparing the robotic approach to laparoscopy. METHODS We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane database for case series of robotic IPAA procedures and studies comparing the robotic to laparoscopic or open procedures. Data examined includes operating time, conversion to open, length of stay, complications, blood loss, return of bowel function, reoperation rate and functional outcomes. RESULTS Five non-randomised studies compared robotic to laparoscopic techniques; one compared robotic to open surgery and three case series are included. Operating time was significantly longer in robotic cases. Estimated blood loss was significantly less in three of four studies which reported this; hospital stay was significantly less in two. There were nonsignificant reductions in complications and readmission rates. Pooled analysis of four papers with adequate data showed a nonstatistically significant trend to less complications in robotic procedures. Three studies assessed functional and quality of life outcomes, with little difference between the platforms. CONCLUSIONS Available data suggests that the robotic platform is safe to use for IPAA procedures. There is minimal evidence for clinical advantages, but with little data to base decisions and significant potential for improvements in technique and cost-effectiveness, further use of the platform for this operation is warranted. It is vital that this occurs within an evaluation framework.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Julie Flynn
- Department of Surgery, Epworth Healthcare, Bridge Rd, Richmond, 3121, Australia. .,Division of Cancer Surgery, University of Melbourne, Sir Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia. .,University of Melbourne, Sir Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
| | - Jose T Larach
- Department of Surgery, Epworth Healthcare, Bridge Rd, Richmond, 3121, Australia.,Division of Cancer Surgery, University of Melbourne, Sir Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.,Departamento de Cirugía Digestiva, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile
| | - Joseph C H Kong
- Division of Cancer Surgery, University of Melbourne, Sir Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.,University of Melbourne, Sir Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.,Division of Cancer Research, University of Melbourne, Sir Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Satish K Warrier
- Division of Cancer Surgery, University of Melbourne, Sir Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.,University of Melbourne, Sir Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.,Division of Cancer Research, University of Melbourne, Sir Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Alexander Heriot
- Division of Cancer Surgery, University of Melbourne, Sir Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.,University of Melbourne, Sir Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.,Division of Cancer Research, University of Melbourne, Sir Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia
| |
Collapse
|