Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy for benign gallbladder diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background Robotic surgery, an emerging technology, has some potential advantages in many complicated endoscopic procedures compared with laparoscopic surgery. But robot-assisted cholecystectomy (RAC) is still a controversial issue on its comparative merit compared with conventional laparoscopic cho...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Surgical endoscopy 2018-11, Vol.32 (11), p.4377-4392
Hauptverfasser: Han, Caiwen, Shan, Xinyi, Yao, Liang, Yan, Peijing, Li, Meixuan, Hu, Lidong, Tian, Hongwei, Jing, Wutang, Du, Binbin, Wang, Lixia, Yang, Kehu, Guo, Tiankang
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 4392
container_issue 11
container_start_page 4377
container_title Surgical endoscopy
container_volume 32
creator Han, Caiwen
Shan, Xinyi
Yao, Liang
Yan, Peijing
Li, Meixuan
Hu, Lidong
Tian, Hongwei
Jing, Wutang
Du, Binbin
Wang, Lixia
Yang, Kehu
Guo, Tiankang
description Background Robotic surgery, an emerging technology, has some potential advantages in many complicated endoscopic procedures compared with laparoscopic surgery. But robot-assisted cholecystectomy (RAC) is still a controversial issue on its comparative merit compared with conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of RAC compared with LC for benign gallbladder disease. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted using the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases (from their inception to December 2017) to obtain comparative studies assessing the safety and efficacy between RAC and LC. The quality of the literature was assessed, and the data analyzed using R software, random effects models were applied. Results Twenty-six studies, including 5 RCTs and 21 NRCSs (3 prospective plus 18 retrospective), were included. A total of 4004 patients were included, of which 1833 patients (46%) underwent RAC and 2171 patients (54%) underwent LC. No significant differences were found in intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, readmission rate, hospital stay, estimated blood loss, and conversion rate between RAC and LC groups. However, RAC was related to longer operative time compared with LC (MD = 12.04 min, 95% CI 7.26–16.82) in RCT group, which was consistent with NRCS group; RAC also had a higher rate of incisional hernia in NRCS group (RR = 3.06, 95% CI 1.42–6.57), and one RCT reported that RAC was similar to LC (RR = 7.00, 95% CI 0.38–129.84). Conclusions The RAC was not found to be more effective or safer than LC for benign gallbladder diseases, which indicated that RAC is a developing procedure instead of replacing LC at once. Given the higher costs, the current evidence is in favor of LC in cholecystectomy.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s00464-018-6295-9
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2062835949</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2062835949</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c372t-eb3c26daed41a015c499ff50edac39404fb19ebad35a1a4bf484b719bf5ff9d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kUFrFDEUgIModlv9AV4k4MVLNMkksxNvUrQKBUF6H16Sl3XKzGTNm2lZ_PNm3aogeMrhffleyMfYCyXfKCm3b0lK0xohVSda7axwj9hGmUYLrVX3mG2ka6TQW2fO2DnRray4U_YpO9PO2VbqbsN-fM0-L0MQQDTQgpHfYaGV-Ah7KJlC3g-Bh295xHCo87Dk6cBTLtzjPOxmvoNx9CPEiIXHgRAI6R0HTkd6gqrmBe8GvOcwRz7hAgJmGA912zP2JMFI-PzhvGA3Hz_cXH4S11-uPl--vxah2epFoG-CbiNgNAqkssE4l5KVGCE0zkiTvHLoITYWFBifTGf8VjmfbEouNhfs9Um7L_n7irT000ABxxFmzCv1Wra6a6wzrqKv_kFv81rqc39RSmtrla2UOlGhfhAVTP2-DBOUQ69kfwzTn8L0NUx_DNMfzS8fzKufMP658btEBfQJoDqad1j-rv6_9SeYYpwy</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2061225515</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy for benign gallbladder diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis</title><source>SpringerNature Journals</source><creator>Han, Caiwen ; Shan, Xinyi ; Yao, Liang ; Yan, Peijing ; Li, Meixuan ; Hu, Lidong ; Tian, Hongwei ; Jing, Wutang ; Du, Binbin ; Wang, Lixia ; Yang, Kehu ; Guo, Tiankang</creator><creatorcontrib>Han, Caiwen ; Shan, Xinyi ; Yao, Liang ; Yan, Peijing ; Li, Meixuan ; Hu, Lidong ; Tian, Hongwei ; Jing, Wutang ; Du, Binbin ; Wang, Lixia ; Yang, Kehu ; Guo, Tiankang</creatorcontrib><description>Background Robotic surgery, an emerging technology, has some potential advantages in many complicated endoscopic procedures compared with laparoscopic surgery. But robot-assisted cholecystectomy (RAC) is still a controversial issue on its comparative merit compared with conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of RAC compared with LC for benign gallbladder disease. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted using the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases (from their inception to December 2017) to obtain comparative studies assessing the safety and efficacy between RAC and LC. The quality of the literature was assessed, and the data analyzed using R software, random effects models were applied. Results Twenty-six studies, including 5 RCTs and 21 NRCSs (3 prospective plus 18 retrospective), were included. A total of 4004 patients were included, of which 1833 patients (46%) underwent RAC and 2171 patients (54%) underwent LC. No significant differences were found in intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, readmission rate, hospital stay, estimated blood loss, and conversion rate between RAC and LC groups. However, RAC was related to longer operative time compared with LC (MD = 12.04 min, 95% CI 7.26–16.82) in RCT group, which was consistent with NRCS group; RAC also had a higher rate of incisional hernia in NRCS group (RR = 3.06, 95% CI 1.42–6.57), and one RCT reported that RAC was similar to LC (RR = 7.00, 95% CI 0.38–129.84). Conclusions The RAC was not found to be more effective or safer than LC for benign gallbladder diseases, which indicated that RAC is a developing procedure instead of replacing LC at once. Given the higher costs, the current evidence is in favor of LC in cholecystectomy.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0930-2794</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-2218</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00464-018-6295-9</identifier><identifier>PMID: 29956028</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer US</publisher><subject>Abdominal Surgery ; Cholecystectomy ; Gallbladder ; Gallbladder diseases ; Gastroenterology ; Gynecology ; Hepatology ; Laparoscopy ; Medicine ; Medicine &amp; Public Health ; Meta-analysis ; Proctology ; Review Article ; Robotic surgery ; Surgery ; Systematic review</subject><ispartof>Surgical endoscopy, 2018-11, Vol.32 (11), p.4377-4392</ispartof><rights>Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018</rights><rights>Surgical Endoscopy is a copyright of Springer, (2018). All Rights Reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c372t-eb3c26daed41a015c499ff50edac39404fb19ebad35a1a4bf484b719bf5ff9d3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c372t-eb3c26daed41a015c499ff50edac39404fb19ebad35a1a4bf484b719bf5ff9d3</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-6679-8674</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00464-018-6295-9$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00464-018-6295-9$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,41488,42557,51319</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29956028$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Han, Caiwen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shan, Xinyi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yao, Liang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yan, Peijing</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Meixuan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hu, Lidong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tian, Hongwei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jing, Wutang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Du, Binbin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Lixia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yang, Kehu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guo, Tiankang</creatorcontrib><title>Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy for benign gallbladder diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis</title><title>Surgical endoscopy</title><addtitle>Surg Endosc</addtitle><addtitle>Surg Endosc</addtitle><description>Background Robotic surgery, an emerging technology, has some potential advantages in many complicated endoscopic procedures compared with laparoscopic surgery. But robot-assisted cholecystectomy (RAC) is still a controversial issue on its comparative merit compared with conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of RAC compared with LC for benign gallbladder disease. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted using the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases (from their inception to December 2017) to obtain comparative studies assessing the safety and efficacy between RAC and LC. The quality of the literature was assessed, and the data analyzed using R software, random effects models were applied. Results Twenty-six studies, including 5 RCTs and 21 NRCSs (3 prospective plus 18 retrospective), were included. A total of 4004 patients were included, of which 1833 patients (46%) underwent RAC and 2171 patients (54%) underwent LC. No significant differences were found in intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, readmission rate, hospital stay, estimated blood loss, and conversion rate between RAC and LC groups. However, RAC was related to longer operative time compared with LC (MD = 12.04 min, 95% CI 7.26–16.82) in RCT group, which was consistent with NRCS group; RAC also had a higher rate of incisional hernia in NRCS group (RR = 3.06, 95% CI 1.42–6.57), and one RCT reported that RAC was similar to LC (RR = 7.00, 95% CI 0.38–129.84). Conclusions The RAC was not found to be more effective or safer than LC for benign gallbladder diseases, which indicated that RAC is a developing procedure instead of replacing LC at once. Given the higher costs, the current evidence is in favor of LC in cholecystectomy.</description><subject>Abdominal Surgery</subject><subject>Cholecystectomy</subject><subject>Gallbladder</subject><subject>Gallbladder diseases</subject><subject>Gastroenterology</subject><subject>Gynecology</subject><subject>Hepatology</subject><subject>Laparoscopy</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine &amp; Public Health</subject><subject>Meta-analysis</subject><subject>Proctology</subject><subject>Review Article</subject><subject>Robotic surgery</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><issn>0930-2794</issn><issn>1432-2218</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kUFrFDEUgIModlv9AV4k4MVLNMkksxNvUrQKBUF6H16Sl3XKzGTNm2lZ_PNm3aogeMrhffleyMfYCyXfKCm3b0lK0xohVSda7axwj9hGmUYLrVX3mG2ka6TQW2fO2DnRray4U_YpO9PO2VbqbsN-fM0-L0MQQDTQgpHfYaGV-Ah7KJlC3g-Bh295xHCo87Dk6cBTLtzjPOxmvoNx9CPEiIXHgRAI6R0HTkd6gqrmBe8GvOcwRz7hAgJmGA912zP2JMFI-PzhvGA3Hz_cXH4S11-uPl--vxah2epFoG-CbiNgNAqkssE4l5KVGCE0zkiTvHLoITYWFBifTGf8VjmfbEouNhfs9Um7L_n7irT000ABxxFmzCv1Wra6a6wzrqKv_kFv81rqc39RSmtrla2UOlGhfhAVTP2-DBOUQ69kfwzTn8L0NUx_DNMfzS8fzKufMP658btEBfQJoDqad1j-rv6_9SeYYpwy</recordid><startdate>20181101</startdate><enddate>20181101</enddate><creator>Han, Caiwen</creator><creator>Shan, Xinyi</creator><creator>Yao, Liang</creator><creator>Yan, Peijing</creator><creator>Li, Meixuan</creator><creator>Hu, Lidong</creator><creator>Tian, Hongwei</creator><creator>Jing, Wutang</creator><creator>Du, Binbin</creator><creator>Wang, Lixia</creator><creator>Yang, Kehu</creator><creator>Guo, Tiankang</creator><general>Springer US</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6679-8674</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20181101</creationdate><title>Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy for benign gallbladder diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis</title><author>Han, Caiwen ; Shan, Xinyi ; Yao, Liang ; Yan, Peijing ; Li, Meixuan ; Hu, Lidong ; Tian, Hongwei ; Jing, Wutang ; Du, Binbin ; Wang, Lixia ; Yang, Kehu ; Guo, Tiankang</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c372t-eb3c26daed41a015c499ff50edac39404fb19ebad35a1a4bf484b719bf5ff9d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Abdominal Surgery</topic><topic>Cholecystectomy</topic><topic>Gallbladder</topic><topic>Gallbladder diseases</topic><topic>Gastroenterology</topic><topic>Gynecology</topic><topic>Hepatology</topic><topic>Laparoscopy</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine &amp; Public Health</topic><topic>Meta-analysis</topic><topic>Proctology</topic><topic>Review Article</topic><topic>Robotic surgery</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Han, Caiwen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shan, Xinyi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yao, Liang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yan, Peijing</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Meixuan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hu, Lidong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tian, Hongwei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jing, Wutang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Du, Binbin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Lixia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yang, Kehu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guo, Tiankang</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Surgical endoscopy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Han, Caiwen</au><au>Shan, Xinyi</au><au>Yao, Liang</au><au>Yan, Peijing</au><au>Li, Meixuan</au><au>Hu, Lidong</au><au>Tian, Hongwei</au><au>Jing, Wutang</au><au>Du, Binbin</au><au>Wang, Lixia</au><au>Yang, Kehu</au><au>Guo, Tiankang</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy for benign gallbladder diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis</atitle><jtitle>Surgical endoscopy</jtitle><stitle>Surg Endosc</stitle><addtitle>Surg Endosc</addtitle><date>2018-11-01</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>32</volume><issue>11</issue><spage>4377</spage><epage>4392</epage><pages>4377-4392</pages><issn>0930-2794</issn><eissn>1432-2218</eissn><abstract>Background Robotic surgery, an emerging technology, has some potential advantages in many complicated endoscopic procedures compared with laparoscopic surgery. But robot-assisted cholecystectomy (RAC) is still a controversial issue on its comparative merit compared with conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of RAC compared with LC for benign gallbladder disease. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted using the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases (from their inception to December 2017) to obtain comparative studies assessing the safety and efficacy between RAC and LC. The quality of the literature was assessed, and the data analyzed using R software, random effects models were applied. Results Twenty-six studies, including 5 RCTs and 21 NRCSs (3 prospective plus 18 retrospective), were included. A total of 4004 patients were included, of which 1833 patients (46%) underwent RAC and 2171 patients (54%) underwent LC. No significant differences were found in intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, readmission rate, hospital stay, estimated blood loss, and conversion rate between RAC and LC groups. However, RAC was related to longer operative time compared with LC (MD = 12.04 min, 95% CI 7.26–16.82) in RCT group, which was consistent with NRCS group; RAC also had a higher rate of incisional hernia in NRCS group (RR = 3.06, 95% CI 1.42–6.57), and one RCT reported that RAC was similar to LC (RR = 7.00, 95% CI 0.38–129.84). Conclusions The RAC was not found to be more effective or safer than LC for benign gallbladder diseases, which indicated that RAC is a developing procedure instead of replacing LC at once. Given the higher costs, the current evidence is in favor of LC in cholecystectomy.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><pmid>29956028</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00464-018-6295-9</doi><tpages>16</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6679-8674</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0930-2794
ispartof Surgical endoscopy, 2018-11, Vol.32 (11), p.4377-4392
issn 0930-2794
1432-2218
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2062835949
source SpringerNature Journals
subjects Abdominal Surgery
Cholecystectomy
Gallbladder
Gallbladder diseases
Gastroenterology
Gynecology
Hepatology
Laparoscopy
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Meta-analysis
Proctology
Review Article
Robotic surgery
Surgery
Systematic review
title Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy for benign gallbladder diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-24T22%3A11%3A34IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Robotic-assisted%20versus%20laparoscopic%20cholecystectomy%20for%20benign%20gallbladder%20diseases:%20a%20systematic%20review%20and%20meta-analysis&rft.jtitle=Surgical%20endoscopy&rft.au=Han,%20Caiwen&rft.date=2018-11-01&rft.volume=32&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=4377&rft.epage=4392&rft.pages=4377-4392&rft.issn=0930-2794&rft.eissn=1432-2218&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00464-018-6295-9&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2062835949%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2061225515&rft_id=info:pmid/29956028&rfr_iscdi=true