2021
DOI: 10.1007/s10151-021-02515-7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic-assisted transabdominal total mesorectal excision and transanal total mesorectal excision: which approach offers optimal short-term outcomes for mid-to-low rectal adenocarcinoma?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
8
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 76 publications
1
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Both approaches aim to improve the quality of TME and secure the achievement of negative CRM. [23][24][25][26] This study showed equivalent results for several approaches, including CLS. The ROLARR trial could not show the superiority of RALS compared to CLS in regards to the rate of open conversion as a primary endpoint, as well as CRM.…”
Section: Approachsupporting
confidence: 59%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Both approaches aim to improve the quality of TME and secure the achievement of negative CRM. [23][24][25][26] This study showed equivalent results for several approaches, including CLS. The ROLARR trial could not show the superiority of RALS compared to CLS in regards to the rate of open conversion as a primary endpoint, as well as CRM.…”
Section: Approachsupporting
confidence: 59%
“…Today, we can adopt several approaches other than CLS in the field of minimally invasive surgery, including the advancement and spread of RALS and transanal TME. Both approaches aim to improve the quality of TME and secure the achievement of negative CRM 23–26 . This study showed equivalent results for several approaches, including CLS.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 53%
“…A 2021 systematic review and meta-analysis of 37 studies compared taTME (n = 1326) to r-TME (n = 3835) and found similar pooled conversion rates (1.0% vs 1.2%; p = 0.91) and pathological outcomes (circumferential resection margin positivity 3.2% vs 2.7%, p = 0.22; intact mesorectal specimen 84.6% vs 90.1, p = 0.23). 113…”
Section: Certainty Of Evidencementioning
confidence: 99%
“…A 2021 systematic review and meta-analysis of 37 studies compared taTME (n = 1326) to r-TME (n = 3835) and found similar pooled conversion rates (1.0% vs 1.2%; p = 0.91) and pathological outcomes (circumferential resection margin positivity 3.2% vs 2.7%, p = 0.22; intact mesorectal specimen 84.6% vs 90.1, p = 0.23). 113 With regard to long-term oncologic outcomes, a large meta-analysis of 30 trials including 5845 patients compared open TME (n = 2207), l-TME (n = 3072), r-TME (n = 388), and taTME (n = 178). 114 There were no statistically significant differences in DFS or LR rates between the 4 groups, and similar findings have been observed in smaller retrospective studies.…”
Section: Compared To Laparoscopic Tme (L-tme) and Robotic Tme (R-tme)...mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[1] New strategies such as robotic surgery and transanal TME have been proposed to overcome this technical difficulty. [2][3][4] However, these techniques cost more and require advanced surgical skills and technological infrastructure. Therefore, the importance of forming selection criteria for difficult cases emerges.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%