Aim: Resection of diverticular disease can be technically challenging. Tissue planes can be difficult to identify intraoperatively due to inflammation or fibrosis. Robotic surgery may improve identification of tissue planes and dissection which can facilitate difficult minimally invasive resections. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the role of robotic surgery compared to laparoscopic surgery in diverticular resection. Methods:A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed in accordance with the PRISMA statement. The search was completed using PubMed, OVID MEDLINE and EMBASE. A total of 490 articles were retrieved, and studies reporting primary outcomes for robotic diverticular resection were included in the final analysis. A meta-analysis of studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic surgery was performed on rate of conversion to open surgery and complications.Results: Fifteen articles (8 cohort studies and 7 case series) reporting 3711 robotic diverticular resections were analysed. In comparison to laparoscopic, robotic surgery for diverticular disease was associated with a reduced conversion to open and a longer operating time. Meta-analysis showed robotic resection was associated with a lower conversion rate compared to laparoscopic surgery (OR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.49-0.66, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in grade III and above complications (OR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.49-1.13, p = 0.17). Operating time was longer with a robotic approach (Hedge's G: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.04-0.81, p = 0.03). Conclusion:Robotic resection is a feasible and safe option in diverticular disease.Although associated with a longer operating time, robotic surgery may render diverticular disease resectable with a minimally invasive approach that would have otherwise necessitated a laparotomy. Randomised controlled data is required to better define the role of robotic surgery for diverticular disease resections.

This document outlines the important aspects of caring for patients who have been diagnosed with advanced pelvic cancer. It is primarily aimed at those who are establishing a service that adequately caters to this patient group. The relevant literature has been summarized and an attempt made to simplify the approach to management of these complex cases.

Background Most studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic surgery, show little difference in clinical outcomes to justify the expense. We systematically reviewed and pooled evidence from studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic rectal resection. Method Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica (EMBASE), and Cochrane databases were searched for studies between 1996 and 2021 comparing clinical outcomes between laparoscopic and robotic rectal surgeries involving total mesorectal excision. Outcome measures included operative times, conversions to open, complications, recurrence and survival rates. Results Fifty eligible studies compared outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic rectal resections; three were randomized trials. Pooled results showed significantly longer operating times for robotic surgery but lower conversion and complications rates, shorter lengths of stay in hospital, better rates of complete mesorectal resection and better three‐year overall survival. However, the low number of randomized studies makes most data subject to bias. Conclusion Available evidence supports the safety and ongoing use of robotic rectal cancer surgery, while further high‐quality evidence is sought to justify the expense.