Minireviews
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2023.
World J Gastrointest Surg. Jun 27, 2023; 15(6): 1040-1047
Published online Jun 27, 2023. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v15.i6.1040
Table 1 Robotic versus laparoscopic colorectal surgery in elderly studies
Ref.
Study type
Age cut-off
Number patients
Complication (%)
Conversion (%)
Operative time (min)
LOS (d)
Adequacy of resection and oncological outcomes
RACS
LACS
RACS
LACS
P value
RACS
LACS
P value
RACS
LACS
P value
RACS
LACS
P value
Palomba et al[37], 2022Retrospective, comparative6532512529.40.663.113.70.35RC = 238.5RC = 183.50.004aRC = 6.6RC = 6.30.26No difference in LN yield and length of specimen
LC = 249.6LC = 211.70.003aLC = 4.2LC = 5.80.004a
RS = 276RS = 2700.87RS = 3.7RS = 6.20.003a
RR = 302.8RR = 291.70.12RR = 5RR = 7.10.003a
de’Angelis et al[38], 2018Retrospective, PSM comparative65434337.244.20.6600NA300.6214.50.03411.714.80.079No difference in LN yield. No difference in R0 resection. No difference in OS, DFS at 1,2 and 3 yr
Table 2 Robotic colorectal surgery in elderly versus non-elderly
Ref.
Study type
Age cut-off
Number patients
Operative time (min)
Complication (%)
LOS (d)
Oncological outcomes
ELD
NELD
ELD
NELD
P value
ELD
NELD
P value
ELD
NELD
P value
Hannan et al[39], 2022Retrospective, comparative6589732282540.0930.3260.2760.007aNo difference in LN yield. No difference in R0 resection
Su et al[40], 2021Retrospective, comparative70301263202800.18716.720.60.002a760.084No difference in LN yield. No difference in R0 resection. No difference in OS and DFS
Oldani et al[41], 2017Retrospective, comparative70RC = 9RC = 6NININI00NI5.225.66NINo difference in LN yield
LC = 5LC = 1506.76.756.4
RR = 8RR = 7014.35.759.0
Cuellar-Gomez et al[42], 2022Retrospective, comparativeYO: 75-80; MO: 81-85; OO: ≥ 86YO: 48; MO: 19; OO: 9YO: 280; MO: 290; OO: 2530.538YO: 27.2; MO: 52.6; OO: 44.40.144YO: 13.77; MO: 13.58; OO: 18.220.579No difference in LN yield