title: Robotic versus laparoscopic proctectomy for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery is being performed more frequently for the minimally invasive management of rectal cancer. The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the clinical and oncologic safety and efficacy of robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery.
  
  
  METHODS
  A search of the Medline and Embase databases was performed for studies that compared clinical or oncologic outcomes of conventional laparoscopic proctectomy with robot-assisted laparoscopic proctectomy for rectal cancer. The methodological quality of the selected studies was critically assessed to identify studies suitable for inclusion. Meta-analysis was performed by a random effects model and analyzed by Review Manager. Clinical outcomes evaluated were conversion rates, operation times, length of hospital stay, and complications. Oncologic outcomes evaluated were circumferential margin status, number of lymph nodes collected, and distal resection margin lengths.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Eight comparative studies were assessed for quality, and seven studies were included in the meta-analysis. Two studies were matched case-control studies, and five were unmatched. A total of 353 robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery proctectomy cases and 401 conventional laparoscopic surgery proctectomy cases were analyzed. Robotic surgery was associated with a significantly lower conversion rate (P=0.03; 95% confidence interval 1-12). There was no difference in complications, circumferential margin involvement, distal resection margin, lymph node yield, or hospital stay (P=NS).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Robot-assisted surgery decreased the conversion rate compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery. Other clinical outcomes and oncologic outcomes were equivalent. The benefits of robotic rectal cancer surgery may differ between population groups.
authors.affiliation: Department of Colorectal Surgery, Division of Cancer Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne, Australia.
authors.forename: Sameer
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Memon
authors.forename: Alexander G
authors.initials: AG
authors.lastname: Heriot
authors.forename: Declan G
authors.initials: DG
authors.lastname: Murphy
authors.forename: Mathias
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Bressel
authors.forename: A Craig
authors.initials: AC
authors.lastname: Lynch
mesh_terms: D016022:Case-Control Studies; D006801:Humans; D010535:Laparoscopy; D007902:Length of Stay; D008198:Lymph Nodes / Q000473:pathology*; D011183:Postoperative Complications; D011379:Prognosis; D012004:Rectal Neoplasms / Q000473:pathology / Q000601:surgery*; D012371:Robotics