Review Article

Robotic Colorectal Surgery: A Systematic Review

Table 3


ReferenceOperative timeLength of stayBlood lossConversion rateC/to openC/to lapC/to lap assisted

Weber 2 8 4 ± 7 9 . 2 0
Hashizume 2 6 0 ± 7 7 . 6 1 7 . 2 ± 1 0 . 2
Talamini18211%
Vibert 3 8 0 ± 6 2 . 4 8 . 3 ± 5 . 0 4 0 0 ± 1 0 0
Delaney216.5 (170–274)3 (2–5)100 (50–350)1 (16%)1
Giulianotti202.40
Hubens124 (87–144)0
Anvari 1 5 5 . 3 ± 1 3 . 6 2 5 . 3 ± 0 . 9 5 0
D’Annibale [17] 2 4 0 ± 6 1 1 0 ± 4 2 1 ± 8 0 6 (11.3%)23
Brauman 2 0 1 ± 8 0 . 5 1 3 . 6 ± 4 . 7 1 2 0 ± 7 7 . 1 2 (40%)2
Woeste 2 6 0 . 9 ± 3 4 . 6 6 0 ± 1 7 . 3 1 (25%)1
Bonder310500
Ruurda60–1756 (3–9)75 (5–200)0
Pigazzi264 (192–318)4.5 (3–11)104 (50–200)
sebajang4(3–11)1 (14.2%)1
De noto 1 9 6 . 7 ± 5 7 . 1 3 . 3 6 ± 0 . 5 9.1
Heemskerk1523.55%
Hellan285 (180–540)4 (2–22)200 (25–6000)1 (2.7%)1
Rawlings 2 2 2 . 1 ± 4 . 4 5 5 . 6 ± 0 . 5 7 6 5 . 2 ± 3 5 . 6 2 (6.6%)2
Baik 2 1 7 . 1 ± 5 1 . 6 1 7 . 2 ± 1 0 . 2 0
Spinoglio383.87.744%11
Huettner224.93.553.9 (15–500)8 (11.4%)53
Soravia1629 (3–24)12.50%23
Baik190.15.70
Choi304.89.20
DeHoog1542.6
Luca290 7 . 5 ± 2 . 8 6 8 ± 1 3 8 0
Park 2 9 3 . 8 ± 7 9 . 7 9 . 8 ± 5 . 2 2.20%1
Ng192.550
Tsoraides 2 1 9 . 6 ± 4 5 . 1 3 (2–27)66.68.8%54
Baek27052009.40%
Kim 3 8 5 . 3 ± 1 0 2 . 6 1 1 . 7 ± 6 . 7 2%2
Bianchi2406.50
Bokhari 2 4 6 . 1 ± 8 0 . 7 3 . 5 ± 2 . 3 1 0 6 . 9 ± 5 8
D’Annibale [41]223.57±1.2200
Desouza158.9550 (10–240)2.50%1
Zimmern(158.9–324.3)5.4–6.473.2–252.32.4–3.4%4
Popescu 2 1 2 ± 4 7 . 2 3 8 . 1 4 ± 4 . 5 1 0 0 ± 5 0 2 (5.2%)
Park231.9 (61.4)9.9 (4.2)0
Haas 2 3 0 . 9 ± 5 1 . 4 3 . 9 ± 2 . 9 9 6 . 9 ± 4 6 . 6 5%2
KIM27010.550

Total30143