Table 3.
Circumferential margin outcomes
| Study | CRM negative (> 1 mm) | p Value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Robot | Lap | ||
| Baik et al26 | 92.9% | 91.2% | 0.749 |
| Patriti et al36 | 100% | 100% | Not reported |
| Park et al38 | 92.7% | 96.3% | 0.542 |
| Kwak et al39 | 98.3% | 100.0% | > 0.999 |
| D’Annibale et al*34 | 100% | 88% | 0.022 |
| Cho et al31 | 95.0% | 95.3% | 1.000 |
| Park et al37 | 92% | 91% | 0.976 |
| Kim et al16 | 78.8% | 84.8% | 0.42 |
| Huang et al17 | 100% | 94.7% | 0.14 |
| Jayne et al13 | 94.9% | 93.8% | 0.56 |
| Kim et al32 | 96.0% | 95.1% | 0.8231 |
| Lim et al18 | 95.9% | 100% | 0.384 |
| Valverde et al27 | 94% | 89% | 0.47 |
| Crolla et al33 | 95.2% | 97.8% | Univariable p = 0.24, multivariable p = 1.00 |
| Kim et al14 | 92.4% | 93.2% | 0.999 |
| Panteleimonitis et al40 | 96.8% | 98.4% | 1.000 |
| Garfinkle et al15 | 94.8% | 96.2% | 0.46 |
CRM = circumferential resection margin; Lap = laparoscopic, *CRM > 2 mm corresponds to the study by D'Annibale et al. exclusively.