Network meta-analysis comparing the clinical outcomes and safety of robotic, laparoscopic, and transanal total rectal mesenteric resection for rectal cancer.
10.3760/cma.j.cn441530-20220916-00387
- Author:
Yuan LIU
1
;
Wei SHEN
1
;
Zhi Qiang TIAN
1
;
Yin Chao ZHANG
1
;
Guo Qing TAO
1
;
Yan Fei ZHU
1
;
Guo Dong SONG
1
;
Jia Cheng CAO
1
;
Yu Kang HUANG
1
;
Chen SONG
1
Author Information
1. Department of General Surgery, the Affiliated Wuxi People's Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Wuxi 214023, China.
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- MeSH:
Humans;
Robotics;
Robotic Surgical Procedures/adverse effects*;
Network Meta-Analysis;
Retrospective Studies;
Postoperative Complications/etiology*;
Transanal Endoscopic Surgery/methods*;
Rectum/surgery*;
Rectal Neoplasms/pathology*;
Laparoscopy/methods*;
Treatment Outcome
- From:
Chinese Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery
2023;26(5):475-484
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective: To methodically assess the clinical effectiveness and safety of robot-assisted total rectal mesenteric resection (RTME), laparoscopic-assisted total rectal mesenteric resection (laTME), and transanal total rectal mesenteric resection (taTME). Methods: A computer search was conducted on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Ovid databases to identify English-language reports published between January 2017 and January 2022 that compared the clinical efficacy of the three surgical procedures of RTME, laTME, and taTME. The quality of the studies was evaluated using the NOS and JADAD scales for retrospective cohort studies and randomized controlled trials, respectively. Direct meta-analysis and reticulated meta-analysis were performed using Review Manager software and R software, respectively. Results: Twenty-nine publications comprising 8,339 patients with rectal cancer were ultimately included. The direct meta-analysis indicated that the length of hospital stay was longer after RTME than after taTME, whereas according to the reticulated meta-analysis the length of hospital stay was shorter after taTME than after laTME (MD=-0.86, 95%CI: -1.70 to -0.096, P=0.036). Moreover, the incidence of anastomotic leak was lower after taTME than after RTME (OR=0.60, 95%CI: 0.39 to 0.91, P=0.018). The incidence of intestinal obstruction was also lower after taTME than after RTME (OR=0.55, 95%CI: 0.31 to 0.94, P=0.037). All of these differences were statistically significant (all P<0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between the three surgical procedures regarding the number of lymph nodes cleared, length of the inferior rectal margin, or rate of positive circumferential margins (all P>0.05). An inconsistency test using nodal analysis revealed no statistically significant differences between the results of direct and indirect comparisons of the six outcome indicators (all P>0.05). Furthermore, we detected no significant overall inconsistency between direct and indirect evidence. Conclusion: taTME has advantages over RTME and laTME, in terms of radical and surgical short-term outcomes in patients with rectal cancer.
