A study published by JAMA compare certain outcomes of robotic-assisted vs laparoscopic surgery for kidney removal or rectal cancer.

David Jayne, M.D., of the University of Leeds, United Kingdom, and colleagues compared robotic-assisted vs conventional laparoscopic surgery for risk of conversion (change due to unforeseen complications that arise during surgery) to open laparotomy (surgical incision through the abdominal wall) among patients undergoing resection (surgical removal) for rectal cancer.

Robotic rectal cancer surgery is gaining popularity, but limited data are available regarding safety and efficacy.

The history and suitability of robotic surgery was reviewed in a recent ecancer article.

A concern about robotic surgery is the cost, including the capital and ongoing maintenance charges.

The study, conducted at 29 sites in 10 countries, included patients with rectal cancer who were randomized to robotic-assisted (n = 237) or conventional (n = 234) laparoscopic rectal cancer resection.

The overall rate of conversion to open laparotomy was 10.1 percent.

The researchers found that there were no statistically significant differences in the rates of conversion to open laparotomy for robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (8.1 percent vs 12.2 percent, respectively), and there were no statistically significant differences in complication rates or quality of life at six months.

"These findings suggest that robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery, when performed by surgeons with varying experience with robotic surgery, does not confer an advantage in rectal cancer resection," the authors write.

Source: JAMA