Laparoscopic Versus Open Nephroureterectomy for Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Propensity-Score Matched Studies.

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY
Surgical Innovation Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-05 DOI:10.1177/15533506241273378
Shidong Deng, Lingzhi Liu, Yurou Wang, Chuan Zhou, Huihui Zhang
{"title":"Laparoscopic Versus Open Nephroureterectomy for Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Propensity-Score Matched Studies.","authors":"Shidong Deng, Lingzhi Liu, Yurou Wang, Chuan Zhou, Huihui Zhang","doi":"10.1177/15533506241273378","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The effectiveness of laparoscopic nephroureterectomy (LNU) vs open nephroureterectomy (ONU) for upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) is unclear.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a meta-analysis of studies based on propensity score-matched cohorts to compare the surgical and oncological outcomes of LNU and ONU in UTUC patients. A literature search was conducted on PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library until July 12, 2023. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was utilized to assess the quality of eligible studies. Measurements of surgical and oncological outcomes were extracted and pooled including mean difference (MD), risk ratio (RR), hazard ratios (HR), and 95% confidence intervals (CI).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five high-quality retrospective studies were included, totaling 6422 patients; 2080 (32.4%) underwent LNU, and 4342 (67.6%) underwent ONU. With respect to surgical outcomes, patients in the LNU group experienced less estimated blood loss and had shorter hospital stay than those in the ONU group, but there was no significant difference in complication rates and operation time. In regard to oncological outcomes, there were no significant differences between the LNU and ONU groups in 3-year overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS). However, 3-year intravesical recurrence free survival (IVRFS) was worse in the LNU group compared to the ONU group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>LNU was associated with less estimated blood loss and shorter hospital stays than ONU, but there were no differences in OS and CSS between the surgical modalities. Nonetheless, LNU might result in poorer IVRFS than ONU.</p>","PeriodicalId":22095,"journal":{"name":"Surgical Innovation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgical Innovation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15533506241273378","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The effectiveness of laparoscopic nephroureterectomy (LNU) vs open nephroureterectomy (ONU) for upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) is unclear.

Methods: We conducted a meta-analysis of studies based on propensity score-matched cohorts to compare the surgical and oncological outcomes of LNU and ONU in UTUC patients. A literature search was conducted on PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library until July 12, 2023. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was utilized to assess the quality of eligible studies. Measurements of surgical and oncological outcomes were extracted and pooled including mean difference (MD), risk ratio (RR), hazard ratios (HR), and 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Results: Five high-quality retrospective studies were included, totaling 6422 patients; 2080 (32.4%) underwent LNU, and 4342 (67.6%) underwent ONU. With respect to surgical outcomes, patients in the LNU group experienced less estimated blood loss and had shorter hospital stay than those in the ONU group, but there was no significant difference in complication rates and operation time. In regard to oncological outcomes, there were no significant differences between the LNU and ONU groups in 3-year overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS). However, 3-year intravesical recurrence free survival (IVRFS) was worse in the LNU group compared to the ONU group.

Conclusion: LNU was associated with less estimated blood loss and shorter hospital stays than ONU, but there were no differences in OS and CSS between the surgical modalities. Nonetheless, LNU might result in poorer IVRFS than ONU.

腹腔镜与开腹肾切除术治疗上尿路上皮癌:倾向分数匹配研究的系统回顾与 Meta 分析。
背景:腹腔镜肾切除术(LNU)与开腹肾切除术(ONU)治疗上尿路上皮癌(UTUC)的有效性尚不明确:我们对基于倾向评分匹配队列的研究进行了荟萃分析,以比较 LNU 和 ONU 对 UTUC 患者的手术和肿瘤治疗效果。在PubMed、Embase和Cochrane图书馆进行了文献检索,直至2023年7月12日。采用纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表评估符合条件的研究质量。提取并汇总了手术和肿瘤结果的测量值,包括平均差(MD)、风险比(RR)、危险比(HR)和 95% 置信区间(CI):共纳入了五项高质量的回顾性研究,共计6422名患者;其中2080人(32.4%)接受了LNU治疗,4342人(67.6%)接受了ONU治疗。在手术结果方面,LNU组患者的估计失血量比ONU组少,住院时间短,但并发症发生率和手术时间没有显著差异。在肿瘤结果方面,LNU 组和 ONU 组的 3 年总生存率(OS)和癌症特异性生存率(CSS)没有明显差异。然而,与ONU组相比,LNU组的3年无膀胱内复发生存率(IVRFS)更低:结论:与ONU相比,LNU的估计失血量更少,住院时间更短,但两种手术方式的OS和CSS没有差异。尽管如此,LNU可能比ONU导致更差的IVRFS。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Surgical Innovation
Surgical Innovation 医学-外科
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
72
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Surgical Innovation (SRI) is a peer-reviewed bi-monthly journal focusing on minimally invasive surgical techniques, new instruments such as laparoscopes and endoscopes, and new technologies. SRI prepares surgeons to think and work in "the operating room of the future" through learning new techniques, understanding and adapting to new technologies, maintaining surgical competencies, and applying surgical outcomes data to their practices. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信