Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11434/1984
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorFlynn, Julie-
dc.contributor.authorLarach, Jose-
dc.contributor.otherKong, Joseph-
dc.contributor.otherWarrier, Satish-
dc.contributor.otherHeriot, Alexander-
dc.date2021-02-20-
dc.date.accessioned2021-06-10T04:17:32Z-
dc.date.available2021-06-10T04:17:32Z-
dc.date.issued2021-
dc.identifier.issn1432-1262en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11434/1984-
dc.description.abstractBackground: Restorative proctocolectomy with ileal-pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA) is a curative and cancer preventative procedure in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) and familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). It can be technically difficult laparoscopically, and hence the robotic platform has been suggested as a way to enable minimally invasive surgery in more patients. This systematic review examines robotic proctectomy or proctocolectomy with IPAA. A limited meta-analysis was performed on data comparing the robotic approach to laparoscopy. <br/>Method(s): We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane database for case series of robotic IPAA procedures and studies comparing the robotic to laparoscopic or open procedures. Data examined includes operating time, conversion to open, length of stay, complications, blood loss, return of bowel function, reoperation rate and functional outcomes. <br/>Result(s): Five non-randomised studies compared robotic to laparoscopic techniques; one compared robotic to open surgery and three case series are included. Operating time was significantly longer in robotic cases. Estimated blood loss was significantly less in three of four studies which reported this; hospital stay was significantly less in two. There were nonsignificant reductions in complications and readmission rates. Pooled analysis of four papers with adequate data showed a nonstatistically significant trend to less complications in robotic procedures. Three studies assessed functional and quality of life outcomes, with little difference between the platforms. <br/>Conclusion(s): Available data suggests that the robotic platform is safe to use for IPAA procedures. There is minimal evidence for clinical advantages, but with little data to base decisions and significant potential for improvements in technique and cost-effectiveness, further use of the platform for this operation is warranted. It is vital that this occurs within an evaluation framework.en_US
dc.publisherSpringeren_US
dc.subjectColorectal Surgeryen_US
dc.subjectIleal pouch-anal anastomosisen_US
dc.subjectIPAAen_US
dc.subjectUlcerative Colitisen_US
dc.subjectFamilial Adenomatous Polyposisen_US
dc.subjectFAPen_US
dc.subjectRestorative proctocolectomyen_US
dc.subjectRobotic surgeryen_US
dc.subjectDepartment of Surgery, Epworth Healthcare, Bridge Rd, Richmond, Australiaen_US
dc.subjectEpworth General Surgery & Gastroenterology Clinical Instituteen_US
dc.titleRobotic versus laparoscopic ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA): a systematic review and meta-analysis.en_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s00384-021-03868-zen_US
dc.identifier.journaltitleInternational Journal of Colorectal Diseaseen_US
dc.description.pubmedurihttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33611619/en_US
dc.description.affiliatesDivision of Cancer Surgery, University of Melbourne, Sir Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australiaen_US
dc.description.affiliatesUniversity of Melbourne, Sir Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australiaen_US
dc.description.affiliatesDepartamento de Cirugía Digestiva, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chileen_US
dc.type.studyortrialSystematic Reviewsen_US
dc.type.contenttypeTexten_US
Appears in Collections:General Surgery and Gastroenterology

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


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