Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2012:2012:293894.
doi: 10.5402/2012/293894. Epub 2012 May 13.

Robotic colorectal surgery: a systematic review

Sami Alasari  1 , Byung Soh Min
Affiliations

Robotic colorectal surgery: a systematic review

Sami Alasari et al. ISRN Surg. 2012.

Abstract

Aim. Robotic colorectal surgery may be a way to overcome the limitations of laparoscopic surgery. It is an emerging field; so, we aim in this paper to provide a comprehensive and data analysis of the available literature on the use of robotic technology in colorectal surgery. Method. A comprehensive systematic search of electronic databases was completed for the period from 2000 to 2011. Studies reporting outcomes of robotic colorectal surgery were identified and analyzed. Results. 41 studies (21 case series, 2 case controls, 13 comparative studies 1 prospective comparative, 1 randomized trial, 3 retrospective analyses) were reviewed. A total of 1681 patients are included in this paper; all of them use Da Vinci except 2 who use Zeus. Short-term outcome has been evaluated with 0 mortality and191 total major and minor complications. Pathological results were not analyzed in all studies and only 20 out of 41 provide data about the pathological results. Conclusion. Robotic surgery is safe and feasible option in colorectal surgery and a promising field; however, further prospective randomized studies are required to better define its role.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The number of publications regarding robotic colorectal surgery.
Figure 2
Figure 2
The number and the types of conversion.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Lanfranco AR, Castellanos AE, Desai JP, Meyers WC. Robotic surgery: a current perspective. Annals of Surgery. 2004;239(1):14–21. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Uhrich ML, Underwood RA, Standeven JW, Soper NJ, Engsberg JR. Assesment of fatigue, monitor placement, and surgical experience during simulated laparoscopic surgery. Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques. 2002;16(4):635–639. - PubMed
    1. Nelson H, Sargent DJ, Wieand HS, et al. A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. New England Journal of Medicine. 2004;350(20):2050–2059. - PubMed
    1. Guillou PJ, Quirke P, Thorpe H, et al. Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre, randomised controlled trial. The Lancet. 2005;365(9472):1718–1726. - PubMed
    1. Jayne DG, Guillou PJ, Thorpe H, et al. Randomized trial of laparoscopic-assisted resection of colorectal carcinoma: 3-Year results of the UK MRC CLASICC trial group. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2007;25(21):3061–3068. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources