Search

Background: Robotic distal gastrectomy (RDG) is a new technique that is rapidly gaining popularity and may help overcome the limitations of laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG); however, its safety and therapeutic efficacy remain controversial. Therefore, this meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of RDG. Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for studies that compared RDG and LDG and were published between the time of database inception and May 2021. We assessed the bias risk of the observational studies using ROBIN-I, and a random effect model was always applied. Results: The meta-analysis included 22 studies involving 5386 patients. Compared with LDG, RDG was associated with longer operating time (Mean Difference [MD] = 43.88, 95% CI = 35.17–52.60), less intraoperative blood loss (MD = − 24.84, 95% CI = − 41.26 to − 8.43), a higher number of retrieved lymph nodes (MD = 2.41, 95% CI = 0.77–4.05), shorter time to first flatus (MD = − 0.09, 95% CI = − 0.15 to − 0.03), shorter postoperative hospital stay (MD = − 0.68, 95% CI = − 1.27 to − 0.08), and lower incidence of pancreatic fistula (OR = 0.23, 95% CI = 0.07–0.79). Mean proximal and distal resection margin distances, time to start liquid and soft diets, and other complications were not significantly different between RDG and LDG groups. However, in the propensity-score-matched meta-analysis, the differences in time to first flatus and postoperative hospital stay between the two groups lost significance. Conclusions: Based on the available evidence, RDG appears feasible and safe, shows better surgical and oncological outcomes than LDG and, comparable postoperative recovery and postoperative complication outcomes.

Background: Whether perioperative administration is required in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) in patients with low risk of infection remains controversial. Objective: To investigate whether perioperative use of prophylactic antibiotics during elective LC can reduce the incidence of postoperative infection using a meta-analysis. Methods: Pubmed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and reference lists were searched up to October 26, 2020, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the perioperative use of antibiotics during LC. A systematic review with meta-analysis, meta-regression, and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) of the evidence was conducted. The Cochrane (RoB 2.0) tool was used to assess the risk of bias. Result: A total of 14 RCTs were ultimately included in the meta-analysis, involving a total of 4360 patients. The incidence of surgical site infections, distant infections, and overall infections was investigated and the relationship with the perioperative use of prophylactic antibiotics during LC analyzed. The results indicated that in low-risk patients undergoing elective LC, prophylactic antibiotics reduce the incidence of surgical site infections (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.45–0.98), with a moderate GRADE of evidence, distant infections (RR 0.34; 95% CI 0.16–0.73), with a low GRADE of evidence and overall infections (RR 0.57; 95% CI 0.40–0.80), with a moderate GRADE of evidence. Conclusions: The present meta-analysis demonstrates that the perioperative use of antibiotics in LC is effective in low-risk patients, possibly reducing the incidence of surgical site infections, distant infections, and overall infections. However, in view of the limitations of the study, it is recommended that studies with a more rigorous design (for downgraded factors) and larger sample size should be conducted in the future so that the conclusions above can be further verified through key result indicators.

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. 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. 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). 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.