Abstract Introduction Robot-assisted general surgery, a cutting-edge technology in minimally-invasive procedures, is increasingly utilised in elective general surgery, demonstrating advantages over laparoscopy in select cases. While laparoscopy remains a standard approach for common acute abdominal conditions, the role of robotic surgery in emergency general surgery is unclear. This systematic review aims to compare outcomes in acute general surgery settings for robotic versus laparoscopic surgeries. Method A PRISMA compliant systematic search across MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Cochrane library was performed. The literature review focused on articles comparing perioperative outcomes of emergency general surgery managed laparoscopically versus robot-assisted. A descriptive analysis was performed and outcome measures recorded. Results Six articles, reporting on 1063 patients, compared outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic procedures. Two covered cholecystectomies, while the others addressed ileocaecal resection, subtotal colectomy, hiatal hernia and perforated gastrojejunal ulcer repair. The level of evidence was low. Laparoscopic bowel resection in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients had higher complications; no significant differences were found in complications for other operations. Operative time showed no differences for cholecystectomies, but robotic approaches were longer for other procedures. Robotic cases had shorter hospital length of stay, though the associated costs were significantly higher. Conclusion Perioperative outcomes for emergency robotic surgery in selected general surgery conditions are comparable to laparoscopic surgery. However, recommending robotic surgery in the acute setting requires a well-powered large population study for stronger evidence.
Read full abstract