Incidence of colonic fistulas in patients with colon cancer submitted to robotic surgery versus laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

Abstract

Introduction Up to the present time, the laparoscopic approach for colon cancer is considered the gold standard. However, robotic surgery has been appraised in modern medicine. It is essential to evaluate the differences between laparoscopic and robotic surgery, owing to the significant impact they cause in postoperative morbidity and mortality. This article aims to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature to compare robotic versus laparoscopic colectomies in patients with colon cancer in terms of the incidence of colonic fistulas. Methods and analysis PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Science Direct, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, LILACS and Clinical trials databases will be searched for randomised clinical trials investigating the incidence of colonic fistulas in patients with colonic cancer, submitted to robotic surgery compared with a laparoscopic approach. No language or publication period restrictions will be imposed. The primary outcome will be the incidence of colonic fistulas in patients with colon cancer in different surgical approaches. The secondary outcomes will be the incidence of infection, sepsis, mortality, length of hospitalisation and malnutrition. Three independent reviewers will select the studies and extract data from the original publications. The risk of bias will be assessed using The Risk of Bias 2 tool, and the evidence’s certainty will be made using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Data synthesis will be performed using the Review Manager software (RevMan V.5.2.3). To assess heterogeneity. We will compute the I 2 statistics. In addition, a quantitative synthesis will be performed if the included studies are sufficiently homogeneous. Ethics and dissemination This study will review the published data; thus, it is not necessary to obtain ethical approval. The findings of this systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO registration number CRD42021295313.