Robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy: meta-analysis of propensity-score matched studies.

IF 3.5 3区 医学 Q1 SURGERY
BJS Open Pub Date : 2025-03-04 DOI:10.1093/bjsopen/zrae141
Piao Wang, Dan Zhang, Bin Huang, Wen-Hao Zhou, Chang-Song Wang, Shao-Yong Zhao, Song Su, Xiao-Zhong Jiang
{"title":"Robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy: meta-analysis of propensity-score matched studies.","authors":"Piao Wang, Dan Zhang, Bin Huang, Wen-Hao Zhou, Chang-Song Wang, Shao-Yong Zhao, Song Su, Xiao-Zhong Jiang","doi":"10.1093/bjsopen/zrae141","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Robotic techniques can theoretically overcome the limitations of laparoscopic liver resection and are currently recognized as safe options; however, it is not known which approach is better. The purpose of this study was to compare the advantages of robotic hepatectomy and laparoscopic hepatectomy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Electronic databases (the Cochrane Library, PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase and Web of Science) were systematically searched from January 2000 to August 2023 for eligible studies that compared robotic hepatectomy and laparoscopic hepatectomy. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were then reviewed systematically. The reported data were aggregated statistically using RevMan 5.4 software. The parameters of interest included intraoperative, postoperative, survival and financial outcomes. Subgroup analysis was performed according to the type and difficulty level of hepatectomy and the study setting.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 26 propensity-score matching comparative trials met the inclusion criteria, which comprised 9355 participants (robotic hepatectomy versus laparoscopic hepatectomy: 3938 versus 5417) in the meta-analysis. For surgical outcomes, lower blood loss, lower open conversion rate and higher R0 resection rate were observed in the robotic hepatectomy group compared with the laparoscopic hepatectomy group (mean difference (MD) -86.22, 95% c.i. -116.49 to -55.95, I² = 87%, P < 0.001; OR 0.51, 95% c.i. 0.38 to 0.69, I² = 40%, P < 0.001; OR 1.31, 95% c.i. 1.03 to 1.67, I² = 0%, P = 0.030 respectively). The lower blood loss (major hepatectomy group: MD -56.88, 95% c.i. -109.09 to -4.28, I² = 76%, P = 0.030; IWATE score (advanced/expert more than 80%) group: MD -0.61, 95% c.i. -1.14 to -0.08, I² = 95%, P < 0.001) and lower open conversion rate (major hepatectomy group: OR 0.41, 95% c.i. 0.30 to 0.56, I² = 0%, P < 0.001; IWATE score (advanced/expert less than 80%) group: OR 0.52, 95% c.i. 0.36 to 0.75, I² = 0%, P = 0.659) advantage persisted across subgroup analyses.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The robotic approach had advantages to laparoscopic in terms of lower blood loss and reduced rates of open conversion, especially in difficult hepatectomies.</p>","PeriodicalId":9028,"journal":{"name":"BJS Open","volume":"9 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11957917/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BJS Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsopen/zrae141","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Robotic techniques can theoretically overcome the limitations of laparoscopic liver resection and are currently recognized as safe options; however, it is not known which approach is better. The purpose of this study was to compare the advantages of robotic hepatectomy and laparoscopic hepatectomy.

Methods: Electronic databases (the Cochrane Library, PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase and Web of Science) were systematically searched from January 2000 to August 2023 for eligible studies that compared robotic hepatectomy and laparoscopic hepatectomy. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were then reviewed systematically. The reported data were aggregated statistically using RevMan 5.4 software. The parameters of interest included intraoperative, postoperative, survival and financial outcomes. Subgroup analysis was performed according to the type and difficulty level of hepatectomy and the study setting.

Results: A total of 26 propensity-score matching comparative trials met the inclusion criteria, which comprised 9355 participants (robotic hepatectomy versus laparoscopic hepatectomy: 3938 versus 5417) in the meta-analysis. For surgical outcomes, lower blood loss, lower open conversion rate and higher R0 resection rate were observed in the robotic hepatectomy group compared with the laparoscopic hepatectomy group (mean difference (MD) -86.22, 95% c.i. -116.49 to -55.95, I² = 87%, P < 0.001; OR 0.51, 95% c.i. 0.38 to 0.69, I² = 40%, P < 0.001; OR 1.31, 95% c.i. 1.03 to 1.67, I² = 0%, P = 0.030 respectively). The lower blood loss (major hepatectomy group: MD -56.88, 95% c.i. -109.09 to -4.28, I² = 76%, P = 0.030; IWATE score (advanced/expert more than 80%) group: MD -0.61, 95% c.i. -1.14 to -0.08, I² = 95%, P < 0.001) and lower open conversion rate (major hepatectomy group: OR 0.41, 95% c.i. 0.30 to 0.56, I² = 0%, P < 0.001; IWATE score (advanced/expert less than 80%) group: OR 0.52, 95% c.i. 0.36 to 0.75, I² = 0%, P = 0.659) advantage persisted across subgroup analyses.

Conclusion: The robotic approach had advantages to laparoscopic in terms of lower blood loss and reduced rates of open conversion, especially in difficult hepatectomies.

机器人与腹腔镜肝切除术:倾向评分匹配研究的荟萃分析。
背景:机器人技术理论上可以克服腹腔镜肝切除术的局限性,目前被公认为是安全的选择;然而,哪种方法更好尚不清楚。本研究旨在比较机器人肝切除术和腹腔镜肝切除术的优势:方法:系统检索了 2000 年 1 月至 2023 年 8 月期间的电子数据库(Cochrane 图书馆、PubMed (MEDLINE)、Embase 和 Web of Science)中符合条件的机器人肝切除术和腹腔镜肝切除术比较研究。然后系统地审查了符合纳入标准的研究。使用 RevMan 5.4 软件对报告数据进行统计汇总。关注的参数包括术中、术后、生存和财务结果。根据肝切除术的类型和难度以及研究环境进行了分组分析:共有26项倾向分数匹配比较试验符合纳入标准,其中9355人参加了荟萃分析(机器人肝切除术与腹腔镜肝切除术:3938人对5417人)。在手术结果方面,与腹腔镜肝切除术组相比,机器人肝切除术组的失血量更少、开腹转换率更低,R0切除率更高(平均差(MD)-86.22, 95% c.i. -116.49 to -55.95, I² = 87%, P < 0.001; OR 0.51, 95% c.i. 0.38 to 0.69, I² = 40%, P < 0.001; OR 1.31, 95% c.i. 1.03 to 1.67, I² = 0%, P = 0.030)。失血量较少(大肝切除术组:MD -56.88,95% c.i.-109.09至-4.28,I² = 76%,P = 0.030;IWATE评分(高级/专家80%以上)组:MD-0.61,95% c.i.-1.14至-0.08,I² = 95%,P <0.001)和较低的开腹转换率(主要肝切除术组:OR为0.41,95% c.i.为0.30至0.56,I² = 0%,P < 0.001;IWATE评分(高级/专家低于80%)组:OR为0.52,95% c.i.为0.36至0.75,I² = 0%,P = 0.659)的优势在亚组分析中持续存在:机器人方法在降低失血量和减少开腹手术转换率方面优于腹腔镜方法,尤其是在困难的肝切除术中。
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
BJS Open
BJS Open SURGERY-
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
3.20%
发文量
144
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信