Panteleimonitis S, Ahmed J, Harper M, Parvaiz A. Critical analysis of the literature investigating urogenital function preservation following robotic rectal cancer surgery. World J Gastrointest Surg 2016; 8(11): 744-754
Corresponding Author of This Article
Sofoklis Panteleimonitis, MBChB, BSc, MRCS, Research Fellow in Colorectal Surgery, School of Health Sciences and Social Work, University of Portsmouth, University House, Winston Churchill Avenue, Portsmouth PO1 2UP, United Kingdom. firstname.lastname@example.org
Checklist of Responsibilities for the Scientific Editor of This Article
This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
These include: (1) the studies country of origin; (2) the study design (prospective, retrospective or randomised control trial); (3) the control group (if present) used to compare with the robotic rectal surgery, this was either laparoscopic or open rectal surgery cases; (4) the number of cases included in each study whose urogenital outcomes were evaluated; and (5) whether the study was specifically designed to investigate the urogenital outcomes of robotic surgery or not. RCT: Randomised control trial; Robot: Robotic; lap: Laparoscopic.
Table 2 Further characteristics of original studies
These include: (1) whether the surgeons used the hybrid or robotic approach for their study; (2) whether urogenital function was assessed by means of functional scores or not; (3) the follow up period during which data for urogenital outcomes was collected; (4) the number of surgeons performing the cases in each study; and (5) the studies SIGN score. f/u: Follow up; SIGN: Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network.
Table 3 Original studies reporting male urological function
Urological function recovered faster in robotic group (3 mo vs 6 mo) IPSS change from baseline lower in robotic group at 3 mo (P = 0.036) Mean voiding volume deterioration lower in 3 and 6 mo in robotic group (P = 0.007, P = 0.049) Similar outcomes at 12 mo in both groups
Voiding dysfunction rate higher in the laparoscopic group (4.3% lap vs 0.7% rob; P = 0.012)
The following study characteristics are described: (1) whether male patients were assessed independently of female patients or not, in studies that this was not the case data from male and female patients was combined; (2) whether functional scores were used to assess urogenital outcomes or not; (3) the control group used in the study if applicable; (4) the number of cases examining male urological function; (4) the follow up periods in months; and (5) a brief summary of the study’s findings regarding male urological function. Robot: Robotic; lap: Laparoscopic; f/u: Follow up; IPSS: International Prostatic Symptoms Score.
Table 4 Original studies reporting female urological function
Quicker recovery of male sexual function in robotic group (6 mo vs 12 mo) No difference in IIEF change from baseline between two groups at any stage Erectile function and libido deteriorated significantly more in lap group at 3 mo
1 patient (6.25%) developed ejaculatory dysfunction, no patients developed erectile dysfunction
This table describes the same study characteristics included in Tables 3 and 4 but for studies assessing male sexual function. Robot: Robotic; lap: Laparoscopic; f/u: Follow up; IIEF: International Index of Erectile Function score.
Table 6 Original studies reporting female sexual function
This table describes the same study characteristics included in Tables 3-5 but for studies assessing female sexual function. Robot: Robotic; lap: Laparoscopic; FSFI: Female Sexual Function Index.
Citation: Panteleimonitis S, Ahmed J, Harper M, Parvaiz A. Critical analysis of the literature investigating urogenital function preservation following robotic rectal cancer surgery. World J Gastrointest Surg 2016; 8(11): 744-754