{"title":"癌症患者机器人辅助手术的有效性和安全性:随机对照试验的系统回顾。","authors":"Kai Yu, Baoqi Zeng, Qingxin Zhou, Feng Sun","doi":"10.1097/JS9.0000000000002205","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The utilization of robot-assisted surgery (RAS) has been increasing among cancer patients. However, evidence supporting the use of RAS remains uncertain. The availability of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for each surgical procedure is limited. This study aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of RAS in cancer patients.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A comprehensive search was performed in Embase, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov from the inception of the databases until 1 April 2023. We included RCTs of RAS in cancer patients compared with laparoscopic, thoracoscopic, or open surgery, and random-effects meta-analyses were performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 32 trials (6092 patients) met the eligibility criteria. Among these, 22 trials had a low risk of bias, seven trials had some concerns, and three trials were at high risk. Most trials were conducted for bladder cancer ( n = 8), rectal cancer ( n = 5), prostate cancer ( n = 4), and endometrial cancer (n = 4). In all cancers, RAS likely resulted in a slight reduction in the length of hospital stay (31 comparisons; mean difference [MD], - 0.91 days; 95% CI, - 1.33 to - 0.49), but resulted in little to no difference in overall survival (11 comparisons; hazard ratio [HR], 0.96; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.17). Compared with open surgery, RAS was found to reduce estimated blood loss (MD, - 239.1 mL; 95% CI, - 172.0 to - 306.2) and overall complication (relative risk [RR] 0.88; 95% CI, 0.81 to 0.96), but increase total operative time (MD, 55.4 minutes; 95% CI, 30.9 to 80.0). Additionally, RAS seemed to be not associated with positive surgical margin, any recurrence, disease-free survival, and quality of life.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>RAS has demonstrated small favorable effects on short-term outcomes, particularly when compared to open surgery. However, these effects may vary across different cancers. Additionally, RAS may not impact long-term survival, oncological outcomes, or quality of life in cancer patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":14401,"journal":{"name":"International journal of surgery","volume":" ","pages":"2227-2239"},"PeriodicalIF":12.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The efficacy and safety of robot-assisted surgery in cancer patients: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.\",\"authors\":\"Kai Yu, Baoqi Zeng, Qingxin Zhou, Feng Sun\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/JS9.0000000000002205\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The utilization of robot-assisted surgery (RAS) has been increasing among cancer patients. However, evidence supporting the use of RAS remains uncertain. The availability of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for each surgical procedure is limited. This study aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of RAS in cancer patients.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A comprehensive search was performed in Embase, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov from the inception of the databases until 1 April 2023. We included RCTs of RAS in cancer patients compared with laparoscopic, thoracoscopic, or open surgery, and random-effects meta-analyses were performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 32 trials (6092 patients) met the eligibility criteria. Among these, 22 trials had a low risk of bias, seven trials had some concerns, and three trials were at high risk. Most trials were conducted for bladder cancer ( n = 8), rectal cancer ( n = 5), prostate cancer ( n = 4), and endometrial cancer (n = 4). In all cancers, RAS likely resulted in a slight reduction in the length of hospital stay (31 comparisons; mean difference [MD], - 0.91 days; 95% CI, - 1.33 to - 0.49), but resulted in little to no difference in overall survival (11 comparisons; hazard ratio [HR], 0.96; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.17). Compared with open surgery, RAS was found to reduce estimated blood loss (MD, - 239.1 mL; 95% CI, - 172.0 to - 306.2) and overall complication (relative risk [RR] 0.88; 95% CI, 0.81 to 0.96), but increase total operative time (MD, 55.4 minutes; 95% CI, 30.9 to 80.0). Additionally, RAS seemed to be not associated with positive surgical margin, any recurrence, disease-free survival, and quality of life.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>RAS has demonstrated small favorable effects on short-term outcomes, particularly when compared to open surgery. However, these effects may vary across different cancers. Additionally, RAS may not impact long-term survival, oncological outcomes, or quality of life in cancer patients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14401,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International journal of surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"2227-2239\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":12.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International journal of surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/JS9.0000000000002205\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/JS9.0000000000002205","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
The efficacy and safety of robot-assisted surgery in cancer patients: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.
Background: The utilization of robot-assisted surgery (RAS) has been increasing among cancer patients. However, evidence supporting the use of RAS remains uncertain. The availability of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for each surgical procedure is limited. This study aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of RAS in cancer patients.
Materials and methods: A comprehensive search was performed in Embase, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov from the inception of the databases until 1 April 2023. We included RCTs of RAS in cancer patients compared with laparoscopic, thoracoscopic, or open surgery, and random-effects meta-analyses were performed.
Results: A total of 32 trials (6092 patients) met the eligibility criteria. Among these, 22 trials had a low risk of bias, seven trials had some concerns, and three trials were at high risk. Most trials were conducted for bladder cancer ( n = 8), rectal cancer ( n = 5), prostate cancer ( n = 4), and endometrial cancer (n = 4). In all cancers, RAS likely resulted in a slight reduction in the length of hospital stay (31 comparisons; mean difference [MD], - 0.91 days; 95% CI, - 1.33 to - 0.49), but resulted in little to no difference in overall survival (11 comparisons; hazard ratio [HR], 0.96; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.17). Compared with open surgery, RAS was found to reduce estimated blood loss (MD, - 239.1 mL; 95% CI, - 172.0 to - 306.2) and overall complication (relative risk [RR] 0.88; 95% CI, 0.81 to 0.96), but increase total operative time (MD, 55.4 minutes; 95% CI, 30.9 to 80.0). Additionally, RAS seemed to be not associated with positive surgical margin, any recurrence, disease-free survival, and quality of life.
Conclusion: RAS has demonstrated small favorable effects on short-term outcomes, particularly when compared to open surgery. However, these effects may vary across different cancers. Additionally, RAS may not impact long-term survival, oncological outcomes, or quality of life in cancer patients.
期刊介绍:
The International Journal of Surgery (IJS) has a broad scope, encompassing all surgical specialties. Its primary objective is to facilitate the exchange of crucial ideas and lines of thought between and across these specialties.By doing so, the journal aims to counter the growing trend of increasing sub-specialization, which can result in "tunnel-vision" and the isolation of significant surgical advancements within specific specialties.