Altmetric

Robotic surgery: disruptive innovation or unfulfilled promise? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the first 30 years

File Description SizeFormat 
Robotic surgery disruptive innovation.pdfPublished version1.8 MBAdobe PDFView/Open
Title: Robotic surgery: disruptive innovation or unfulfilled promise? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the first 30 years
Authors: Tan, A
Ashrafian, H
Scott, AJ
Mason, SE
Harling, L
Athanasiou, T
Darzi, A
Item Type: Journal Article
Abstract: Background Robotic surgery has been in existence for 30 years. This study aimed to evaluate the overall perioperative outcomes of robotic surgery compared with open surgery (OS) and conventional minimally invasive surgery (MIS) across various surgical procedures. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from 1990 up to October 2013 with no language restriction. Relevant review articles were hand-searched for remaining studies. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective comparative studies (PROs) on perioperative outcomes, regardless of patient age and sex, were included. Primary outcomes were blood loss, blood transfusion rate, operative time, length of hospital stay, and 30-day overall complication rate. Results We identified 99 relevant articles (108 studies, 14,448 patients). For robotic versus OS, 50 studies (11 RCTs, 39 PROs) demonstrated reduction in blood loss [ratio of means (RoM) 0.505, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.408–0.602], transfusion rate [risk ratio (RR) 0.272, 95 % CI 0.165–0.449], length of hospital stay (RoM 0.695, 0.615–0.774), and 30-day overall complication rate (RR 0.637, 0.483–0.838) in favour of robotic surgery. For robotic versus MIS, 58 studies (21 RCTs, 37 PROs) demonstrated reduced blood loss (RoM 0.853, 0.736–0.969) and transfusion rate (RR 0.621, 0.390–0.988) in favour of robotic surgery but similar length of hospital stay (RoM 0.982, 0.936–1.027) and 30-day overall complication rate (RR 0.988, 0.822–1.188). In both comparisons, robotic surgery prolonged operative time (OS: RoM 1.073, 1.022–1.124; MIS: RoM 1.135, 1.096–1.173). The benefits of robotic surgery lacked robustness on RCT-sensitivity analyses. However, many studies, including the relatively few available RCTs, suffered from high risk of bias and inadequate statistical power. Conclusions Our results showed that robotic surgery contributed positively to some perioperative outcomes but longer operative times remained a shortcoming. Better quality evidence is needed to guide surgical decision making regarding the precise clinical targets of this innovation in the next generation of its use.
Issue Date: 19-Feb-2016
Date of Acceptance: 11-Jan-2016
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10044/1/31852
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-4752-x
ISSN: 1432-2218
Publisher: Springer Verlag
Start Page: 4330
End Page: 4352
Journal / Book Title: Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques
Volume: 30
Issue: 10
Copyright Statement: © The Author(s) 2016. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​4.​0/​), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
Keywords: Conventional surgery
Perioperative outcomes
Robotic surgery
Surgery
1103 Clinical Sciences
Publication Status: Published
Appears in Collections:Division of Surgery
Faculty of Medicine



Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Creative Commons