Comparison of robotic and laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Table 1 Characteristics of the included studies

Study	Country	Study design	Group	Patients	Mean age	Sex (M/F)	Mean BMI	ASA (I/II/III/IV)	Tumor location from anal verge (< 5/> 5)	Neoadjuvant therapies	Robotic surgical technique	Sphincter-saving procedures	Diverting ileostomy	Follow-up duration (months)
Bailk et al. [21]	Korea	RCT	Rob	18	57.3 ± 6.3	14/4	22.8 ± 1.8	12/6/0/0	11.3 ± 2.5	-	Hybrid	18	0	-
Bailk et al. [21]	Korea	RCT	Lap	18	62.0 ± 9.0	14/4	24.0 ± 2.5	10/6/1/1	11.0 ± 2.5	-	-	18	0	-
Debakey et al. [17]	Egypt	RCT	Rob	21	53.4 (32–67)	11/10	-	18/3/0/0	2/19	12	Full-robotic	20	-	-
Debakey et al. [17]	Egypt	RCT	Lap	24	50.3 (36–64)	13/11	-	18/6/0/0	3/21	11	-	21	-	-
Jayne et al. [19]	UK	RCT	Rob	237	64.4 ± 10.98	161/76	-	39/150/46/0	57/178	111	Hybrid+full-robotic	184	142	0–6
Jayne et al. [19]	UK	RCT	Lap	234	65.5 ± 11.93	159/75	-	52/124/52/1	61/168	108	-	185	157	0–6
Kim et al. [16]	Korea	RCT	Rob	66	60.4 ± 9.7	51/15	24.1 ± 3.3	20/46/0/0	44/22	51	Hybrid	65	65	0–12
Kim et al. [16]	Korea		Lap	73	59.7 ± 11.7	52/21	23.6 ± 3.0	30/43/0/0	55/18	58	-	71	70	0–12
Patriti et al. [20]	Italy	RCT	Rob	29	68 ± 10	11/18	24 ± 6.2	2/13/14/0	5.9 ± 4.2	7	Hybrid	24	-	29.2
Patriti et al. [20]	Italy		Lap	37	69 ± 10	12/25	25.4 ± 6.44	2/14/21/0	11 ± 4.5	2	-	34	-	18.7
Tang et al. [22]	China	RCT	Rob	65	55.1 ± 12.1	36/29	22 ± 2.5	35/30/0/0	6 ± 2.4	1	Full-robotic	52	15	9–31
Tang et al. [22]	China		Lap	64	58.0 ± 9.7	36/28	22.1 ± 2.3	27/37/0/0	5.8 ± 2.6	0	-	44	13	9–31
Wang et al. [18]	China	RCT	Rob	71	60.3 (36–68)	71/0	22.9 (19–30)	-	46/25	13	Unknown	69	31	0–12
Wang et al. [18]	China		Lap	66	58.7 (36–71)	66/0	22.4 (18–30)	-	40/26	11	-	63	32	0–12

ISSN: 1477-7819