Robotic-assisted radical resection versus open surgery for cholangiocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of robot-assisted resection and open surgery for cholangiocarcinoma (CCA). We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase databases for studies comparing treatment for CCA, covering the period from database inception to January 30, 2024. Two researchers will independently screen literature and extract data, followed by meta-analysis using Review Manager 5.3 software. A total of 5 articles with 513 patients were finally included. Among them, 231 in the robotic group, and 282 in the open group. The Meta-analysis revealed that the robotic group had a significant advantage in terms of intraoperative blood loss (MD =  − 101.44, 95% CI − 135.73 to − 67.15, P < 0.05), lymph node harvest(MD = 1.03, 95% CI 0.30− 1.76, P < 0.05) and length of hospital stay(MD =  − 1.92, 95% CI − 2.87 to− 0.97, P < 0.05). However, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of transfusion rate (OR = 0.62, 95% CI 0.31–1.23, P > 0.05), R0 resection (OR = 1.49, 95% CI 0.89– 2.50, P > 0.05), 30-day mortality (OR = 1.68, 95% CI 0.43–6.65, P > 0.05) and complications (OR = 0.76, 95% CI 0.30– 1.95, P > 0.05). Robotic-assisted radical resection for CCA is feasible and safe, and its long-term efficacy and oncological outcomes need to be confirmed by further studies.