通过系统综述和荟萃分析,比较机器人辅助结直肠癌切除术中自然孔道标本提取与传统经腹标本提取的安全性和有效性。

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Li Huang, Jian-Qin Wang
{"title":"通过系统综述和荟萃分析,比较机器人辅助结直肠癌切除术中自然孔道标本提取与传统经腹标本提取的安全性和有效性。","authors":"Li Huang, Jian-Qin Wang","doi":"10.1007/s11701-024-02106-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The goal of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the perioperative and oncologic results of natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) compared to conventional transabdominal specimen extraction (TASE) in robotic-assisted surgery for colorectal cancer. A comprehensive electronic search will be performed on PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to find research articles published from the beginning of the databases to July 2024 that focus on patients who have undergone robotic-assisted surgery for colorectal cancer. Specifically, this review will compare NOSE with conventional TASE. Only studies published in English will be considered. Literature screening will adhere closely to predetermined criteria for inclusion and exclusion, specifically targeting randomized controlled trials and cohort studies. The evaluation of quality will involve the use of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Meta-analysis of the included studies' data will be performed using Review Manager 5.4.1. In the final analysis, 9 retrospective cohort studies comprising 1571 patients were included. Out of these, 732 patients opted for NOSE, while 839 patients chose conventional TASE in robotic colorectal surgery. Patients who received TASE experienced enhancements in hospital stay duration, time until first gas passage, wound infection rates, and time until the first intake of a liquid diet. Nevertheless, there were no notable distinctions noted between the two methods regarding surgery duration, projected blood loss, intestinal blockage, or frequency of anastomotic leakage. In patients undergoing robotic-assisted colorectal surgery, the safety and feasibility of NOSE are demonstrated. Compared to traditional TASE, it provides clear benefits including shorter hospital stays, earlier first flatus, quicker initiation of a liquid diet, and lower risk of wound infection.</p>","PeriodicalId":47616,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Robotic Surgery","volume":"18 1","pages":"360"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative analysis of safety and effectiveness between natural orifice specimen extraction and conventional transabdominal specimen extraction in robot-assisted colorectal cancer resection through systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Li Huang, Jian-Qin Wang\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11701-024-02106-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The goal of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the perioperative and oncologic results of natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) compared to conventional transabdominal specimen extraction (TASE) in robotic-assisted surgery for colorectal cancer. A comprehensive electronic search will be performed on PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to find research articles published from the beginning of the databases to July 2024 that focus on patients who have undergone robotic-assisted surgery for colorectal cancer. Specifically, this review will compare NOSE with conventional TASE. Only studies published in English will be considered. Literature screening will adhere closely to predetermined criteria for inclusion and exclusion, specifically targeting randomized controlled trials and cohort studies. The evaluation of quality will involve the use of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Meta-analysis of the included studies' data will be performed using Review Manager 5.4.1. In the final analysis, 9 retrospective cohort studies comprising 1571 patients were included. Out of these, 732 patients opted for NOSE, while 839 patients chose conventional TASE in robotic colorectal surgery. Patients who received TASE experienced enhancements in hospital stay duration, time until first gas passage, wound infection rates, and time until the first intake of a liquid diet. Nevertheless, there were no notable distinctions noted between the two methods regarding surgery duration, projected blood loss, intestinal blockage, or frequency of anastomotic leakage. In patients undergoing robotic-assisted colorectal surgery, the safety and feasibility of NOSE are demonstrated. Compared to traditional TASE, it provides clear benefits including shorter hospital stays, earlier first flatus, quicker initiation of a liquid diet, and lower risk of wound infection.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47616,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Robotic Surgery\",\"volume\":\"18 1\",\"pages\":\"360\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Robotic Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-024-02106-2\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Robotic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-024-02106-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在评估在机器人辅助结直肠癌手术中,自然孔道标本提取术(NOSE)与传统经腹标本提取术(TASE)相比的围手术期和肿瘤学结果。我们将在 PubMed、Embase 和 Cochrane 图书馆上进行全面的电子检索,查找从数据库建立之初到 2024 年 7 月期间发表的、以接受机器人辅助结直肠癌手术的患者为研究对象的研究文章。具体而言,本综述将对 NOSE 与传统 TASE 进行比较。只考虑以英文发表的研究。文献筛选将严格遵守预先确定的纳入和排除标准,特别是针对随机对照试验和队列研究。质量评估将使用纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表(NOS)。将使用 Review Manager 5.4.1 对纳入研究的数据进行元分析。在最终分析中,共纳入了 9 项回顾性队列研究,包括 1571 名患者。其中,732 名患者选择了 NOSE,839 名患者选择了机器人结直肠手术中的传统 TASE。接受 TASE 的患者在住院时间、首次排气时间、伤口感染率和首次进食流质食物时间方面均有改善。不过,两种方法在手术时间、预计失血量、肠梗阻或吻合口渗漏频率方面没有明显区别。在接受机器人辅助结直肠手术的患者中,NOSE 的安全性和可行性得到了证实。与传统的 TASE 相比,它具有明显的优势,包括住院时间更短、首次排气时间更早、更快开始流质饮食以及伤口感染风险更低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative analysis of safety and effectiveness between natural orifice specimen extraction and conventional transabdominal specimen extraction in robot-assisted colorectal cancer resection through systematic review and meta-analysis.

The goal of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the perioperative and oncologic results of natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) compared to conventional transabdominal specimen extraction (TASE) in robotic-assisted surgery for colorectal cancer. A comprehensive electronic search will be performed on PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to find research articles published from the beginning of the databases to July 2024 that focus on patients who have undergone robotic-assisted surgery for colorectal cancer. Specifically, this review will compare NOSE with conventional TASE. Only studies published in English will be considered. Literature screening will adhere closely to predetermined criteria for inclusion and exclusion, specifically targeting randomized controlled trials and cohort studies. The evaluation of quality will involve the use of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Meta-analysis of the included studies' data will be performed using Review Manager 5.4.1. In the final analysis, 9 retrospective cohort studies comprising 1571 patients were included. Out of these, 732 patients opted for NOSE, while 839 patients chose conventional TASE in robotic colorectal surgery. Patients who received TASE experienced enhancements in hospital stay duration, time until first gas passage, wound infection rates, and time until the first intake of a liquid diet. Nevertheless, there were no notable distinctions noted between the two methods regarding surgery duration, projected blood loss, intestinal blockage, or frequency of anastomotic leakage. In patients undergoing robotic-assisted colorectal surgery, the safety and feasibility of NOSE are demonstrated. Compared to traditional TASE, it provides clear benefits including shorter hospital stays, earlier first flatus, quicker initiation of a liquid diet, and lower risk of wound infection.

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
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
8.70%
发文量
145
期刊介绍: The aim of the Journal of Robotic Surgery is to become the leading worldwide journal for publication of articles related to robotic surgery, encompassing surgical simulation and integrated imaging techniques. The journal provides a centralized, focused resource for physicians wishing to publish their experience or those wishing to avail themselves of the most up-to-date findings.The journal reports on advance in a wide range of surgical specialties including adult and pediatric urology, general surgery, cardiac surgery, gynecology, ENT, orthopedics and neurosurgery.The use of robotics in surgery is broad-based and will undoubtedly expand over the next decade as new technical innovations and techniques increase the applicability of its use. The journal intends to capture this trend as it develops.
×
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