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。

IF 12.5 2区 医学 Q1 SURGERY
Kai Yu, Baoqi Zeng, Qingxin Zhou, Feng Sun
{"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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:机器人辅助手术(RAS)在癌症患者中的应用越来越多。然而,支持RAS使用的证据仍然不确定。每种外科手术的随机对照试验(rct)的可用性是有限的。本研究旨在评估RAS在癌症患者中的安全性和有效性。材料和方法:从数据库建立到2023年4月1日,在Embase、PubMed、Cochrane图书馆和ClinicalTrials.gov中进行了全面的检索。我们纳入了将RAS与腹腔镜、胸腔镜或开放手术进行比较的癌症患者的随机对照试验。进行随机效应荟萃分析。结果:共有32项试验(6092例患者)符合入选标准。其中,22项试验偏倚风险较低,7项试验存在偏倚风险,3项试验偏倚风险较高。大多数试验是针对膀胱癌(n = 8)、直肠癌(n = 5)、前列腺癌(n = 4)和子宫内膜癌(n = 4)进行的。在所有癌症中,RAS可能导致住院时间的轻微缩短(31个比较;平均差[MD], - 0.91天;95% CI, - 1.33至- 0.49),但导致总生存率几乎没有差异(11个比较;风险比[HR], 0.96;95% CI, 0.78 ~ 1.17)。与开放手术相比,RAS可减少预估失血量(MD, - 239.1 ml;95% CI, - 172.0 ~ - 306.2)和总并发症(相对危险度[RR] 0.88;95% CI, 0.81 ~ 0.96),但总手术时间增加(MD, 55.4分钟;95% CI, 30.9 ~ 80.0)。此外,RAS似乎与手术切缘阳性、任何复发、无病生存和生活质量无关。结论:RAS对短期预后有较小的有利影响,特别是与开放手术相比。然而,这些影响在不同的癌症中可能有所不同。此外,RAS可能不会影响癌症患者的长期生存、肿瘤预后或生活质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

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
17.70
自引率
3.30%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
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.
×
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