[Comparison of robot-assisted and conventional endoscopic surgeries in the Russian Federation. (A systematic review and meta-analysis)]. / Sravnenie robot-assistirovannykh i traditsionnykh videoendoskopicheskikh operatsii v RF. (Rezul'taty sistematicheskogo obzora i metaanaliza).

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Comparative assessment of immediate and long-term results of robot-assisted and conventional endoscopic technologies in the Russian Federation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Searching for primary trials devoted to robot-assisted (RAE) and traditional video endoscopic (TVE) surgeries in the Russian Federation was carried out in the e-library and CENTRAL Cochrane databases. We used the recommendations of the Center for Expertise and Quality Control of Medical Care (2017, 2019) and the current version of the Cochrane Community Guidelines (2021). These guidelines define the features of meta-analysis of non-randomized comparative studies. Review Manager 5.4 software was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: We enrolled 26 Russian-language primary sources (3111 patients) including 1174 (38%) ones in the RAE group and 1937 (62%) patients in the TVE group. There were no randomized controlled trials in the Russian Federation, and all primary studies were non-randomized. We found no significant between-group differences in surgery time, incidence of intraoperative complications, intraoperative blood loss in thoracic surgery, urology and gynecology, conversion rate, postoperative hospital-stay, postoperative morbidity (in abdominal surgery, urology and gynecology), postoperative mortality. We observed slightly lower intraoperative blood loss for RAE in abdominal surgery and lower incidence of postoperative complications in robot-assisted thoracic surgery. These results can be compromised by methodological quality of comparative studies, significant heterogeneity and systematic errors. CONCLUSION: Currently, we cannot confirm the benefits of robot-assisted technologies, since this approach does not worsen or improve treatment outcomes. Further high-quality studies are needed.