机器人辅助直肠手术（RARS）和腹腔镜辅助直肠手术是越来越多地用于直肠癌的两种技术，两者都有其优点和缺点。这项荟萃分析将分析两种技术的结果，以确定它们的相对性能和适用性。在 PubMed、Cochrane、Scopus、Embase 和 Google Scholar 上进行了广泛的搜索，然后对所有随机对照试验进行了荟萃分析（随机对照试验 (RCT) 来评估直肠癌的两种治疗方法。该荟萃分析由 15 项随机对照试验 (RCT) 组成。 RARS 组中转开腹手术的情况（RR = 0.53，95% CI：0.38-0.74，P = 0.0002）显着较低。吻合口瘘、术后肠梗阻、术后尿潴留（POUR）、手术部位感染（SSI）和腹内脓肿等结果在两组之间没有显着差异。机器人组的再手术率（RR = 0.56，95% CI：0.34-0.95，P = 0.03）较低。当汇集手术时间、住院时间和失血量的数据时，获得了高度异质性。肿瘤学结果，包括局部复发、获取的淋巴结（LN）数量和远端切除边缘在两组之间没有显着差异，而环周切除边缘（CRM）阳性（RR = 0.67，95％CI：0.49-0.91， P = 0.01）在RARS组中较低。 RARS 的全直肠系膜切除率 (TME) 显着较高（RR = 1.07，95% CI：1.01-1.14，P = 0.03）。RARS 对于直肠癌患者是安全可行的，可能优于或等同于腹腔镜辅助直肠手术，但需要高标准、大规模试验来确定最佳方法。© 2024。作者获得 Springer-Verlag GmbH 德国（Springer Nature 旗下公司）的独家许可。

Robotic-assisted rectal surgery (RARS) and Laparoscopic-assisted rectal surgery are the two techniques that are increasingly used for rectal cancer, and both have their advantages and disadvantages. This meta-analysis will analyze the outcomes of both techniques to determine their relative performance and suitability.An extensive search was carried out on PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, Embase, and Google Scholar, followed by a meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess both approaches for rectal cancer.This meta-analysis is comprised of fifteen RCTs. The conversion to open surgery (RR = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.38-0.74, P = 0.0002) was significantly lower in the RARS group. The outcomes like anastomotic leak, postoperative ileus, postoperative urinary retention (POUR), surgical site infection (SSI), and intra-abdominal abscess showed no significant difference between the two groups. The reoperation rate (RR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.34-0.95, P = 0.03) was lower in the robotic group. High heterogeneity was obtained when pooling data on operative time, length of hospital stay, and blood loss. Oncological outcomes, including local recurrence, the number of harvested lymph nodes (LN) and distal resection margin showed no significant distinction among both groups, while the positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) (RR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.49-0.91, P = 0.01) was lower in the RARS group. RARS demonstrated a significantly higher rate of total mesorectal excision (TME) (RR = 1.07, 95% CI: 1.01-1.14, P = 0.03).RARS is safe and feasible for rectal cancer patients and may be superior or equivalent to Laparoscopic-assisted rectal surgery, but high-standard, large-scale trials are required to determine the best approach.© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.