Table 3.
Oncological outcomes
| Ref. |
No. of patients |
Mean follow-up (mths) |
NeoCRT (%) |
Lymph nodes harvested (mean) |
TME grade complete (%) |
CRM +ve (%) |
DRM (cm) |
Robotic Recurrence (%) |
3 yr Robotic Survival (%) |
||||||||
| Rob | Lap | Rob | Lap | Rob | Lap | Rob | Lap | Rob | Lap | Rob | Lap | Rob | Lap | DS | OS | ||
| Baik et al[24] | 56 | 57 | 14.3 (both) | 8.9 | 12.2 | 18.4 | 18.7 | 92.9 | 75.4 | 7.1 | 8.8 | 4.0 | 3.6 | - | - | 7.6 | |
| Ng et al[40] | 8 | NA | 1.5 | NA | - | - | 12.9 | NA | - | - | 0 | NA | > 2.0 | NA | - | - | NA |
| Patriti et al[37] | 29 | 37 | 29.2 | 18.7 | 24.1 | 5.4 | 10.3 | 11.2 | - | - | 0 | 0 | 2.1 | 4.5 | None | 100.0 | 9.6 |
| Bianchi et al[38] | 25 | 25 | 10.0 (both) | 52.0 | 40.0 | 19.7 | 18.2 | - | - | 0 | 4.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | None | - | 6.0 | |
| Pigazzi et al[32] | 143 | NA | 17.4 | NA | 65.1 | - | 14.1 | NA | - | - | 0.7 | NA | 2.9 | NA | 1.5 | 77.6 | NA |
| Zimmern et al[33] | 58 | NA | 13.2 | NA | 39.7 | NA | 14.1 | NA | - | - | 0 | NA | - | - | 5.2 | - | NA |
| Baek et al[34] | 41 | 41 | - | - | 80.5 | 43.9 | 13.1 | 16.2 | - | - | 2.4 | 4.9 | 3.6 | 3.8 | - | - | 6.6 |
| Koh et al[41] | 20 | NA | - | - | 9.5 | NA | 17.8 | NA | - | - | 5.3 | - | 3.7 | - | - | - | NA |
| Kwak et al[25] | 59 | 60 | 17.0 | 13.0 | 13.6 | 8.5 | 20.0 | 21.0 | - | - | 1.7 | 0 | - | - | - | - | - |
| Leong et al[26] | 29 | NA | - | - | 37.9 | NA | 16.0 | NA | - | - | 7.0 | NA | 0.8 | NA | - | - | NA |
| Park et al[27] | 52 | 123 | - | - | 23.1 | 8.1 | 19.4 | 15.9 | - | - | 1.9 | 2.4 | 2.8 | 3.2 | - | - | 9.8 |
| Kim et al[28] | 100 | NA | 24.0 | NA | 32.0 | NA | 20.0 | NA | - | - | 1.0 | NA | 2.7 | NA | - | - | NA |
| Park et al[35] | 30 | NA | - | - | 66.7 | NA | 20.0 | NA | 83.3 | NA | 0 | NA | - | - | - | - | NA |
| Shin et al[29] | 17 | 12 | - | - | - | - | 18.42 | 15.92 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 9.6 |
| Erguner et al[42] | 27 | 37 | - | - | 14.8 | 21.6 | 16.0 | 16.0 | 100.0 | 70.6 | 0 | 0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | - | - | 5.0 |
| Kang et al[30] | 165 | 165 | 22.41 (both) | 23.6 | 21.8 | 15.0 | 15.6 | - | - | 4.2 | 6.7 | 1.9 | 2.0 | - | - | - | |
| Park et al[31] | 40 | 40 | 6.0 | 6.0 | 80.0 | 50 | 12.9 | 13.3 | - | - | 7.5 | 5.0 | 1.4 | 1.3 | - | - | - |
| Stanciulea et al[43] | 100 | NA | 24.01 | NA | 58.0 | NA | 14.01 | NA | - | - | 1.0 | - | 3.0 | - | 2.0 | NA | 90.0 |
| D’Annibale et al[39] | 50 | 50 | 12.0 | 12.0 | 68.0 | 56.0 | 16.5 | 13.8 | - | - | 0 | 0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | - | - | - |
| Fernandez et al[36] | 13 | 59 | - | - | 77.0 | 54.0 | 16.0 | 20.0 | 69.0 | 73.0 | 0 | 2.0 | - | - | - | - | - |
1
Median;
2
Overall figures for colorectal resections (not just rectal). Rob: Robotic-assisted surgery; Lap: Conventional laparoscopic surgery; NeoCRT: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy; TME: Total mesorectal excision; CRM: Circumferential resection margin; DRM: Distal resection margin; DS: Disease free survival; NA: Not available.