[评估机器人辅助肺癌手术的观察性研究？］

IF 0.5 4区医学 Q4 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM

Revue des maladies respiratoires Pub Date : 2024-08-28 DOI:10.1016/j.rmr.2024.08.003

A Bernard

{"title":"[评估机器人辅助肺癌手术的观察性研究？］","authors":"A Bernard","doi":"10.1016/j.rmr.2024.08.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The aim of this work is to assess the quality of observational studies and to make direct and indirect comparisons of robotic surgery with other approaches.Method: We searched various databases between 2014 and 2024 for observational studies comparing robotic-assisted surgery to thoracoscopy or thoracotomy.Results: Eighteen studies were included in the meta-analysis. Risk of confounding bias was present in 90% of studies, while risk of classification bias appeared in 80%. Robotic-assisted surgery reduced the risk of conversion to thoracotomy compared with thoracoscopy with an odds ratio of 0.21 (95% confidence interval: 0.06-0.65), with high heterogeneity between studies (I2=80%). Robotic-assisted surgery did not significantly reduce postoperative complications or 30-day mortality compared with thoracotomy or thoracoscopy. For 5-year overall survival, comparisons of robotic-assisted surgery to thoracoscopy or thoracotomy were non-significant with I2 of 55%.Conclusion: This work demonstrates the need for a randomized controlled trial to validate robotic surgery for the treatment of bronchial cancer.","PeriodicalId":21548,"journal":{"name":"Revue des maladies respiratoires","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"[Observational studies to evaluate robotic-assisted lung cancer surgery?]\",\"authors\":\"A Bernard\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.rmr.2024.08.003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: The aim of this work is to assess the quality of observational studies and to make direct and indirect comparisons of robotic surgery with other approaches.Method: We searched various databases between 2014 and 2024 for observational studies comparing robotic-assisted surgery to thoracoscopy or thoracotomy.Results: Eighteen studies were included in the meta-analysis. Risk of confounding bias was present in 90% of studies, while risk of classification bias appeared in 80%. Robotic-assisted surgery reduced the risk of conversion to thoracotomy compared with thoracoscopy with an odds ratio of 0.21 (95% confidence interval: 0.06-0.65), with high heterogeneity between studies (I2=80%). Robotic-assisted surgery did not significantly reduce postoperative complications or 30-day mortality compared with thoracotomy or thoracoscopy. For 5-year overall survival, comparisons of robotic-assisted surgery to thoracoscopy or thoracotomy were non-significant with I2 of 55%.Conclusion: This work demonstrates the need for a randomized controlled trial to validate robotic surgery for the treatment of bronchial cancer.\",\"PeriodicalId\":21548,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Revue des maladies respiratoires\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Revue des maladies respiratoires\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmr.2024.08.003\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revue des maladies respiratoires","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmr.2024.08.003","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

背景：这项工作旨在评估观察性研究的质量，并对机器人手术与其他方法进行直接和间接比较：方法：我们检索了2014年至2024年期间的各种数据库，以寻找将机器人辅助手术与胸腔镜或开胸手术进行比较的观察性研究：结果：18 项研究被纳入荟萃分析。90%的研究存在混杂偏倚风险，80%的研究存在分类偏倚风险。与胸腔镜手术相比，机器人辅助手术降低了转为开胸手术的风险，几率比为0.21（95% 置信区间：0.06-0.65），但研究之间存在高度异质性（I2=80%）。与开胸手术或胸腔镜手术相比，机器人辅助手术并未显著降低术后并发症或30天死亡率。在5年总生存率方面，机器人辅助手术与胸腔镜手术或开胸手术的比较不显著，I2为55%：这项研究表明，有必要进行随机对照试验，以验证机器人手术治疗支气管癌的有效性。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

[Observational studies to evaluate robotic-assisted lung cancer surgery?]

Background: The aim of this work is to assess the quality of observational studies and to make direct and indirect comparisons of robotic surgery with other approaches.

Method: We searched various databases between 2014 and 2024 for observational studies comparing robotic-assisted surgery to thoracoscopy or thoracotomy.

Results: Eighteen studies were included in the meta-analysis. Risk of confounding bias was present in 90% of studies, while risk of classification bias appeared in 80%. Robotic-assisted surgery reduced the risk of conversion to thoracotomy compared with thoracoscopy with an odds ratio of 0.21 (95% confidence interval: 0.06-0.65), with high heterogeneity between studies (I²=80%). Robotic-assisted surgery did not significantly reduce postoperative complications or 30-day mortality compared with thoracotomy or thoracoscopy. For 5-year overall survival, comparisons of robotic-assisted surgery to thoracoscopy or thoracotomy were non-significant with I² of 55%.

Conclusion: This work demonstrates the need for a randomized controlled trial to validate robotic surgery for the treatment of bronchial cancer.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Revue des maladies respiratoires 医学-呼吸系统

CiteScore

1.10

自引率

16.70%

发文量

168

审稿时长

4-8 weeks

期刊介绍： La Revue des Maladies Respiratoires est l''organe officiel d''expression scientifique de la Société de Pneumologie de Langue Française (SPLF). Il s''agit d''un média professionnel francophone, à vocation internationale et accessible ici. La Revue des Maladies Respiratoires est un outil de formation professionnelle post-universitaire pour l''ensemble de la communauté pneumologique francophone. Elle publie sur son site différentes variétés d''articles scientifiques concernant la Pneumologie : - Editoriaux, - Articles originaux, - Revues générales, - Articles de synthèses, - Recommandations d''experts et textes de consensus, - Séries thématiques, - Cas cliniques, - Articles « images et diagnostics », - Fiches techniques, - Lettres à la rédaction.