Breno C Porto, Mikhael Belkovsky, Giulia V Zogaib, Carlo C Passerotti, Everson L A Artifon, Jose P Otoch, Jose A S Da Cruz
{"title":"机器人辅助与腹腔镜回肠输尿管置换术：系统回顾与荟萃分析。","authors":"Breno C Porto, Mikhael Belkovsky, Giulia V Zogaib, Carlo C Passerotti, Everson L A Artifon, Jose P Otoch, Jose A S Da Cruz","doi":"10.5173/ceju.2023.145","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) and conventional laparoscopic surgery (LS) are the main options for ileal ureteral replacement (IUR). It is not clear which option is superior. The purpose of this study is to compare RALS and LS for IUR.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Central, and Google Scholar for studies comparing RALS and LS for IUR. The outcomes of interest are operative time, blood loss, postoperative stay, and Clavien-Dindo complications. Meta-analysis was performed with Rev Man version 5.4.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 36 patients from 3 studies. The mean age was 44 years, with 53% male patients. Blood loss (MD -89.13 cc, CI -129.03 to -49.22, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%) was significantly lower in patients undergoing RALS when comparing with LS. No differences were observed when comparing operative time (MD -10.99 minutes, CI -85.66 to 63.59, p = 0.77, I<sup>2</sup> = 64%), postoperative stay (MD -2.56 days, CI -8.24 to 3.13, p = 0.38, I<sup>2</sup> = 30%), and postoperative complications (OR 1.63, CI 0.27 to 10.02, p = 0.60, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Overall, we conclude that the robot-assisted technique showed less bleeding compared to the laparoscopic technique.</p>","PeriodicalId":9744,"journal":{"name":"Central European Journal of Urology","volume":"77 2","pages":"304-309"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11428349/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic ileal ureteral replacement: systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Breno C Porto, Mikhael Belkovsky, Giulia V Zogaib, Carlo C Passerotti, Everson L A Artifon, Jose P Otoch, Jose A S Da Cruz\",\"doi\":\"10.5173/ceju.2023.145\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) and conventional laparoscopic surgery (LS) are the main options for ileal ureteral replacement (IUR). It is not clear which option is superior. The purpose of this study is to compare RALS and LS for IUR.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Central, and Google Scholar for studies comparing RALS and LS for IUR. The outcomes of interest are operative time, blood loss, postoperative stay, and Clavien-Dindo complications. Meta-analysis was performed with Rev Man version 5.4.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 36 patients from 3 studies. The mean age was 44 years, with 53% male patients. Blood loss (MD -89.13 cc, CI -129.03 to -49.22, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%) was significantly lower in patients undergoing RALS when comparing with LS. No differences were observed when comparing operative time (MD -10.99 minutes, CI -85.66 to 63.59, p = 0.77, I<sup>2</sup> = 64%), postoperative stay (MD -2.56 days, CI -8.24 to 3.13, p = 0.38, I<sup>2</sup> = 30%), and postoperative complications (OR 1.63, CI 0.27 to 10.02, p = 0.60, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Overall, we conclude that the robot-assisted technique showed less bleeding compared to the laparoscopic technique.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9744,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Central European Journal of Urology\",\"volume\":\"77 2\",\"pages\":\"304-309\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11428349/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Central European Journal of Urology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2023.145\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/2/11 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Central European Journal of Urology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2023.145","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic ileal ureteral replacement: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Introduction: Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) and conventional laparoscopic surgery (LS) are the main options for ileal ureteral replacement (IUR). It is not clear which option is superior. The purpose of this study is to compare RALS and LS for IUR.
Material and methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Central, and Google Scholar for studies comparing RALS and LS for IUR. The outcomes of interest are operative time, blood loss, postoperative stay, and Clavien-Dindo complications. Meta-analysis was performed with Rev Man version 5.4.
Results: We included 36 patients from 3 studies. The mean age was 44 years, with 53% male patients. Blood loss (MD -89.13 cc, CI -129.03 to -49.22, I2 = 0%) was significantly lower in patients undergoing RALS when comparing with LS. No differences were observed when comparing operative time (MD -10.99 minutes, CI -85.66 to 63.59, p = 0.77, I2 = 64%), postoperative stay (MD -2.56 days, CI -8.24 to 3.13, p = 0.38, I2 = 30%), and postoperative complications (OR 1.63, CI 0.27 to 10.02, p = 0.60, I2 = 0%).
Conclusions: Overall, we conclude that the robot-assisted technique showed less bleeding compared to the laparoscopic technique.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
