RESUMEN
PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of robot-assisted colorectal surgery (RACS) vs. laparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgery (LACS) in the treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC). METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting on RACS and LACS in CRC patients published up to January 4, 2022. The outcomes included operative time, length of stay, conversion, circumferential resection margin positivity (CRM+), and complications. RESULTS: Six RCTs (412 participants with RACS and 420 with LACS) were included. The pooled results showed shorter operative time (WMD=44.28, 95%CI: 9.36, 79.19, P = 0.013; PQ<0.001) and lower costs in RACS than in LACS (WMD=1546.15, 95%CI: 761.51, 2330.78, P<0.001; PQ=0.208), while no differences were observed for the length of stay (WMD=-0.31, 95%CI: -1.13,0.51, P = 0.456; I2=0.0%, PQ=0.990), blood loss (WMD=-33.72, 95%CI: -205.06, 137.62, P = 0.700; I2=89.0%, PQ=0.003), the number of harvested lymph nodes (WMD=1.38, 95%CI: -0.09, 2.85, P = 0.066; I2=0.0%, PQ=0.645), the time of first flatus (WMD=0.20, 95%CI: -0.20, 0.61, P = 0.328; I2=0.0%, PQ=0.337), rates of conversion to open surgery (RR=0.62, 95%CI: 0.38,1.01, P = 0.053; I2=0.0%, PQ=0.459), complication rates (RR=1.11, 95%CI: 0.83,1.49, P = 0.466; I2=0.0%, PQ=0.948), and CRM+ rates (RR=1.02, 95%CI: 0.66,1.58, P = 0.938; I2=0.0%, PQ=0.408). No publication bias was detected. The sensitivity analyses showed that the results for the operative time were robust. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with CRC who underwent RACS and LACS had a similar length of stay, blood loss, the time of first flatus, rates of conversion to open surgery, the number of harvested lymph nodes, complication rates, and CRM+ rates; however, RACS led to longer surgeries and higher costs than LACS.
