Purpose As Internet technology evolves, electronic health (e-health) literacy gradually becomes a key factor in healthy behaviors and health-related decision-making. However, little is known about the influencing factors of e-health literacy among cancer survivors. Thus, the objective of this study was to systematically review the status quo, assessment tools, and influencing factors of e-health literacy in cancer patients. Methods We conducted a comprehensive search in several databases, including PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, Chinese BioMedical Literature Database, and Chinese Science and Technology Journal Database between January 2000 and December 2021. Results A total of nine articles were included in this review, all of which were cross-sectional studies. Following the JBI critical appraisal tool, seven of them were rated as high quality. The e-Health Literacy Scale (eHEALS) was the most commonly used measurement for e-health literacy in cancer patients. The level of e-health literacy in cancer survivors was not high, which was associated with a variable of factors. The behavioral model of health services use was adopted to summarize related influencing factors. From an individual’s perspective, predisposing characteristics and enabling resources were the most significant factors, without factors related to needs characteristics. Conclusion The study has identified the influencing factors of e-health literacy among cancer survivors, including age, gender, domicile place, education level, information-seeking behavior, and social support. In the future, e-health literacy lectures need to be carried out for elderly cancer patients, especially those who live in rural areas and have no access to the Internet. Families and friends of cancer survivors should also be encouraged to offer them more support. Implications for Cancer Survivors These findings of this review provide novel insights for both family members and medical workers to improve e-health literacy in cancer patients. Further research is required to develop easy-to-use electronic health information acquisition devices and establish propagable e-health literacy intervention programs for cancer survivors.

BackgroundRobotic rectal cancer surgery has proven to be a viable alternative to laparoscopic surgery in treating rectal cancer. This study assessed the short-term operative measures of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery.MaterialData was obtained retrospectively from July 2019 to November 2021. Patient demographics, pre-and post-operative features, initial bowel movement, length of hospital stay, and short-term postoperative outcomes such as harvested lymph node, sepsis, Clavien–Dindo Classification, and cost were evaluated.ResultsA total of 155 patients were treated for colorectal cancer, with 64 receiving robotic surgery and 91 receiving laparoscopic surgery. According to the Clavien–Dindo classification, there is a significant P < 0.05 between robotic and laparoscopic rectal surgery, with robotic having fewer patients in grade III-IV than laparoscopic. Despite this, laparoscopic surgery is associated with more sepsis patients (P < 0.05), and harvested lymph nodes are likewise associated with significant results.ConclusionWith respect to post-operative complication and cost analysis, our finding imply that robotic rectal resection achieves better-quality short-term outcome but more costly than laparoscopic as well as Clavien–Dindo classification plays a crucial role in assessing postoperative rectal cancer complications and considerably impacts the quality of life.

BackgroundLaparoscopic gastrectomy and robotic gastrectomy are the most widely adopted treatment of choice for gastric cancer. To systematically assess the safety and effectiveness of robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer, we carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis on short-term and long-term outcomes of robotic gastrectomy.MethodsIn order to find relevant studies on the efficacy and safety of robotic gastrectomy (RG) and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) in the treatment of gastric cancer, numerous medical databases including PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Library, Embase, Google Scholar, and China Journal Full-text Database (CNKI) were consulted, and Chinese and English studies on the efficacy and safety of RG and LG in the treatment of gastric cancer published from 2012 to 2022 were screened according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, and a meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.4 software.ResultsThe meta-analysis inlcuded 48 literatures, with 20,151 gastric cancer patients, including 6,175 in the RG group and 13,976 in the LG group, respectively. Results of our meta-analysis showed that RG group had prololonged operative time (WMD = 35.72, 95% CI = 28.59–42.86, P < 0.05) (RG: mean ± SD = 258.69 min ± 32.98; LG: mean ± SD = 221.85 min ± 31.18), reduced blood loss (WMD = −21.93, 95% CI = −28.94 to −14.91, P < 0.05) (RG: mean ± SD = 105.22 ml ± 62.79; LG: mean ± SD = 127.34 ml ± 79.62), higher number of harvested lymph nodes (WMD = 2.81, 95% CI = 1.99–3.63, P < 0.05) (RG: mean ± SD = 35.88 ± 4.14; LG: mean ± SD = 32.73 ± 4.67), time to first postoperative food intake shortened (WMD = −0.20, 95% CI = −0.29 to −0.10, P < 0.05) (RG: mean ± SD = 4.5 d ± 1.94; LG: mean ± SD = 4.7 d ± 1.54), and lower length of postoperative hospital stay (WMD = −0.54, 95% CI = −0.83 to −0.24, P < 0.05) (RG: mean ± SD = 8.91 d ± 6.13; LG: mean ± SD = 9.61 d ± 7.74) in comparison to the LG group. While the other variables, for example, time to first postoperative flatus, postoperative complications, proximal and distal mar gin, R0 resection rate, mortality rate, conversion rate, and 3-year overall survival rate were all found to be statistically similar at P > 0.05.ConclusionsIn the treatment of gastric cancer, robotic gastrectomy is a safe and effective procedure that has both short- and long-term effects. To properly evaluate the advantages of robotic surgery in gastric cancer, more randomised controlled studies with rigorous research methodologies are needed.