Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Springer logoLink to Springer
. 2021 Dec 31;16(6):1233–1247. doi: 10.1007/s11701-021-01361-x

Influence of steep Trendelenburg position on postoperative complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Satoshi Katayama 1,2, Keiichiro Mori 1,3, Benjamin Pradere 1, Takafumi Yanagisawa 1,3, Hadi Mostafaei 1,4, Fahad Quhal 1,5, Reza Sari Motlagh 1,6, Ekaterina Laukhtina 1,7, Nico C Grossmann 1,8, Pawel Rajwa 1,9, Abdulmajeed Aydh 1,10, Frederik König 1,11, Pierre I Karakiewicz 12, Motoo Araki 2, Yasutomo Nasu 2, Shahrokh F Shariat 1,7,13,14,15,16,17,✉
PMCID: PMC9606098  PMID: 34972981

Abstract

Intraoperative physiologic changes related to the steep Trendelenburg position have been investigated with the widespread adoption of robot-assisted pelvic surgery (RAPS). However, the impact of the steep Trendelenburg position on postoperative complications remains unclear. We conducted a meta-analysis to compare RAPS to laparoscopic/open pelvic surgery with regards to the rates of venous thromboembolism (VTE), cardiac, and cerebrovascular complications. Meta-regression was performed to evaluate the influence of confounding risk factors. Ten randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 47 non-randomized controlled studies (NRSs), with a total of 380,125 patients, were included. Although RAPS was associated with a decreased risk of VTE and cardiac complications compared to laparoscopic/open pelvic surgery in NRSs [risk ratio (RR), 0.59; 95% CI 0.51–0.72, p < 0.001 and RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.58–1.50, p = 0.78, respectively], these differences were not confirmed in RCTs (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.52–1.62, p = 0.77 and RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.58–1.50, p = 0.78, respectively). In subgroup analyses of laparoscopic surgery, there was no significant difference in the risk of VTE and cardiac complications in both RCTs and NRSs. In the meta-regression, none of the risk factors were found to be associated with heterogeneity. Furthermore, no significant difference was observed in cerebrovascular complications between RAPS and laparoscopic/open pelvic surgery. Our meta-analysis suggests that the steep Trendelenburg position does not seem to affect postoperative complications and, therefore, can be considered safe with regard to the risk of VTE, cardiac, and cerebrovascular complications. However, proper individualized preventive measures should still be implemented during all surgeries including RAPS to warrant patient safety.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11701-021-01361-x.

Keywords: Trendelenburg position, Complication, Thrombosis, Cardiac, Meta-analysis

Introduction

During the past few decades, laparoscopic surgery has become the standard procedure in many surgical fields. The quest for improvement for both patients and surgeons using technological innovation has led to widespread use of Intuitive Surgical da Vinci surgical system for pelvic surgery [1]. This technology enables better magnified 3D visualization, tremor filtration, and comfortable remote console [2]. With a marked increase in the use of robotic platforms, a multitude of trials have investigated patients’ benefits regarding oncologic and perioperative outcomes [1]; despite the efforts of researchers, little to no evidence suggests that robot-assisted pelvic surgery (RAPS) improves complication rates and oncologic outcomes over other procedures [3–6]. In addition to these limited benefits, various potential risk and disadvantages to RAPS are likely to result from the steep Trendelenburg position alone or in combination with pneumoperitoneum. This head-down tilt position has been shown to result in decreased lung volume, lung compliance, functional residual capacity and increased peak airway pressure, leading to postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs). The prevalence of PPCs is approximately 30%, and is associated with increased mortality and morbidity rates [7, 8]. Although its clinical significance remains debatable, this non-physiological positioning typically increase the risk for several intraoperative hemodynamic and intracranial changes, such as increased cardiac contractility, increased cardiac oxygen consumption, and increased intracranial pressure [9, 10]. Compared to research on PPCs, whether these intraoperative changes translate into postoperative detrimental effects remains uncertain. Venous thromboembolism (VTE), which consists of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism, and cardiac and cerebrovascular complications are relatively rare but potentially life-threating. A comprehensive assessment of postoperative complications related to the steep Trendelenburg position is needed to establish preventable measures. Thus, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to clarify the effects of steep Trendelenburg position related to RAPS on postoperative complications.

Evidence acquisition

This study protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews database (PROSPERO CRD: 42021252198).

Literature search

This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Reviews and Met-Analyses (PRISMA) Protocol 2009 checklist, as shown in Supplementary Table 1 [11]. PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched in January 2021 to identify relevant studies examining the role of RAPS compared to laparoscopic and/or open pelvic surgery for patients with common pelvic malignancies, including prostate, bladder, colorectal, endometrial, and cervical cancers. The following terms were used: (prostate OR bladder OR urothelial OR rectal OR colorectal OR colon OR endometrial OR cervical) AND (cancer OR carcinoma)) AND (robotic surgery OR robot-assisted surgery OR Da Vinci) AND (complication OR morbidity). We also checked the reference lists to detect relevant publications.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The population, intervention, comparator, outcome, and study design (PICOS) approach in this study was as follows: patients with pelvic malignancies (P) who underwent RAPS with curative intent in the steep Trendelenburg position (I) were compared with those who underwent open or laparoscopic pelvic surgery (C) in terms of any grade of VTE, cardiac, and cerebrovascular complications (O) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized controlled studies (NRSs) (S). Only articles written in English were included in the study. To reduce heterogeneity due to the rarity of objective outcomes, comparative studies that enrolled a minimum of 100 patients in each arm were included. Only studies that performed surgery with a curative intent were included. Studies were excluded if they compared with arms using transanal or transvaginal approach, performed surgery for a benign disease or extraperitoneal RAPS was performed as an intervention group. In case of patient positioning was precisely described, studies comparing extraperitoneal vs transperitoneal RAPS were included. The primary endpoint of interest was VTE, and the secondary endpoints were cardiac and cerebrovascular complications, regardless of the complication grade. Initial screening was performed independently by two investigators based on the titles and abstracts of the articles to identify eligible reports. After the first screening, potentially relevant studies were assessed and reasons for exclusion were noted through a full-text review. Any discrepancies were resolved via consensus with co-authors.

Data extraction

We extracted the following data from the eligible studies: first author’s name, publication year, period of patient recruitment, recruitment region, study design, surgical procedure, number of patients, age, sex, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) score ≥ 3, number of advanced malignancy patients, operative time, number of patients who underwent lymph node (LN) dissection, number of LNs removed, estimated blood loss (EBL), blood transfusion rates, length of stay (LOS), and postoperative complications including VTE, cardiac, and cerebrovascular events. Advanced malignancy was defined as pT ≥ 3 or pathologic stage ≥ 3 (in cases where pT stage is not available). All discrepancies regarding data extraction were resolved via consensus with co-authors.

Risk of bias assessment

Two investigators independently assessed the risk of bias in each study according to the second edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We used the RoB for RCTs and the Risk of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) for NRSs. (Supplementary Tables 2 and 3, respectively).

Statistical analyses

A meta-analysis was conducted separately for each dichotomous outcome using the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The RCTs were separately analyzed from the NRSs. Continuous variables reported as median and interquartile range were altered to mean and standard deviation (SD) [12]. A random-effects model was applied to represent forest plots in meta-analysis of both RCTs and NRSs and 0.5 continuity corrections for 0 cells were applied. Significant heterogeneity was indicated by a p value of < 0.05 in the Cochran’s Q test and a ratio of > 50% in the I2 statistic. Additionally, considering that the development of VTE is multifactorial with clinically considerable heterogeneity, we performed a meta-regression analysis to explore the potential causes of heterogeneity and estimate the effects of age, BMI, comorbidity (ASA score ≥ 3), advanced malignancy, patients who underwent LN dissection, LN yields, operative time, EBL, and LOS on VTE event rates. Comorbidity, advanced malignancy, and patients who underwent LN dissection were transformed to categorical variables using a cut-off according to the respective median value of 20.2%, 34.0% and 72.7%, respectively. In addition, we performed subgroup analyses of patients according to type of surgical procedures (laparoscopic or open pelvic surgery) in VTE and cardiac complications to reduce and evaluate the effects of pneumoperitoneum and other risk factors. Publication bias was evaluated using Egger’s test, funnel plots were applied for analyses involving more than ten studies. All statistical analyses were performed using Stata®/MP 14.0 (Stata Corp., College Station, TX, USA); statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

Results

Our initial search identified 2991 publications; and 4 additional studies were added after the latest search. After removing duplicate publications, 409 articles were selected for further assessment. After a full-text review, 57 articles with 380,125 patients were deemed eligible for inclusion and exclusion criteria [4–6, 13–66]. A detailed study selection process is shown in Supplementary Fig. 1. The main characteristics of the included studies are summarized in Table 1 and Supplementary Table 4. A total of 10 RCTs and 47 NRSs were identified, with 31 from North America, 12 from Asia, 10 from Europe, 2 from other region, and 2 from international collaborations. Of them, 115,572 (30%), 51,978 (14%), and 212,575 (56%) patients underwent robot-assisted, laparoscopic, and open procedures, respectively. A total of 16 (28%) studies including patients with prostate cancer, 11 (19%) bladder cancer, 11 (19%) colorectal cancer, 10 (18%) endometrial cancer, 4 (7%) uterine cancer, 3 (5%) cervical cancer, and 2 (4%) gynecologic cancers.

Table 1.

Baseline characteristics of included studies

Year Recruitment Country Type of surgery Study design Total number Age Sex (male) BMI ASA sore ≥ 3, n (%) pT3 ≥ , n (%)
Robot Lapa/open Robot lapa/open Robot Lapa/open Robot Lapa/open Robot Lapa/open Robot lapa/open
Nix et al. [13] 2010 2008–2009 USA Bladder cancer RCT 21 –/20 67.4 (12.7) –/69.2 (7.8) 14 (67) –/17 (85) 27.5 –/28.4 NR 3 (14) –/5 (25)
Asimakopopulos et al. [14] 2011 2007–2008 International Prostate cancer RCT 64 64/– 59.6 (5.4) 61.1 (5.1)/– All 25.8 (2.6) 26.3 (2.2)/– NR 18 (35) 16 (27)/–
Parekh et al. [15] 2013 2009–2011 USA Bladder cancer RCT 20 –/20 68.6 (9.3) –/65.5 (10.0) 18 (90) –/16 (80) 27.2 (4.2) –/28.9 (4.6) NR 10 (50) –/7 (35)
Bochner et al. [16]l 2015 2010–2013 USA Bladder cancer RCT 60 –/58 65.7 (8.1) –/64 (8.4) 51 (85) –/42 (72) 27.9 (1.4) –/29.0 (2.3) 43 (72) –/46 (79) 17 (28.3) –/19 (32.9)
Khan et al. [17] 2016 2009–2012 UK Bladder cancer RCT 20 19/20 68.6 (6.8) 68.6 (9.9)/66.6 (8.8) 17 (85) 15 (79)/18 (90) 27.5 (4.2) 26.2 (3.6)/27.4 (3.9) 1 (5) 3 (16)/1 (5) 6(30)

8 (42)/

6 (30)
Jayne et al. [4] 2017 2011–2014 International Rectal cancer RCT 237 234/– 64.4 (11.0) 65.5 (11.9)/– 161 (67.9) 159 (67.9)/– NR 46 (19) 53 (23)/– 122(51) 122(52)/–
Debakey et al. [18] 2018 2015–2017 Egypt Rectal cancer RCT 21 24/– 53.4 50.3/– 11 (52) 13 (54)/– NR NR NR
Parekh et al. [6] 2018 2011–2014 USA Bladder cancer RCT 150 –/152 70 –/67 126 (84) –/128 (84) 27.9 (4.3) –/28.3 (5.0) NR 46 (31) –/49 (32)
Porpiglia et al. [19] 2018 2010–2011 Italy Prostate cancer RCT 60 60/– 63.9 (6.7) 64.7 (5.9)/– All 26.2 (2.5) 26.8 (2.9)/– NR 22(37) 22 (37)/–

Silva et al

[20]

 2018 2015–2017 Brazil Endometrial cancer RCT 42 43/– 60 (5.1) 60 (4.8)/– None 34.8 (7.5) 32.0 (4.1)/– NR NR
Tewari et al. [21] 2003 1999–2002 USA Prostate cancer P 200 –/100 59.9 –/63.1 All 27.7 –/27.6 NR 13(7) –/7 (7)
Boggess et al. [22] 2009 2005–2007 USA Endometrial cancer R 103 –/138 61.9 (10.6) –/64 (12.8) All 32.9 (7.6) –/34.7 (9.2) NR 10 –/20
Krambeck et al. [23] 2009 2002–2005 USA Prostate cancer R 294 –/588 59 (6.6) –/60 (5.9) All NR NR 29 (10) –/59 (10)

Carlsson et al

[24]

 2010 2002–2007 Sweden Prostate cancer P 1253 –/485 59.3 (6.5) –/62.5 (5.0) All NR NR NR
Doumerc et al.[25] 2010 2006–2008 Australia Prostate cancer R 212 –/502 61.3 (9.3) –/60.1 (6.3) All NR NR 66 (31) –/177 (35)
Lim et al. [26] 2010

1998–2006

2008–2010

 USA Endometrial cancer R 122 122/– 62.1 (8.4) 61.6 (11.8)/– None 31 (8.8) 29.9 (7)/– NR NR
Leitao et al. [27] 2012 2007–2010 USA Uterine cancer R 347 302/– 58.3 (10.1) 59.3 (11.0)/– None 35.5 (8.1) 32.6 (7.0)/– NR NR
Tang et al. [28] 2012 2007–2010 USA Endometrial cancer R 129 –/110 59.8 (10.6) –/58.5 (9.9) None 39.8 (7.4) –/40.3 (8.6) NR 8 (7) –/9 (8)
Yu et al. [29] 2012 2009 USA Bladder cancer R 1144 –/7168 69 (1.5) –/69 (1.5) 1031 (90.2) –/6055 (85) NR NR NR
Froehner et al. [30] 2013 2006–2012 Germany Prostate cancer P 317 –/2437 62.6 –/64.9 All NR 24 (8) –/281 (12) 76 (24) –/841(34)
Cardenas-Goicoechea et al. [31] 2013 2003–2010 USA Endometrial cancer R 187 245/– 62 (9.4) 61 (10.5)/– None 31.8 (8.0) 31.8 (8.9)/– NR 25 (13.3) 31 (12.6)/–
Helvind et al. [32] 2013 2010–2012 USA Colon cancer R 101 162/– 72.2 (10.8) 75.3 (9.2)/– 69 (43) 45 (43)/– 25.5 (3.8) 27.7 (5.7)/– 17 (17) 34 (21)/– NR
Pilecki et al. [33] 2014 2011 USA Prostate cancer R 4374 –/1097 61.7 (7.2) –/63.1 (7.4) All 28.6 (4.8) –/28.5 (5.2) NR NR
Ploussard et al. [34] 2014 2001–2011 France Prostate cancer R 1009 1377/– 62.7 62.7/– All 26.5 26.6/– NR 424 (42) 562 (40.8)/–

Sugihara et al

[35]

 2014 2012–2013 Japan Prostate cancer R 2126 2483/7202 66.7 (6.7) 67.7 (5.2)/68 (5.9) All 23.8 (2.6) 23.8 (2.7)/23.8 (2.7) NR NR
Gandaglia et al. [36] 2014 2008–2009 Canada Prostate cancer R 353 –/353 69.2 (3.0) –/69.3 (3.0) All NR NR 152 (43) –/149 (42)
Moghadamyeghaneh et al. [37] 2015 2009–2012 USA Rectal cancer R 872 4737/12,750 64 (12) 62 (13)/64 (13) 556 (65) 2844 (60)/7676 (60) NR NR NR
Papachristos et al. [38] 2015 2007–2011 Australia Prostate cancer R 100 100/– 60.3 (6.0) 60.5 (5.4)/– All NR NR 31 (31) 36 (36)/–
Park et al. [39] 2015 2001–2013 USA Endometrial cancer R 350 –/586 58 (10.4) 59.3 (10.6) None 36.6 (8.4) 36.3 (8.6)/– NR 22 (6) –/117 (20)
Wallerstedt et al. [5] 2015 2008–2011 Sweden Prostate cancer P 1847 –/778 62.3 (5.9) –/63 (5.9) All 26 (2.9) –/26.3 (2.7) 43 (2) –/15 (2) NR
Zakhari et al. [40] 2015 2008–2012 Canada Uterine cancer R 6313 4034/– NR None NR NR NR
Guy et al. [41] 2016 2008–2010 USA Endometrial cancer R 1228 –/5914 NR None NR NR NR
Ulm et al. [42] 2016 2007–2011 USA Endometrial cancer R 165 –/160 64.8 (11.6) –/64.3 (11.8) None 34.1 (9.8) –/35.5 (8.5) NR 0 –/0
Borgfeldt et al. [43] 2016 2008–2014 Sweden Uterine cancer P 430 272/2741 67.2 (11.0) 68.2 (10.5)/68.9 (10.3) None 29 (7.1) 28.8 (6.5)/28.7 (7.7) 30 (7) 30 (11)/315 (12) 0 0/0
Law et al. [44] 2017 2008–2015 Hong Kong Rectal cancer P 220 171/– 63.5 (10.1) 63.3 (13.6)/– 148 (67) 97 (57)/– median 24.9 24.6/– 47 (21) 35 (20)/– 80 (36) 71 (42)/–
Horovitz et al. [45] 2017 2003–2014 USA Prostate cancer(Extra- vs transperitoneal surgery) R 280 340/– 62.3 (6.6) 61.0 (6.8)/– All 29.0 (4.9) 29.7 (4.7)/– 65 (23) 57 (17)/– 109 (39) 85 (25)/–
Shah et al. [46] 2017 2001–2012 USA Cervical cancer R 109 –/202 49.9 (11.7) –/49.5(12.6) None 31.3 (6.7) –/33.1 (6.8) NR NR
Chen et al. [47] 2017 2008–2012 Taiwan Rectal cancer R 4744 5578/102858 NR NR NR NR NR
Garfinkle et al. [48] 2018 2016 Canada Rectal cancer R 154 213/211 61.9 (14) 63.8 (13.3)/63.4 (12.2) 106 (69) 127 (60)/127 (60) 28 (6.1) 27.3 (5.8)/28.7 (6.4) 96 (62) 117 (55)/142 (68) 57 (37) 99 (46)/92 (44)
Nazzani et al. [49] 2018 2008–2013 Canada Bladder cancer R 1259 –/8768 NR 972 (77) –/6804 (78) NR NR NR
Chen et al. [50] 2019 2014–2018 China Cervical cancer R 216 342/– 48.9 (9.7) 47.5 (9.8)/– None 24.2 (13.4) 23.7 (3.0)/– NR NR
Faraj et al. [51] 2019 2012–2016 USA Bladder cancer R 640 –/4921 68.2 (9.3) –/68.8 (9.7) NR 28.4 (4.9) –/28.6 (5.7) NR NR
Piedimonte et al. [52] 2019 2008–2015 USA Cervical cancer R 749 –/2584 NR None NR NR NR
Flamiatos et al. [53] 2019 2009–2015 USA Bladder cancer R 100 –/149 NR All 27.8 (5.2) –/28.2 (5,.7) NR 48 (48) –/76 (51)
Mukherjee et al. [54] 2019 2010–2015 USA Prostate cancer R 52,151 –/16,858 NR All NR NR NR
Tang et al. [55] 2019 2010–2016 China Rectal cancer R 556 1029/– 57 (11.9) 58 (11.8)/– 347 (62.4) 708 (68.8)/– 23.3 (3.1) 23 (3.1)/– 14 (2.5) 42 (4.1)/– 376 (68) 807 (78)/–
Chen et al. [56] 2019 2012–2016 USA Bladder cancer P 143 –/345 70.3 (9.6) –/69.7 (9.6) 125 –/273 27 –/27.1 113(79) –/274(79) 50(35) –/98(28)
Aiko et al. [57] 2020 2013–2018 Japan Endometrial cancer R 121 102/– 56 (11) 58 (11)/– None 25.2 (5.9) 24 (3.8)/– NR 13 (11) 4 (4)/–
Arora et al. [58] 2020 2007–2019 France Bladder cancer R 188 112/– 68.3 (8.1) 67 (9.6)/– 168 (90) 92 (82) 27.0 (4.0) 26.3 (4.9)/– 37 (20) 5 (4)/– 73 (39) 48 (43)/–
Casarin et al. [59] 2020 2008–2015 USA Uterine cancer/Hysterectomy R 2536 –/2536 NR None NR NR NR
Lo et al. [60] 2020 2012–2016 USA Colon cancer R 26,096 28,058/27649 NR 13,204 (51) 9624 (34)/13825(50) 29.1 (0.2) 28.8 (0.1)/28.9 (0.1) 15,535 (60) 16,678 (59)/16443 (59) NR
Ye et al. [61] 2020 2015–2019 China Colorectal cancer/proctectomy R 293 293/– 60 (12.6) 60 (11.6)/– 168 (57) 170 (58)/– 23.2 (2.5) 23.2 (2.5)/– 45 (16) 36 (12)/– 229 (78) 233 (80)/–
Bedrikovetski et al. [62] 2020 2012–2018 Australia Rectal cancer R 177 1269/1980 61 (10.4) 61.8 (12.0)/65 (10.8) 74 (63.2) 735 (57.9)/1313 (66.3) NR 27 (23) 315 (25)/651 (33) 47 (40) 599 (47)/1002 (52)
Gracia et al. [63] 2020 2012–2016 Spain Endometrial cancer P 133 101/– 65.7 (11.9) 63.7 (12.6) None 28.3 (5.9) 26 (4.4)/– 41 (31) 19 (19)/– 19 (14) 10 (10)/–
Netter et al. [64] 2020 2016–2018 France Gynecologic cancer P 175 187/– Median 61 Median 57.0/– None Median 25 Median 24.1/– NR NR
Wang et al. [65] 2020 2014–2017 China Gynecologic cancer R 153 123/– 49.7 (9.4) 49.9 (11.1)/– None NR NR 0 0/–
Huang et al. [66] 2021 2017–2018 USA Prostate cancer P 376 –/124 62 (8.1) –/62.7 (6.7) All 27.7 (3.7) –/27 (4.4) NR 158 (43) –/44 (35)
Open in a new tab

RCT Randomized controlled trial, P Prospective study, R Retrospective study

There was no publication bias for NRSs in VTE, cardiac, and cerebrovascular complications according to the funnel plot and Egger’s test (p = 0.79, p = 0.76, and p = 0.79, respectively) (Supplementary Fig. 1).

VTEs and steep Trendelenburg position

Seven RCTs comprising 772 patients and 37 NRSs with 168,040 patients provided data on the incidence of VTE. Forest plots (Fig. 1A) revealed that there was no significant difference in RCTs (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.52–1.62; p = 0.77), while patients who underwent RAPS had a significantly decreased risk of VTE in NRSs (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.51–0.72; p < 0.001) compared to those who underwent laparoscopic or open surgeries. Based on the Cochran’s Q and I2 tests, no significant heterogeneity was observed in either RCTs (p = 0.69, I2 0%, respectively) and NRSs (p = 0.11, I2 23%, respectively). Subgroup analyses based on surgical procedure found that there was no significant difference in laparoscopic pelvic surgery in both RCTs (RR, 0.84; 95%CI, 0.43–1.62; p = 0.60) and NRSs (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.66–1.33; p = 0.71) (Fig. 1B); however, there was a statistically significant difference in NRSs (RR 0.53; 95% CI 0.45–0.63; p < 0.001), but no significant difference in RCTs (RR 0.83; 95% CI 0.46–1.52; p = 0.55) in open pelvic surgery (Fig. 1C).

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Forest plots for the incidence of venous thromboembolism showing the overall association of robotic surgery (with steep Trendelenburg position) with laparoscopic and open pelvic surgery (A), subgroup analyses based on laparoscopic pelvic surgery (B), and subgroup analyses based on open pelvic surgery (C) in both randomized controlled studies and non-randomized controlled studies

Cardiac complications and steep Trendelenburg position

A total of 5 RCTs comprising 1080 patients and 30 NRSs with 1,361,576 patients provided data on cardiac complications. Forest plots (Fig. 2A) revealed that there was no significant difference in RCTs (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.58–1.50; p = 0.78), while patients who underwent RAPS had a significantly lower risk of cardiac complications (RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.64–0.92; p = 0.004) in NRSs compared to those who underwent laparoscopic or open surgeries. Based on the Cochran’s Q and I2 tests, no significant heterogeneity was found in RCTs (p = 0.56, I2 0%), while there was significant heterogeneity in NRSs (p < 0.001, I2 63%). Subgroup analysis based on type of surgical procedure (Fig. 2B) revealed no significant difference between RAPS and laparoscopic surgery in both RCTs (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.31–2.03, p = 0.63) and NRSs (RR 0.82, 95%CI 0.57–1.17, p = 0.28); meanwhile, there was a statistically significant difference in NRSs (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.61–0.91, p = 0.003), but not in RCTs (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.50–2.74, p = 0.72) in open pelvic surgery (Fig. 2C). Heterogeneities in NRSs were observed in the subgroup analyses of both laparoscopic and open surgery according to the Cochran’s Q test (p < 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively) and I2 test (70% and 70%, respectively).

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

Forest plots for the incidence of cardiac complications showing the overall association of robotic surgery (with steep Trendelenburg position) with laparoscopic and open pelvic surgery (A), subgroup analyses based on laparoscopic pelvic surgery (B), and subgroup analyses based on open pelvic surgery (C) in both randomized controlled studies and non-randomized controlled studies

Cerebrovascular complications and steep Trendelenburg position

A total of 2 RCTs comprising 511 patients and 11 NRSs with 96,585 patients provided data on cardiac complications. Forest plots (Fig. 3) revealed no significant difference in either RCTs (RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.11–9.51; p = 0.99) or NRSs (RR 0.97; 95%CI 0.74–1.28; p = 0.83). Based on the Cochran’s Q and I2 tests, there was no significant heterogeneity in RCTs (p = 0.33, I2 0%), while significant heterogeneity was observed in NRSs (p = 0.89, I2 0%).

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Open in a new tab

Forest plots for the incidence of cerebrovascular complications showing the overall association of robotic surgery (with steep Trendelenburg position) with laparoscopic and open pelvic surgery in both randomized controlled studies and non-randomized controlled studies

Heterogeneity exploration

To explore clinically considerable heterogeneity due to the multifactorial etiology of VTE, we performed a meta-regression analysis (Table 2). Among the previously identified potential variables, none of the risk factors exhibited heterogeneity.

Table 2.

Results of meta-regression analyses for the incidence of VTE

Variable No. of studies Regression coefficient 95%CI p value
Cancer type 44  − 0.07303  − 0.1515–0.005459 0.07
Age 35 0.2977  − 0.2790–0.8745 0.30
BMI 25  − 0.3630  − 0.1382–0.6557 0.47
ASA 12 0.7075  − 0.3673–1.7822 0.17
Operative time 28 0.001992  − 0.009763–0.004961 0.18
Estimate blood loss 23  − 0.0000864  − 0.001571–0.001399 0.91
Advanced malignancy 27 0.5684  − 0.002252–1.1391 0.051
LN dissection 22 0.3981  − 0.1590–0.9551 0.15
LN yields 16 0.01573  − 0.02128–0.05274 0.38
LOS 25 0.01064  − 0.007443–0.02872 0.24
Open in a new tab

BMI body mass index, ASA the American Society of Anesthesiology, LN lymph node, LOS length of stay, CI confidence interval

Discussion

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we investigated the postoperative adverse effects of steep Trendelenburg position of RAPS compared to laparoscopic and open pelvic surgeries. Although the steep Trendelenburg position was associated with a significant risk reduction in the rate of VTE and cardiac complications in NRSs, no difference was found in RCTs between the types of surgical procedures. Additionally, there was no relationship between the steep Trendelenburg position and the risk of cerebrovascular complications.

VTE is a multifactorial disease responsible for significant morbidity and mortality in the postoperative period; patients who experienced VTE after surgery have a 5.3-fold increase in the risk of mortality relative to those who did not [67]. Of the possible mechanisms, venous stasis is one of the key drivers in the development of VTE. The steep Trendelenburg position, described as head tilting of 25–45 degrees downward with leg elevated, facilitates venous return from the lower limbs and decreases blood stasis, which may result in a lower risk of developing intravascular thrombosis [68]. However, there was no significant difference in RCTs despite the presence of statistical significance in NRSs, suggesting that the presence of a steep Trendelenburg position has little to no detrimental effects on postoperative prevalence of VTE; if there is an effect then it is likely to be negligible compared to other risk factors. This is supported by the subgroup analyses that revealed no significant difference between cases with vs those without the steep Trendelenburg position when RAPS was compared to laparoscopic pelvic surgery. There was, however, a significant difference in favor of RAPS compared to open pelvic surgery which is more likely to be associated with VTE risk factors, confounding the real impact of the Trendelenburg position. To date, several risk factors have been shown to be associated with the development of VTE. For example, Trinh et al., who analyzed 2,508,916 patients undergoing eight major surgical oncologic procedures, reported that older age, female sex, severe comorbidity, black race, and insurance status were associated with an increased risk of VTE [67]. Additionally, prolonged operative time, LN dissection, increased BMI, transfusion, and advanced malignancy have been found to be associated with an increased risk of VTE [69, 70]. We assume that these semi-established risk factors affected our analyses, thereby confounding estimates of the VTE risk.

To overcome these inherent heterogeneities caused by confounders, we performed a meta-regression analysis to explore the potential explanations of clinically considerable heterogeneity in VTE driven by various risk factors. The meta-regression, however, confirmed that none of the risk factors were associated with the presence of heterogeneities. Our selection criteria (only comparative studies with ≥ 100 patients per arm were included) may have led to the low heterogeneity in the VTE rate in both RCTs and NRSs.

The steep Trendelenburg position also induces several hemodynamic changes affecting the cardiovascular system. The head-down tilt plus leg raising leads to an increase in central venous pressure ranging from 80 to 305% [71], which increases cardiac preload. Cardiac afterload measured by the systemic vascular resistant index increases at the time of CO2 insufflation, followed by a decrease during the steep Trendelenburg position [9]. The intraoperative values of the cardiac output and contractility resulting from these changes remain controversial, varying from no change to a significant increase [72, 73]. Rosendal et al. suggested that they are likely to pose a potential risk for higher cardiac oxygen consumption resulting in adverse cardiac events [71]. Despite these concerns, there was no difference between two types of surgical procedures in RCTs and subgroup analyses based on laparoscopic surgery, suggesting that the steep Trendelenburg position provides little to no impact on postoperative cardiac complications. Although a considerable relative risk reduction was observed in NRSs of cardiac complications as well as VTE (23% and 39% risk reduction, respectively), interpretations should be done with caution due to the influences of other uncontrolled confounding factors.

We also evaluated the association between the steep Trendelenburg position and cerebrovascular complications. This positioning, combined with pneumoperitoneum, has been shown to increase intracranial pressure, thereby reducing cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) resulting in cerebral ischemia [74]. Our findings, however, showed that the steep Trendelenburg position has only negligible impact on the likelihood of postoperative cerebrovascular complications. One potential reason for this could be a compensation through a concomitant increase in mean arterial pressure for any increase of intracranial pressure, thereby maintaining CPP and cerebral oxygen saturation [10, 75, 76].

Our meta-analysis has several limitations. First, this study includes considerable heterogeneity primarily due to the included different types of surgeries. We attempted to explain the clinically considerable heterogeneity in VTE risk by assessing the association between VTE risk and other risk factors. Although we performed meta-regression and subgroup analyses, we could not explore within-study heterogeneity, which is a limitation inherent to meta-regression analysis. The unaccounted variable use of VTE prophylaxis may affect the prevalence of thromboembolism. However, included studies made little mention of measures for VTE prevention, which could not be analyzed using meta-regression. Additionally, the duration, inclination angle and practical techniques of steep Trendelenburg varied across studies, centers, surgeons. Indeed, Souki et al. described that only 2.1% of assessed institutions had a policy on the safe limits of positioning during the steep Trendelenburg position [77]. In general, the Trendelenburg angle in laparoscopic pelvic surgery may not be steep, but the variable angles of this positioning are required depending on the type of surgery, which could affect the findings of our study. Furthermore, due to the lack of standardized follow-up management, the introduction of early ambulation as well as perioperative treatment strategies including radiotherapy and chemotherapy could not be accounted for.

We found no detrimental effects related to steep Trendelenburg on postoperative complications. In addition, RAPS was associated with a significantly lower risk of VTE and cardiac complications compared to open pelvic surgery. There are concerns regarding the generalizability of these data and a need for well-designed prospective studies with long follow-up. Hypotheses such as the one suggesting that prolonged Trendelenburg position may cause postoperative cognitive decline need to be adequately assessed [78]. The European Association of Urology Robotic Urology Section Scientific Working Group recommends, indeed, prolonged postoperative use (four weeks) of low molecular weight heparin with 100% of agreement for patients performing robot-assisted radical cystectomy [79]. Rigorous methodology, scientifical and critical verification of effectiveness of the robotic platform should be continued.

Conclusion

We found that the steep Trendelenburg position has negligible impacts on postoperative thromboembolic, cardiac, and cerebrovascular complications. However, appropriate preventive measures against these complications should be implemented. The individual risk for each patient according to his general health, tumor characteristics, and peri- and intraoperative history should guide preventative measures, especially when RAPS is performed.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

11701_2021_1361_MOESM1_ESM.docx (52.3KB, docx)

Supplementary file1 Supplementary Figs. 1. Flow diagram of the study selection for the systematic review and meta-analysis. Supplementary Fig. 2. Funnel plots and the results of Egger’s tests of included non-randomized controlled studies performing meta-analyses for venous thromboembolism (A), cardiac complications (B), and cerebrovascular complications (C). (DOCX 52 KB)

Supplementary file2 (DOC 66 KB) (65.5KB, doc)
Supplementary file3 (DOCX 54 KB) (54.1KB, docx)

Acknowledgements

Ekaterina Laukhtina is supported by the EUSP Scholarship of the European Association of Urology (EAU). Nico C. Grossmann is supported by the Zurich Cancer League.

Author contribution

Conceptualization: SK, KM; methodology: KM, BP; formal analysis and investigation: MA, TY, HM, FQ, RSM, EL, NCG, PR; data management: AA, FK; writing—original draft preparation: SK; writing—review and editing: YN, SFS; supervision: PIK, SFS.

Funding

Open access funding provided by Medical University of Vienna. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors state that they have no conflicts of interest that might bias this work.

Footnotes

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  • 1.Peters BS, Armijo PR, Krause C, Choudhury SA, Oleynikov D. Review of emerging surgical robotic technology. Surg Endosc. 2018;32(4):1636–1655. doi: 10.1007/s00464-018-6079-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Wright JD. Robotic-assisted surgery: balancing evidence and Implementation. JAMA. 2017;318(16):1545–1547. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.13696. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Sheetz KH, Claflin J, Dimick JB. Trends in the adoption of robotic surgery for common surgical procedures. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(1):e1918911. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.18911. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Jayne D, Pigazzi A, Marshall H, Croft J, Corrigan N, Copeland J, Quirke P, West N, Rautio T, Thomassen N, Tilney H, Gudgeon M, Bianchi PP, Edlin R, Hulme C, Brown J. Effect of robotic-assisted vs conventional laparoscopic surgery on risk of conversion to open laparotomy among patients undergoing resection for rectal cancer: the ROLARR randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2017;318(16):1569–1580. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.7219. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Wallerstedt A, Tyritzis SI, Thorsteinsdottir T, Carlsson S, Stranne J, Gustafsson O, Hugosson J, Bjartell A, Wilderäng U, Wiklund NP, Steineck G, Haglind E. Short-term results after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy compared to open radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2015;67(4):660–670. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.09.036. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Parekh DJ, Reis IM, Castle EP, Gonzalgo ML, Woods ME, Svatek RS, Weizer AZ, Konety BR, Tollefson M, Krupski TL, Smith ND, Shabsigh A, Barocas DA, Quek ML, Dash A, Kibel AS, Shemanski L, Pruthi RS, Montgomery JS, Weight CJ, Sharp DS, Chang SS, Cookson MS, Gupta GN, Gorbonos A, Uchio EM, Skinner E, Venkatramani V, Soodana-Prakash N, Kendrick K, Smith JA, Jr, Thompson IM. Robot-assisted radical cystectomy versus open radical cystectomy in patients with bladder cancer (RAZOR): an open-label, randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2018;391(10139):2525–2536. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(18)30996-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Yu J, Park JY, Lee Y, Hwang JH, Kim YK. Sugammadex versus neostigmine on postoperative pulmonary complications after robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis. J Anesth. 2021;35(2):262–269. doi: 10.1007/s00540-021-02910-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Kilic OF, Börgers A, Köhne W, Musch M, Kröpfl D, Groeben H. Effects of steep Trendelenburg position for robotic-assisted prostatectomies on intra- and extrathoracic airways in patients with or without chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Br J Anaesth. 2015;114(1):70–76. doi: 10.1093/bja/aeu322. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Pawlik MT, Prasser C, Zeman F, Harth M, Burger M, Denzinger S, Blecha S. Pronounced haemodynamic changes during and after robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: a prospective observational study. BMJ Open. 2020;10(10):e038045. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038045. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Whiteley JR, Taylor J, Henry M, Epperson TI, Hand WR. Detection of elevated intracranial pressure in robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy using ultrasonography of optic nerve sheath diameter. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol. 2015;27(2):155–159. doi: 10.1097/ana.0000000000000106. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, Chaimani A, Schmid CH, Cameron C, Ioannidis JP, Straus S, Thorlund K, Jansen JP, Mulrow C, Catalá-López F, Gøtzsche PC, Dickersin K, Boutron I, Altman DG, Moher D. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(11):777–784. doi: 10.7326/m14-2385. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Wan X, Wang W, Liu J, Tong T. Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:135. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-135. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Nix J, Smith A, Kurpad R, Nielsen ME, Wallen EM, Pruthi RS. Prospective randomized controlled trial of robotic versus open radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: perioperative and pathologic results. Eur Urol. 2010;57(2):196–201. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2009.10.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Asimakopoulos AD, Fraga CTP, Annino F, Pasqualetti P, Calado AA, Mugnier C. Randomized comparison between laparoscopic and robot-assisted nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. J Sex Med. 2011;8(5):1503–1512. doi: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2011.02215.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Bochner BH, Dalbagni G, Sjoberg DD, Silberstein J, Keren Paz GE, Donat SM, Coleman JA, Mathew S, Vickers A, Schnorr GC, Feuerstein MA, Rapkin B, Parra RO, Herr HW, Laudone VP. Comparing open radical cystectomy and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical cystectomy: a randomized clinical trial. Eur Urol. 2015;67(6):1042–1050. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.11.043. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Parekh DJ, Messer J, Fitzgerald J, Ercole B, Svatek R. Perioperative outcomes and oncologic efficacy from a pilot prospective randomized clinical trial of open versus robotic assisted radical cystectomy. J Urol. 2013;189(2):474–479. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.09.077. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Khan MS, Gan C, Ahmed K, Ismail AF, Watkins J, Summers JA, Peacock JL, Rimington P, Dasgupta P. A single-centre early phase randomised controlled three-arm trial of open, robotic, and laparoscopic radical cystectomy (CORAL) Eur Urol. 2016;69(4):613–621. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.038. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Debakey Y, Zaghloul A, Farag A, Mahmoud A, Elattar I. Robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic approach for rectal cancer surgery, first egyptian academic center experience. RCT Minim Invasive Surg. 2018 doi: 10.1155/2018/5836562. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Porpiglia F, Fiori C, Bertolo R, Manfredi M, Mele F, Checcucci E, De Luca S, Passera R, Scarpa RM. Five-year outcomes for a prospective randomised controlled trial comparing laparoscopic and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol Focus. 2018;4(1):80–86. doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2016.11.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Silva AE, de Carvalho JPM, Anton C, Fernandes RP, Baracat EC, Carvalho JP. Introduction of robotic surgery for endometrial cancer into a Brazilian cancer service: a randomized trial evaluating perioperative clinical outcomes and costs 6061/clinics/2017/e522s. Clinics. 2018 doi: 10.6061/clinics/2017/e522s. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Tewari A, Srivasatava A, Menon M. A prospective comparison of radical retropubic and robot-assisted prostatectomy: experience in one institution. BJU Int. 2003;92(3):205–210. doi: 10.1046/j.1464-410X.2003.04311.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Boggess JF, Gehrig PA, Cantrell L, Shafer A, Ridgway M, Skinner EN, Fowler WC. A comparative study of 3 surgical methods for hysterectomy with staging for endometrial cancer: robotic assistance, laparoscopy, laparotomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199(4):360.e361–369. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2008.08.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Krambeck AE, DiMarco DS, Rangel LJ, Bergstralh EJ, Myers RP, Blute ML, Gettman MT. Radical prostatectomy for prostatic adenocarcinoma: a matched comparison of open retropubic and robot-assisted techniques. BJU Int. 2009;103(4):448–453. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.08012.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Carlsson S, Nilsson AE, Schumacher MC, Jonsson MN, Volz DS, Steineck G, Wiklund PN. Surgery-related complications in 1253 robot-assisted and 485 open retropubic radical prostatectomies at the karolinska university hospital. Sweden Urology. 2010;75(5):1092–1097. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2009.09.075. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Doumerc N, Yuen C, Savdie R, Rahman MB, Rasiah KK, Pe Benito R, Delprado W, Matthews J, Haynes AM, Stricker PD. Should experienced open prostatic surgeons convert to robotic surgery? The real learning curve for one surgeon over 3 years. BJU Int. 2010;106(3):378–384. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.09158.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Lim PC, Kang E, Park DH. A comparative detail analysis of the learning curve and surgical outcome for robotic hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy versus laparoscopic hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy in treatment of endometrial cancer: a case-matched controlled study of the first one hundred twenty two patients. Gynecol Oncol. 2011;120(3):413–418. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2010.11.034. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Leitao MM, Briscoe G, Santos K, Winder A, Jewell EL, Hoskins WJ, Chi DS, Abu-Rustum NR, Sonoda Y, Brown CL, Levine DA, Barakat RR, Gardner GJ. Introduction of a computer-based surgical platform in the surgical care of patients with newly diagnosed uterine cancer: outcomes and impact on approach. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;125(2):394–399. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.01.046. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Tang KY, Gardiner SK, Gould C, Osmundsen B, Collins M, Winter WE. Robotic surgical staging for obese patients with endometrial cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012 doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2012.01.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Yu HY, Hevelone ND, Lipsitz SR, Kowalczyk KJ, Nguyen PL, Choueiri TK, Kibel AS, Hu JC. Comparative analysis of outcomes and costs following open radical cystectomy versus robot-assisted laparoscopic radical cystectomy: results from the us nationwide inpatient sample. Eur Urol. 2012;61(6):1239–1244. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.03.032. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Froehner M, Novotny V, Koch R, Leike S, Twelker L, Wirth MP. Perioperative complications after radical prostatectomy: open versus robot-assisted laparoscopic approach. Urol Int. 2013;90(3):312–315. doi: 10.1159/000345323. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Cardenas-Goicoechea J, Soto E, Chuang L, Gretz H, Randall TC. Integration of robotics into two established programs of minimally invasive surgery for endometrial cancer appears to decrease surgical complications. J Gynecol Oncol. 2013;24(1):21–28. doi: 10.3802/jgo.2013.24.1.21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Helvind NM, Eriksen JR, Mogensen A, Tas B, Olsen J, Bundgaard M, Jakobsen HL, Gogenur I. No differences in short-term morbidity and mortality after robot-assisted laparoscopic versus laparoscopic resection for colonic cancer: a case-control study of 263 patients. Surg Endosc Other Interv Tech. 2013;27(7):2575–2580. doi: 10.1007/s00464-013-2792-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Pilecki MA, McGuire BB, Jain U, Kim JY, Nadler RB. National multi-institutional comparison of 30-day postoperative complication and readmission rates between open retropubic radical prostatectomy and robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy using NSQIP. J Endourol. 2014;28(4):430–436. doi: 10.1089/end.2013.0656. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Ploussard G, de la Taille A, Moulin M, Vordos D, Hoznek A, Abbou CC, Salomon L. Comparisons of the perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes after robot-assisted versus pure extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2014;65(3):610–619. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.11.049. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Sugihara T, Yasunaga H, Horiguchi H, Matsui H, Fujimura T, Nishimatsu H, Fukuhara H, Kume H, Yu CH, Kattan MW, Fushimi K, Homma Y. Robot-assisted versus other types of radical prostatectomy: population-based safety and cost comparison in Japan, 2012–2013. Cancer Sci. 2014;105(11):1421–1426. doi: 10.1111/cas.12523. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Gandaglia G, Sammon JD, Chang SL, Choueiri TK, Hu JC, Karakiewicz PI, Kibel AS, Kim SP, Konijeti R, Montorsi F, Nguyen PL, Sukumar S, Menon M, Sun M, Trinh QD. Comparative effectiveness of robot-assisted and open radical prostatectomy in the postdissemination era. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(14):1419. doi: 10.1200/jco.2013.53.5096. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Moghadamyeghaneh Z, Phelan M, Smith BR, Stamos MJ. Outcomes of open, laparoscopic, and robotic abdominoperineal resections in patients with rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2015;58(12):1123–1129. doi: 10.1097/dcr.0000000000000475. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Papachristos A, Basto M, Te Marvelde L, Moon D. Laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: an Australian single-surgeon series. ANZ J Surg. 2015;85(3):154–158. doi: 10.1111/ans.12602. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Park HK, Helenowski IB, Berry E, Lurain JR, Neubauer NL. A Comparison of survival and recurrence outcomes in patients with endometrial cancer undergoing robotic versus open surgery. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015;22(6):961–967. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2015.04.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Zakhari A, Czuzoj-Shulman N, Spence AR, Gotlieb WH, Abenhaim HA. Laparoscopic and robot-assisted hysterectomy for uterine cancer: a comparison of costs and complications. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2015.07.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Guy MS, Sheeder J, Behbakht K, Wright JD, Guntupalli SR. Comparative outcomes in older and younger women undergoing laparotomy or robotic surgical staging for endometrial cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;214(3):350.e351–350.e310. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2015.09.085. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Ulm MA, Ginn DN, ElNaggar AC, Tillmanns TD, Reed KM, Wan JY, Watson CH, Dedania SJ, Reed ME. A comparison of outcomes following robotic-assisted staging and laparotomy in patients with early stage endometrioid adenocarcinoma of the uterus with uterine weight under 480 g. Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther-Gmit. 2016;5(1):25–29. doi: 10.1016/j.gmit.2015.09.002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Borgfeldt C, Kalapotharakos G, Asciutto KC, Lofgren M, Hogberg T. A population-based registry study evaluating surgery in newly diagnosed uterine cancer. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2016;95(8):901–911. doi: 10.1111/aogs.12918. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Law WL, Foo DCC. Comparison of short-term and oncologic outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic resection for mid- and distal rectal cancer. Surg Endosc. 2017;31(7):2798–2807. doi: 10.1007/s00464-016-5289-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Horovitz D, Feng CY, Messing EM, Joseph JV. Extraperitoneal vs transperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in the setting of prior abdominal or pelvic surgery. J Endourol. 2017;31(4):366–373. doi: 10.1089/end.2016.0706. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Shah CA, Beck T, Liao JB, Giannakopoulos NV, Veljovich D, Paley P. Surgical and oncologic outcomes after robotic radical hysterectomy as compared to open radical hysterectomy in the treatment of early cervical cancer. J Gynecol Oncol. 2017;28(6):e82. doi: 10.3802/jgo.2017.28.e82. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Chen ST, Wu MC, Hsu TC, Yen DW, Chang CN, Hsu WT, Wang CC, Lee M, Liu SH, Lee CC. Comparison of outcome and cost among open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgical treatments for rectal cancer: a propensity score matched analysis of nationwide inpatient sample data. J Surg Oncol. 2018;117(3):497–505. doi: 10.1002/jso.24867. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Garfinkle R, Abou-Khalil M, Bhatnagar S, Wong-Chong N, Azoulay L, Morin N, Vasilevsky CA, Boutros M. A comparison of pathologic outcomes of open, laparoscopic, and robotic resections for rectal cancer using the ACS-NSQIP proctectomy-targeted database: a propensity score analysis. J Gastrointest Surg. 2019;23(2):348–356. doi: 10.1007/s11605-018-3974-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Nazzani S, Mazzone E, Preisser F, Bandini M, Tian Z, Marchioni M, Ratti D, Motta G, Zorn KC, Briganti A, Shariat SF, Montanari E, Carmignani L, Karakiewicz PI. Comparison of perioperative outcomes between open and robotic radical cystectomy: a population-based analysis. J Endourol. 2018;32(8):701–709. doi: 10.1089/end.2018.0313. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Chen L, Liu LP, Wen N, Qiao X, Meng YG. Comparative analysis of robotic vs laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. World J Clin Cases. 2019;7(20):3185–3193. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v7.i20.3185. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Faraj K, Chang YHH, Neville MR, Blodgett G, Etzioni DA, Habermann EB, Andrews PE, Castle EP, Humphreys MR, Tyson MD. Robotic vs. open cystectomy: how length-of-stay differences relate conditionally to age. Urol Oncol-Semin Orig Investig. 2019 doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2019.01.028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Piedimonte S, Czuzoj-Shulman N, Gotlieb W, Abenhaim HA. Robotic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: a population-based study of adoption and immediate postoperative outcomes in the United States. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2019;26(3):551–557. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2018.08.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Flamiatos JF, Chen YY, Lambert WE, Acevedo AM, Becker TM, Bash JC, Amling CL. Open versus robot-assisted radical cystectomy: 30-day perioperative comparison and predictors for cost-to-patient, complication, and readmission. J Robot Surg. 2019;13(1):129–140. doi: 10.1007/s11701-018-0832-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Mukherjee K, Kamal KM. Variation in prostate surgery costs and outcomes in the USA: robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy. J Comp Eff Res. 2019;8(3):143–155. doi: 10.2217/cer-2018-0109. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Tang B, Li C, Liu HC, Zhang C, Luo HX, Yu PW. Robotic versus laparoscopic rectal resection surgery: Short-term outcomes and complications: a retrospective comparative study. Surg Oncol-Oxford. 2019;29:71–77. doi: 10.1016/j.suronc.2019.02.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Chen J, Djaladat H, Schuckman AK, Aron M, Desai M, Gill IS, Clifford TG, Ghodoussipour S, Miranda G, Cai J, Daneshmand S. Surgical approach as a determinant factor of clinical outcome following radical cystectomy: Does Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) level the playing field? Urol Oncol-Semin Orig Investig. 2019;37(10):765–773. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2019.06.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Aiko K, Kanno K, Yanai S, Masuda S, Yasui M, Ichikawa F, Teishikata Y, Shirane T, Yoshino Y, Sakate S, Sawada M, Shirane A, Ota Y, Andou M. Short-term outcomes of robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for early-stage endometrial cancer: a retrospective, single-center study. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2020;46(7):1157–1164. doi: 10.1111/jog.14293. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Arora A, Pugliesi F, Zugail AS, Moschini M, Pazeto C, Macek P, Stabile A, Lanz C, Mombet A, Bennamoun M, Sanchez-Salas R, Cathelineau X. Comparing perioperative complications between laparoscopic and robotic radical cystectomy for bladder cancer. J Endourol. 2020;34(10):1033–1040. doi: 10.1089/end.2020.0112. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Casarin J, Song C, Multinu F, Cappuccio S, Liu E, Butler KA, Glaser GE, Cliby WA, Langstraat CL, Ghezzi F, Fu AZ, Mariani A. Implementing robotic surgery for uterine cancer in the United States: Better outcomes without increased costs. Gynecol Oncol. 2020;156(2):451–458. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.11.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Lo BD, Leeds IL, Sundel MH, Gearhart S, Nisly GRC, Safar B, Atallah C, Fang SH. Frailer patients undergoing robotic colectomies for colon cancer experience increased complication rates compared with open or laparoscopic approaches. Dis Colon Rectum. 2020;63(5):588–597. doi: 10.1097/dcr.0000000000001598. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Ye SP, Zhu WQ, Liu DN, Lei X, Jiang QG, Hu HM, Tang B, He PH, Gao GM, Tang HC, Shi J, Li TY. Robotic- vs laparoscopic-assisted proctectomy for locally advanced rectal cancer based on propensity score matching: short-term outcomes at a colorectal center in China. World J Gastrointest Oncol. 2020 doi: 10.4251/wjgo.v12.i4.424. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Bedrikovetski S, Dudi-Venkata NN, Kroon HM, Moore JW, Hunter RA, Sammour T. Outcomes of minimally invasive versus open proctectomy for rectal cancer: a propensity-matched analysis of bi-national colorectal cancer audit data. Dis Colon Rectum. 2020;63(6):778–787. doi: 10.1097/dcr.0000000000001654. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Gracia M, Garcia-Santos J, Ramirez M, Bellon M, Herraiz MA, Coronado PJ. Value of robotic surgery in endometrial cancer by body mass index. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2020;150(3):398–405. doi: 10.1002/ijgo.13258. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Netter A, Jauffret C, Brun C, Sabiani L, Blache G, Houvenaeghel G, Lambaudie E. Choosing the most appropriate minimally invasive approach to treat gynecologic cancers in the context of an enhanced recovery program: insights from a comprehensive cancer center. Plos One. 2020 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0231793. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] [Retracted]
  • 65.Wang LL, Yan PJ, Yao L, Liu R, Hou F, Chen XH, Han LL, Xu LY, Xu H, Li J, Guo TK, Yang KH, Wang HL. Evaluation of intra- and post-operative outcomes to compare robot-assisted surgery and conventional laparoscopy for gynecologic oncology. Asian J Surg. 2020;43(1):347–353. doi: 10.1016/j.asjsur.2019.05.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Huang MTM, Su ZT, Becker REN, Pavlovich CP, Partin AW, Allaf ME, Patel HD. Complications after open and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and association with postoperative opioid use: an analysis of data from the PREVENTER trial. BJU Int. 2021 doi: 10.1111/bju.15172. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Trinh VQ, Karakiewicz PI, Sammon J, Sun M, Sukumar S, Gervais MK, Shariat SF, Tian Z, Kim SP, Kowalczyk KJ, Hu JC, Menon M, Trinh QD. Venous thromboembolism after major cancer surgery: temporal trends and patterns of care. JAMA Surg. 2014;149(1):43–49. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2013.3172. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.SooHoo GW. Overview and assessment of risk factors for pulmonary embolism. Expert Rev Respir Med. 2013;7(2):171–191. doi: 10.1586/ers.13.7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Abel EJ, Wong K, Sado M, Leverson GE, Patel SR, Downs TM, Jarrard DF. Surgical operative time increases the risk of deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism in robotic prostatectomy. Jsls. 2014;18(2):282–287. doi: 10.4293/108680813x13693422518551. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Van Hemelrijck M, Garmo H, Holmberg L, Bill-Axelson A, Carlsson S, Akre O, Stattin P, Adolfsson J. Thromboembolic events following surgery for prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2013;63(2):354–363. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.09.041. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Rosendal C, Markin S, Hien MD, Motsch J, Roggenbach J. Cardiac and hemodynamic consequences during capnoperitoneum and steep Trendelenburg positioning: lessons learned from robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. J Clin Anesth. 2014;26(5):383–389. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2014.01.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Haas S, Haese A, Goetz AE, Kubitz JC. Haemodynamics and cardiac function during robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy in steep Trendelenburg position. Int J Med Robot. 2011;7(4):408–413. doi: 10.1002/rcs.410. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Ono N, Nakahira J, Nakano S, Sawai T, Minami T. Changes in cardiac function and hemodynamics during robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy with steep head-down tilt: a prospective observational study. BMC Res Notes. 2017;10(1):341. doi: 10.1186/s13104-017-2672-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Sujata N, Tobin R, Tamhankar A, Gautam G, Yatoo AH. A randomised trial to compare the increase in intracranial pressure as correlated with the optic nerve sheath diameter during propofol versus sevoflurane-maintained anesthesia in robot-assisted laparoscopic pelvic surgery. J Robot Surg. 2019;13(2):267–273. doi: 10.1007/s11701-018-0849-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Wiesinger C, Schoeb DS, Stockhammer M, Mirtezani E, Mitterschiffthaler L, Wagner H, Knotzer J, Pauer W. Cerebral oxygenation in 45-degree trendelenburg position for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a single-center, open, controlled pilot study. BMC Urol. 2020;20(1):198. doi: 10.1186/s12894-020-00774-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Tanaka N, Yamamoto M, Abe T, Osawa T, Matsumoto R, Shinohara N, Saito H, Uchida Y, Morimoto Y. Changes of cerebral blood volume during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: observational prospective study using near-infrared time-resolved spectroscopy. J Endourol. 2019;33(12):995–1001. doi: 10.1089/end.2019.0217. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Souki FG, Rodriguez-Blanco YF, Polu SR, Eber S, Candiotti KA. Survey of anesthesiologists’ practices related to steep Trendelenburg positioning in the USA. BMC Anesthesiol. 2018;18(1):117. doi: 10.1186/s12871-018-0578-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Vitish-Sharma P, Maxwell-Armstrong C, Guo B, Yick C, Acheson AG. The trendelenburg position and cognitive decline: a case-control interventional study involving healthy volunteers. JMIR Perioper Med. 2019;2(1):e11219. doi: 10.2196/11219. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Collins JW, Patel H, Adding C, Annerstedt M, Dasgupta P, Khan SM, Artibani W, Gaston R, Piechaud T, Catto JW, Koupparis A, Rowe E, Perry M, Issa R, McGrath J, Kelly J, Schumacher M, Wijburg C, Canda AE, Balbay MD, Decaestecker K, Schwentner C, Stenzl A, Edeling S, Pokupić S, Stockle M, Siemer S, Sanchez-Salas R, Cathelineau X, Weston R, Johnson M, D’Hondt F, Mottrie A, Hosseini A, Wiklund PN. Enhanced recovery after robot-assisted radical cystectomy: EAU robotic urology section scientific working group consensus view. Eur Urol. 2016;70(4):649–660. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.05.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

11701_2021_1361_MOESM1_ESM.docx (52.3KB, docx)

Supplementary file1 Supplementary Figs. 1. Flow diagram of the study selection for the systematic review and meta-analysis. Supplementary Fig. 2. Funnel plots and the results of Egger’s tests of included non-randomized controlled studies performing meta-analyses for venous thromboembolism (A), cardiac complications (B), and cerebrovascular complications (C). (DOCX 52 KB)

Supplementary file2 (DOC 66 KB) (65.5KB, doc)
Supplementary file3 (DOCX 54 KB) (54.1KB, docx)

Articles from Journal of Robotic Surgery are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES