Skip to main content

Table 4 Comparison of clinical and perioperative outcomes by robotic-assisted TMEa

From: Robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision with the single-docking technique for patients with rectal cancer

Study Country (year) Operation type Sample size Lower rectum (%) Preoperative CCRTb (%) Conversion Rate (%) Estimated blood loss (mL) Overall complications (%) Anastomostic leakage (%) Rate of sphincter preservation (%) DRMc (cm) Positive CRMd (%)
Present study (Huang et al.) Taiwan (2017) Totally robotic (single-docking)g 95([y]p Stage 0-III) 50.5 78.9 0 80 (15–1050) 17.69 5.4 95.8 2.3 (0.2–6.5.) 2.1
Baek et al. [11] Korea (2011) Hybrid 41 ([y]p Stage 0-III) 36.6e 80.5 7.3 200 (20–2000) 22.0 7.3 85.4 3.6 (0.4–10) 2.4
Park et al. [12] Korea (2011) Hybrid 52 ([y]p Stage 0-III) 60.4f 23.1 0 NA 19.2 9.6 100 2.8 1.9
Hellan et al. [14] USA (2015) Totally robotic or Hybrid 425 ([y]p Stage I-IV) 31.3 51.3 5.9 119 ± 164 40.2 8.7 NA 3.0 ± 2.0 0.9
Ahmed et al. [15] UK (2016) Totally robotic (single-docking)h 83 NA 21.7 0 10 (0–200) 49 2 88.0 2.7 (0.4–8.0) 3.6
Hellan et al. [22] USA (2007) Hybrid 39 ([y]p Stage I-IV) 53.9f 84.6 2.6 200 (25–6000)   12.1 84.6 2.65 (0.4–7.5) 0
Luca et al. [24] Italy (2009) Totally robotic (single-docking)g 28 ([y]p Stage I-IV) NA 0 0 68 ± 138 (0–600) NA NA 75.0 2.5 ± 1.3 (0.6–5.5) 0
Kim et al. [28] Korea (2016) Totally robotic (single-docking)h 33 ([y]p Stage 0-III) NA 100 6.1 232.0 ± 180.0 45.6 NA 93.9 2.2 ± 1.5 16.1
Saklani et al. [29] Korea (2013) Totally robotic (single-docking)h 74 ([y]p Stage 0-III) NA 100 1.4 180 ± 28.1 (0–1100) 16.2 5.4 97.3 1.7 ± 1.4 (0.1–6.0) 4
Pai et al. [35] USA (2015) Dual docking or Hybrid 101 ([y]p Stage 0-IV) 28.7 74.3 4 190 ± 128 28.7 6.3 79.2 3.5 ± 2.7 (0.1–16.3) 5
Kim et al. [36] Korea (2016) Totally robotic (single-docking)h 60 ([y]p Stage 0-IV) 56.7e 36.7 0 74.2 ± 50 15 5 93.4 3.1 ± 1.7 11.7
Feroci et al. [37] Italy (2016) Totally robotic (single-docking)g 53 ([y]p Stage 0-III) NA 49.1 3.8 60.8 (0–400) 26.4 5.7 100 2.5 (0.5–10) 0
Cho et al. [38] Korea (2012) Totally robotic (single-docking)h 278 ([y]p Stage 0-III) 24.8 32.7 0.4 179.0 ± 236.5 25.9 10.4 100 2.0 ± 1.4 5.0
Yamaguchi et al. [39] Japan (2016) Totally robotic (single-docking)g 203 ([y]p Stage 0-IV) 60.1f 0.5 0 15.4 ± 26.4 9 1.5 95.1 2.8 ± 1.9 NA
Park et al. [40] Korea (2015) Hybrid 133 ([y]p Stage I-III) 24.8 11.3 0 77.6 ± 153.2 (0–700) 19.7 4.5 100 2.75 ± 2.14 (1–14) 6.8
Ghezzi et al. [41] Brazil/Italy (2014) Totally robotic (single-docking)g 65 ([y]p Stage 0-III) 100f 72.3 1.5 0 (0–175) 41.5 7.1 86.2 2.7 (1.6–4.4) 0
Ramji et al. [42] Canada (2016) Hybrid 26 NA 58 12 296 ± 155 42 8 85 2.96 ± 2.05 0
Hara et al. [43] Korea (2014) Totally robotic (single-docking)h 200 ([y]p Stage 0-IV) 56.5 27.5 0 190 (0–1500) 38.5 9.5 93.5 1.8 (0–22.0) 1.5
Bail et al. [44] Korea (2013) Totally robotic (single-docking)h 370 ([y]p Stage 0-IV) 26.8 21.1 0.8 245.7 ± 222.1 (10.0–1300.0) 24.6 7.7 99.2 2.6 ± 1.4 6.9
  1. NA not avaliable
  2. aTME total mesorectal excision
  3. bCCRT concurrent chemoradiotherapy
  4. cCRM circumferential resection margin
  5. dDRM distal resection margin
  6. e< 7cm
  7. fExtraperitoneal
  8. gwithout moving both the robotic surgical cart and repositioning robotic arms
  9. hwithout moving the robotic surgical cart, but repositioning robotic arms