Comparison of Short-Term Outcomes of Intracorporeal Anastomosis in Robot-Assisted colon Resection and Laparoscopic colon Resection: A Single-Center Study and Systematic Review and meta-Analysis.

Authors

Yusuke Tomita, Kohei Shigeta, Yuzuko Momose, Masayoshi Monno, Satoru Morita, Koji Okabayashi, Yuko Kitagawa

Published in

Asian journal of endoscopic surgery. Volume 19. Issue 1. Pages e70366.

Abstract

This study evaluates short-term outcomes of robot-assisted (Rt) and laparoscopic (Lap) intracorporeal anastomosis (IA) in colon resection using an exploratory single-center retrospective cohort and a systematic review and meta-analysis conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines.
Patients with colon cancer who underwent laparoscopic or robotic surgery at our institution from 2015 to 2024 were retrospectively enrolled. Additionally, a meta-analysis was conducted using PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library to identify studies comparing Rt-IA and Lap-IA. Short-term outcomes were statistically compared between the two groups.
A total of 77 patients were included (Rt-IA 26, Lap-IA 51). Intraoperative blood loss was significantly lower in the Rt-IA group (median, 5 mL vs. 10 mL; p = 0.001). No statistically significant differences were detected in major postoperative complications or most recovery-related outcomes. For the meta-analysis, 11 studies (1 prospective and 10 retrospective) met the inclusion criteria. After adding our institutional data, the pooled analysis showed that operative time was significantly longer in the Rt-IA group (MD, 54.02 min; 95% CI, 34.18-73.86; I² = 95.4%), whereas the Rt-IA group demonstrated significantly less blood loss (MD, -14.33 mL; 95% CI: -27.04 to -1.63; I² = 19.3%).
The results of our institutional analysis together with meta-analysis suggest that Rt-IA may be associated with longer operative time but slightly lower blood loss than Lap-IA. These findings suggest that Rt-IA may be a feasible alternative to Lap-IA; however, the results should be interpreted with caution given the limitations of the available evidence.

PMID:
42604816
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 17 Aug 2026.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Stats

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.