Colorectal Division, Department of Surgery, Korea University Anam Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
Copyright © 2016 by the Korean Cancer Association
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Reference | Country (year) | Study design | Surgery | Sample size | Operating time (min) | EBL(mL) | Conversion (%) | Hospital stay (day) | Total complications (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Allemann et al. [10] | Switzerland (2015) | Case matched | Robot | 20 | 291 | 58±76 | 5 | NA | 40 |
Lap | 40 | 313 | 219±421 | 20 | NA | 35 | |||
Cho et al. [11] | Korea (2015) | Case matched | Robot | 278 | 361.6±91.9* | 179.0±236.5 | 0.4 | 10.4±5.6 | 25.9 |
Lap | 278 | 272.4±83.8 | 147.0±295.3 | 0.7 | 10.7±6.6 | 23.7 | |||
Kim et al. [12] | Korea (2015) | Case matched | Robot | 33 | 441.0±90.2* | 232.0±180.0 | 6.1 | 10.9±6.2 | 45.6 |
Lap | 66 | 277.0±83.2 | 205.0±163.8 | 0.0 | 13.1±12.8 | 39.4 | |||
Levic et al. [13] | Denmark (2015) | Nonrandomized comparative | Robot | 56 | 247 (130-511) | 50 (0-400) | 5.4 | 8 (4-100)* | 23.2 |
Single port lap | 36 | 295 (108-465) | 35 (0-400) | 0.0 | 7 (3-51) | 27.8 | |||
Serin et al. [14] | Turkey (2015) | Nonrandomized comparative | Robot | 14 | 182 (140-220)* | NA | 0.0 | 5 (4-10) | 14.3 |
Lap | 65 | 140 (90-300) | NA | 3.1 | 6 (2-32) | 24.6 | |||
Yamaguchi et al. [15] | Japan (2015) | Nonrandomized comparative | Robot | 203 | 232.9±72.0 | 15.4±26.4* | 0.0* | 7.3±2.3* | 8.9 |
Lap | 239 | 227.6±62.6 | 39.1±85.1 | 3.3 | 9.3±6.7 | 22.6 | |||
Park et al. [16] | Korea (2015) | Nonrandomized comparative | Robot | 133 | 205.7±67.3 | 77.6±153.2 | 0.0* | 5.86±1.43* | 7.5 |
Lap | 84 | 208.8±81.2 | 82.3±185.5 | 7.1 | 6.54±2.65 | 9.5 | |||
Bamajian et al. [17] | USA (2014) | Case matched | Robot | 20 | 240 (150-540) | 125 (50-650) | 0.0 | 6 (4-31) | 40 |
Lap | 20 | 180 (140-480) | 175 (50-900) | 10 | 7 (5-36) | 10 | |||
Open | 20 | 240 (115-475) | 250 (50-800) | NA | 7 (3-16) | 15 | |||
Ghezzi et al. [18] | Italy (2014) | Nonrandomized comparative | Robot | 65 | 299.0±58.0* | 0 (0-175)* | 1.5 | 6 (5-8)* | 41.5 |
Open | 109 | 207.5±56.5 | 150 (0-400) | NA | 9 (8-10) | 41.3 | |||
Ielpo et al. [19] | Spain (2014) | Nonrandomized comparative | Robot | 56 | 309±84* | 280±35.3 | 3.5 | 13±10.5 | 26.8 |
Lap | 87 | 252±90 | 240±53.7 | 11.5 | 10±3.6 | 23 | |||
Tam et al. [20] | USA (2014) | Nonrandomized comparative | Robot | 21 | 260 (189-449)* | 150 (30-2,000) | 5.0 | 6 (4-23)* | 42.9 |
Lap | 21 | 240 (171-360) | 100 (50-1,200) | 0.0 | 5 (3-14) | 33.3 | |||
D'Annibale et al. [21]a) | Italy (2013) | Nonrandomized comparative | Robot | 50 | 270 (240-315) | NA | 0.0* | 8 (7-11)* | 10 |
Lap | 50 | 280 (240-350) | NA | 12.0 | 10 (8-14) | 22 | |||
Fernandez et al. [22] | USA (2013) | Nonrandomized comparative | Robot | 13 | 528 (416-700)* | 157 (50-550) | 8 | 13±29 | NA |
Lap/HAL | 59 | 344 (183-735) | 200 (25-1,500) | 17 | 8±45 | NA | |||
Kim et al. [23] | Korea (2012) | Case matched | Robot | 100 | 188±45 | NA | 0.0 | 7.1±2.1 | NA |
Open | 100 | 103±23 | NA | NA | 6.9±1.5 | NA | |||
Kwak et al. [24]a) | Korea (2011) | Case matched | Robot | 59 | 270 (241-325)* | NA | 0.0 | NA | 32.2 |
Lap | 59 | 228 (177-254) | NA | 3.4 | NA | 27.1 | |||
Park et al. [25] | Korea (2011) | Case matched | Robot | 41 | 231.9±61.4* | NA | 0.0 | 9.9±4.2 | 29.3 |
Lap | 82 | 168.6±49.3 | NA | 0.0 | 9.4±2.9 | 23.2 | |||
Bianchi et al. [26] | Italy (2010) | Case matched | Robot | 25 | 240 (170-420) | NA | 0.0 | 6.5 (4-15) | 16 |
Lap | 25 | 237 (170-545) | NA | 4 | 6.0 (4-20) | 24 | |||
Patriti et al. [27] | Italy (2009) | Nonrandomized comparative | Robot | 29 | 202±12 | 137.4±156 | 0.0* | 11.9±7.5 | 30.6 |
Lap | 37 | 208±7 | 127±169 | 29.2 | 9.6±6.9 | 18.9 |
Reference | Country (year) | Study design | Surgery | Sample | No. of retrieved LNs | DRM (cm) | CRM involved (%) | TME completeness (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Allemartn et al. [10] | Switzerland (2015) | Case matched | Robot | 20 | 24±14 | NA | 10 | 95* |
Lap | 40 | 20±7 | NA | 25 | 55 | |||
Cho et al. [11] | Korea (2015) | Case matched | Robot | 278 | 15.0±8.1 | 2.0±1.4 | 5.0 | NA |
Lap | 278 | 16.2±8.1 | 2.2±1.4 | 4.7 | NA | |||
Kim et al. [12] | Korea (2015) | Case matched | Robot | 33 | 22.3±11.7 | 2.2±1.5 | 16.1 | 97 |
Lap | 66 | 21.6±11.0 | 2.2±1.7 | 6.7 | 91 | |||
Levic et al. [13] | Denmark (2015) | Nonrandomized comparative | Robot | 56 | 21 (7-83)* | 3.0 (0.5-0.8) | NA | 60.7 |
Single port lap | 36 | 13 (3-33) | 3.0 (0.5-0.75) | NA | 72.2 | |||
Serin et al. [14] | Turkey (2015) | Nonrandomized comparative | Robot | 14 | 32 (17-56)* | 2.75 (0.5-6.0)* | NA | 100 |
Lap | 65 | 23 (4-67) | 1.5 (1.0-7.0) | NA | 80 | |||
Yamaguchi et al. [15] | Japan (2015) | Nonrandomized comparative | Robot | 203 | 30.0±10.3 | 2.8±1.9 | NA | NA |
Lap | 239 | 29.3±11.8 | 3.2±2.2 | NA | NA | |||
Park et al. [16] | Korea (2015) | Nonrandomized comparative | Robot | 133 | 16.34±8.79 | 2.75±2.14 | 6.8 | NA |
Lap | 84 | 16.63±10.24 | 2.87±1.63 | 7.1 | NA | |||
Bamajian et al. [17] | USA (2014) | Case matched | Robot | 20 | 14 (3-22) | 2.1 (0.5-5.0) | NA | 80 |
Lap | 20 | 11 (4-18) | 2.2 (0.1-5.5) | NA | 95 | |||
Open | 20 | 12 (4-20) | 2.1 (0.1-4.5) | NA | 95 | |||
Ghezzi et al. [18] | Brazil/Italy (2014) | Nonrandomized comparative | Robot | 65 | 20.1±10.3* | 2.7 (1.6-4.4) | 0 | NA |
Open | 109 | 14.1±6.2 | 2.2 (1.5-3.0) | 1.8 | NA | |||
Ielpo et al. [19] | Spain (2014) | Nonrandomized comparative | Robot | 56 | 10±8 | NA | 3.6 | NA |
Lap | 87 | 9±4.8 | NA | 2.3 | NA | |||
Tam et al. [20] | USA (2014) | Nonrandomized comparative | Robot | 21 | 17 (8-40)* | 3.9 (1.0-18) | 0.0 | NA |
Lap | 21 | 15 (8-21) | 5.5 (0.5-8) | 4.7 | NA | |||
D’Annibale et al. [21] | Italy (2013) | Nonrandomized comparative | Robot | 50 | 16.5±7.1 | 3±1.1 | 0.0* | NA |
Lap | 50 | 13.8±6.7 | 3±1.6 | 12.0 | NA | |||
Fernandez et al. [22] | USA (2013) | Nonrandomized comparative | Robot | 13 | 16±2.0 | NA | 0.0 | 69 |
Lap/HAL | 59 | 20±2.0 | NA | 1.7 | 73 | |||
Kim et al. [23] | Korea (2012) | Case matched | Robot | 100 | 20±6.9 | 2.7±1.7* | 1.0 | NA |
Open | 100 | 19.6±8.5 | 1.9±1.3 | 1.0 | NA | |||
Kwak et al. [24]a) | Korea (2011) | Case matched | Robot | 59 | 20 (12-27) | 2.2 (1.5-3.0) | 1.7 | NA |
Lap | 59 | 21 (14-28) | 2.0 (1.2-3.5) | 0.0 | NA | |||
Park et al. [25] | Korea (2011) | Case matched | Robot | 41 | 17.3±7.7 | 2.1±1.4 | 4.9 | NA |
Lap | 82 | 14.2±8.9 | 2.3±1.5 | 3.7 | NA | |||
Bianchi et al. [26] | Italy (2010) | Case matched | Robot | 25 | 18 (7-34) | NA | 0.0 | NA |
Lap | 25 | 17(8-37) | NA | 4.0 | NA | |||
Patriti et al. [27] | Italy (2009) | Nonrandomized comparative | Robot | 29 | 10.3±4 | 2.1±0.9 | 0.0 | NA |
Lap | 37 | 11.2±5 | 4.5±7.2 | 0.0 | NA |
Reference | Country (year) | Study design | Surgery | Sample size | Follow-up period (mo) | 5-Yr OS (%) | 5-Yr DSS (%) | 5-Yr DFS (%) | 5-Yr cumulative local recurrence rate (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cho et al. [11] | Korea (2015) | Case matched | Robot | 278 | 51.0±13.1 | 92.2 | 93.6 | 81.8 | 5.9 |
Lap | 278 | 52.5±17.1 | 93.1 | 95.5 | 79.6 | 3.9 | |||
Park et al. [16] | Korea (2015) | Nonrandomized comparative | Robot | 133 | 54.4±17.3 | 92.8 | NA | 81.9 | 2.3 |
Lap | 84 | 93.5 | NA | 78.7 | 1.2 | ||||
Ghezzi et al. [18] | Brazil/Italy (2014) | Nonrandomized comparative | Robot | 65 | 46.7±11.5 | 85 | 86.6 | 73.2 | 3.2* |
Open | 109 | 55.1±12.2 | 76.1 | 78.3 | 69.5 | 16.1 |
Reference | Country (year) | Study design | Surgery | Sample size | Operating time (min) | EBL(mL) | Conversion (%) | Hospital stay (day) | Total complications (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Allemann et al. [10] | Switzerland (2015) | Case matched | Robot | 20 | 291 | 58±76 | 5 | NA | 40 |
Lap | 40 | 313 | 219±421 | 20 | NA | 35 | |||
Cho et al. [11] | Korea (2015) | Case matched | Robot | 278 | 361.6±91.9 |
179.0±236.5 | 0.4 | 10.4±5.6 | 25.9 |
Lap | 278 | 272.4±83.8 | 147.0±295.3 | 0.7 | 10.7±6.6 | 23.7 | |||
Kim et al. [12] | Korea (2015) | Case matched | Robot | 33 | 441.0±90.2 |
232.0±180.0 | 6.1 | 10.9±6.2 | 45.6 |
Lap | 66 | 277.0±83.2 | 205.0±163.8 | 0.0 | 13.1±12.8 | 39.4 | |||
Levic et al. [13] | Denmark (2015) | Nonrandomized comparative | Robot | 56 | 247 (130-511) | 50 (0-400) | 5.4 | 8 (4-100) |
23.2 |
Single port lap | 36 | 295 (108-465) | 35 (0-400) | 0.0 | 7 (3-51) | 27.8 | |||
Serin et al. [14] | Turkey (2015) | Nonrandomized comparative | Robot | 14 | 182 (140-220) |
NA | 0.0 | 5 (4-10) | 14.3 |
Lap | 65 | 140 (90-300) | NA | 3.1 | 6 (2-32) | 24.6 | |||
Yamaguchi et al. [15] | Japan (2015) | Nonrandomized comparative | Robot | 203 | 232.9±72.0 | 15.4±26.4 |
0.0 |
7.3±2.3 |
8.9 |
Lap | 239 | 227.6±62.6 | 39.1±85.1 | 3.3 | 9.3±6.7 | 22.6 | |||
Park et al. [16] | Korea (2015) | Nonrandomized comparative | Robot | 133 | 205.7±67.3 | 77.6±153.2 | 0.0 |
5.86±1.43 |
7.5 |
Lap | 84 | 208.8±81.2 | 82.3±185.5 | 7.1 | 6.54±2.65 | 9.5 | |||
Bamajian et al. [17] | USA (2014) | Case matched | Robot | 20 | 240 (150-540) | 125 (50-650) | 0.0 | 6 (4-31) | 40 |
Lap | 20 | 180 (140-480) | 175 (50-900) | 10 | 7 (5-36) | 10 | |||
Open | 20 | 240 (115-475) | 250 (50-800) | NA | 7 (3-16) | 15 | |||
Ghezzi et al. [18] | Italy (2014) | Nonrandomized comparative | Robot | 65 | 299.0±58.0 |
0 (0-175) |
1.5 | 6 (5-8) |
41.5 |
Open | 109 | 207.5±56.5 | 150 (0-400) | NA | 9 (8-10) | 41.3 | |||
Ielpo et al. [19] | Spain (2014) | Nonrandomized comparative | Robot | 56 | 309±84 |
280±35.3 | 3.5 | 13±10.5 | 26.8 |
Lap | 87 | 252±90 | 240±53.7 | 11.5 | 10±3.6 | 23 | |||
Tam et al. [20] | USA (2014) | Nonrandomized comparative | Robot | 21 | 260 (189-449) |
150 (30-2,000) | 5.0 | 6 (4-23) |
42.9 |
Lap | 21 | 240 (171-360) | 100 (50-1,200) | 0.0 | 5 (3-14) | 33.3 | |||
D'Annibale et al. [21] |
Italy (2013) | Nonrandomized comparative | Robot | 50 | 270 (240-315) | NA | 0.0 |
8 (7-11) |
10 |
Lap | 50 | 280 (240-350) | NA | 12.0 | 10 (8-14) | 22 | |||
Fernandez et al. [22] | USA (2013) | Nonrandomized comparative | Robot | 13 | 528 (416-700) |
157 (50-550) | 8 | 13±29 | NA |
Lap/HAL | 59 | 344 (183-735) | 200 (25-1,500) | 17 | 8±45 | NA | |||
Kim et al. [23] | Korea (2012) | Case matched | Robot | 100 | 188±45 | NA | 0.0 | 7.1±2.1 | NA |
Open | 100 | 103±23 | NA | NA | 6.9±1.5 | NA | |||
Kwak et al. [24] |
Korea (2011) | Case matched | Robot | 59 | 270 (241-325) |
NA | 0.0 | NA | 32.2 |
Lap | 59 | 228 (177-254) | NA | 3.4 | NA | 27.1 | |||
Park et al. [25] | Korea (2011) | Case matched | Robot | 41 | 231.9±61.4 |
NA | 0.0 | 9.9±4.2 | 29.3 |
Lap | 82 | 168.6±49.3 | NA | 0.0 | 9.4±2.9 | 23.2 | |||
Bianchi et al. [26] | Italy (2010) | Case matched | Robot | 25 | 240 (170-420) | NA | 0.0 | 6.5 (4-15) | 16 |
Lap | 25 | 237 (170-545) | NA | 4 | 6.0 (4-20) | 24 | |||
Patriti et al. [27] | Italy (2009) | Nonrandomized comparative | Robot | 29 | 202±12 | 137.4±156 | 0.0 |
11.9±7.5 | 30.6 |
Lap | 37 | 208±7 | 127±169 | 29.2 | 9.6±6.9 | 18.9 |
Reference | Country (year) | Study design | Surgery | Sample | No. of retrieved LNs | DRM (cm) | CRM involved (%) | TME completeness (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Allemartn et al. [10] | Switzerland (2015) | Case matched | Robot | 20 | 24±14 | NA | 10 | 95 |
Lap | 40 | 20±7 | NA | 25 | 55 | |||
Cho et al. [11] | Korea (2015) | Case matched | Robot | 278 | 15.0±8.1 | 2.0±1.4 | 5.0 | NA |
Lap | 278 | 16.2±8.1 | 2.2±1.4 | 4.7 | NA | |||
Kim et al. [12] | Korea (2015) | Case matched | Robot | 33 | 22.3±11.7 | 2.2±1.5 | 16.1 | 97 |
Lap | 66 | 21.6±11.0 | 2.2±1.7 | 6.7 | 91 | |||
Levic et al. [13] | Denmark (2015) | Nonrandomized comparative | Robot | 56 | 21 (7-83) |
3.0 (0.5-0.8) | NA | 60.7 |
Single port lap | 36 | 13 (3-33) | 3.0 (0.5-0.75) | NA | 72.2 | |||
Serin et al. [14] | Turkey (2015) | Nonrandomized comparative | Robot | 14 | 32 (17-56) |
2.75 (0.5-6.0) |
NA | 100 |
Lap | 65 | 23 (4-67) | 1.5 (1.0-7.0) | NA | 80 | |||
Yamaguchi et al. [15] | Japan (2015) | Nonrandomized comparative | Robot | 203 | 30.0±10.3 | 2.8±1.9 | NA | NA |
Lap | 239 | 29.3±11.8 | 3.2±2.2 | NA | NA | |||
Park et al. [16] | Korea (2015) | Nonrandomized comparative | Robot | 133 | 16.34±8.79 | 2.75±2.14 | 6.8 | NA |
Lap | 84 | 16.63±10.24 | 2.87±1.63 | 7.1 | NA | |||
Bamajian et al. [17] | USA (2014) | Case matched | Robot | 20 | 14 (3-22) | 2.1 (0.5-5.0) | NA | 80 |
Lap | 20 | 11 (4-18) | 2.2 (0.1-5.5) | NA | 95 | |||
Open | 20 | 12 (4-20) | 2.1 (0.1-4.5) | NA | 95 | |||
Ghezzi et al. [18] | Brazil/Italy (2014) | Nonrandomized comparative | Robot | 65 | 20.1±10.3 |
2.7 (1.6-4.4) | 0 | NA |
Open | 109 | 14.1±6.2 | 2.2 (1.5-3.0) | 1.8 | NA | |||
Ielpo et al. [19] | Spain (2014) | Nonrandomized comparative | Robot | 56 | 10±8 | NA | 3.6 | NA |
Lap | 87 | 9±4.8 | NA | 2.3 | NA | |||
Tam et al. [20] | USA (2014) | Nonrandomized comparative | Robot | 21 | 17 (8-40) |
3.9 (1.0-18) | 0.0 | NA |
Lap | 21 | 15 (8-21) | 5.5 (0.5-8) | 4.7 | NA | |||
D’Annibale et al. [21] | Italy (2013) | Nonrandomized comparative | Robot | 50 | 16.5±7.1 | 3±1.1 | 0.0 |
NA |
Lap | 50 | 13.8±6.7 | 3±1.6 | 12.0 | NA | |||
Fernandez et al. [22] | USA (2013) | Nonrandomized comparative | Robot | 13 | 16±2.0 | NA | 0.0 | 69 |
Lap/HAL | 59 | 20±2.0 | NA | 1.7 | 73 | |||
Kim et al. [23] | Korea (2012) | Case matched | Robot | 100 | 20±6.9 | 2.7±1.7 |
1.0 | NA |
Open | 100 | 19.6±8.5 | 1.9±1.3 | 1.0 | NA | |||
Kwak et al. [24] |
Korea (2011) | Case matched | Robot | 59 | 20 (12-27) | 2.2 (1.5-3.0) | 1.7 | NA |
Lap | 59 | 21 (14-28) | 2.0 (1.2-3.5) | 0.0 | NA | |||
Park et al. [25] | Korea (2011) | Case matched | Robot | 41 | 17.3±7.7 | 2.1±1.4 | 4.9 | NA |
Lap | 82 | 14.2±8.9 | 2.3±1.5 | 3.7 | NA | |||
Bianchi et al. [26] | Italy (2010) | Case matched | Robot | 25 | 18 (7-34) | NA | 0.0 | NA |
Lap | 25 | 17(8-37) | NA | 4.0 | NA | |||
Patriti et al. [27] | Italy (2009) | Nonrandomized comparative | Robot | 29 | 10.3±4 | 2.1±0.9 | 0.0 | NA |
Lap | 37 | 11.2±5 | 4.5±7.2 | 0.0 | NA |
Reference | Country (year) | Study design | Surgery | Sample size | Follow-up period (mo) | 5-Yr OS (%) | 5-Yr DSS (%) | 5-Yr DFS (%) | 5-Yr cumulative local recurrence rate (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cho et al. [11] | Korea (2015) | Case matched | Robot | 278 | 51.0±13.1 | 92.2 | 93.6 | 81.8 | 5.9 |
Lap | 278 | 52.5±17.1 | 93.1 | 95.5 | 79.6 | 3.9 | |||
Park et al. [16] | Korea (2015) | Nonrandomized comparative | Robot | 133 | 54.4±17.3 | 92.8 | NA | 81.9 | 2.3 |
Lap | 84 | 93.5 | NA | 78.7 | 1.2 | ||||
Ghezzi et al. [18] | Brazil/Italy (2014) | Nonrandomized comparative | Robot | 65 | 46.7±11.5 | 85 | 86.6 | 73.2 | 3.2 |
Open | 109 | 55.1±12.2 | 76.1 | 78.3 | 69.5 | 16.1 |
EBL, estimated blood loss; NA, not available; Lap, laparoscopic; HAL, hand-assisted laparoscopic. p < 0.05. Values in parentheses are interquartile ranges.
LN, lymph node; DRM, distal resection margin; CRM, circumferential resection margin; TME, total mesorectal excision; NA, not available; Lap, laparoscopic; HAL, hand-assisted laparoscopic. p < 0.05. Values in parentheses are interquartile ranges.
OS, overall survival; DSS, disease-specific survival; DFS, disease-free survival; Lap, laparoscopic; NA, not available. p < 0.05.