Outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Robotic-assisted rectal surgery (RARS) and Laparoscopic-assisted rectal surgery are the two techniques that are increasingly used for rectal cancer, and both have their advantages and disadvantages. This meta-analysis will analyze the outcomes of both techniques to determine their relative performance and suitability. METHODS: An extensive search was carried out on PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, Embase, and Google Scholar, followed by a meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess both approaches for rectal cancer. RESULTS: This meta-analysis is comprised of fifteen RCTs. The conversion to open surgery (RR = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.38-0.74, P = 0.0002) was significantly lower in the RARS group. The outcomes like anastomotic leak, postoperative ileus, postoperative urinary retention (POUR), surgical site infection (SSI), and intra-abdominal abscess showed no significant difference between the two groups. The reoperation rate (RR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.34-0.95, P = 0.03) was lower in the robotic group. High heterogeneity was obtained when pooling data on operative time, length of hospital stay, and blood loss. Oncological outcomes, including local recurrence, the number of harvested lymph nodes (LN) and distal resection margin showed no significant distinction among both groups, while the positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) (RR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.49-0.91, P = 0.01) was lower in the RARS group. RARS demonstrated a significantly higher rate of total mesorectal excision (TME) (RR = 1.07, 95% CI: 1.01-1.14, P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: RARS is safe and feasible for rectal cancer patients and may be superior or equivalent to Laparoscopic-assisted rectal surgery, but high-standard, large-scale trials are required to determine the best approach.

Association of Motoric Cognitive Risk Syndrome with Cardiovascular and Noncardiovascular Factors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Motoric cognitive risk syndrome (MCR) is a recently proposed predementia syndrome characterized by subjective cognitive impairment and slow gait. We aim to assess the cardiovascular and noncardiovascular factors associated with MCR. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Studies comparing patients with MCR to those without MCR, and identifying the factors associated with MCR. METHODS: We used databases, including PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Embase, to identify studies evaluating the factors associated with MCR. Mean differences, odds ratios (ORs), risk ratios (RRs), and hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs were calculated using Review Manager. RESULTS: Meta-analysis revealed that all cardiovascular factors, including diabetes (21 studies; OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.37, 1.64), hypertension (21 studies; OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.08, 1.33), stroke (16 studies; OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.70, 2.42), heart disease (7 studies; OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.13, 1.86), coronary artery disease (5 studies; OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.16, 1.91), smoking (13 studies; OR 1.28, 95% CI 1.04, 1.58), and obesity (12 studies; OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.13, 1.59) were significantly higher in the MCR than the non-MCR group. Noncardiovascular factors, including age (22 studies; MD = 1.08, 95% CI 0.55, 1.61), education (8 studies; OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.28, 3.25), depression (17 studies; OR 2.19, 95% CI 1.65, 2.91), prior falls (9 studies; OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.17, 1.80), arthritis (6 studies; OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.07, 1.70), polypharmacy (5 studies; OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.07, 2.54), and sedentary lifestyle (11 studies; OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.59, 2.52), were significantly higher in the MCR than in the non-MCR group. Alcohol consumption (6 studies; OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72, 0.98), however, favored the MCR over the non-MCR group. Additionally, there was no significant association of MCR with gender (22 studies; OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.94, 1.15) and cancer (3 studies; OR 2.39, 95% CI 0.69, 8.28). MCR was also significantly associated with an increased likelihood of incident dementia (5 studies; HR 2.84, 95% CI 1.77, 4.56; P < .001), incident cognitive impairment [2 studies; adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 1.76, 95% CI 1.44, 2.15], incident falls (4 studies; RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.17, 1.60), and mortality (2 studies; aHR 1.58, 95% CI 1.35, 1.85). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: MCR syndrome was significantly associated with diabetes, hypertension, stroke, obesity, smoking, low education, sedentary lifestyle, and depression. Moreover, MCR significantly increased the risk of incident dementia, cognitive impairment, falls, and mortality.