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