Wen-Rui Huang, Xing-Yan Ou, Xing-Zi Fang, Xiao-Xuan Tang, Lei Chen, Jing Ling, Wen-Cong Song, Xue-Lian Du
{"title":"比较机器人、腹腔镜和剖腹手术治疗子宫内膜癌:网络荟萃分析。","authors":"Wen-Rui Huang, Xing-Yan Ou, Xing-Zi Fang, Xiao-Xuan Tang, Lei Chen, Jing Ling, Wen-Cong Song, Xue-Lian Du","doi":"10.1097/JS9.0000000000002175","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study aims to assess the comparative effectiveness and safety of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS), laparoscopy (LPS), and laparotomy (LPT) in improving perioperative indicators, lymph node dissection, and tumor survival outcomes in patients with endometrial carcinoma (EC) through a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>We searched China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, WeiPu, China Biology Medicine Disc, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies (CSs) involving RAS, LPS and LPT in individuals with EC. The NMA employed a Bayesian framework to integrate direct and indirect evidence, calculating odds ratios (OR) and mean difference (MD). Markov chain Monte Carlo methods generated posterior distributions, comparing and ranking treatments using surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) values. Regression and sensitivity analyses assessed the impact of different variables on the results.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>37 eligible trials involving 3 surgical techniques and 6,558 participants were included in this NMA. Our data showed that RAS was the most effective way for reducing estimated blood loss (MD -193; 95% CI [-279.38 to -106.95]; SUCRA 80.3%), length of hospital stay (MD -3.8; 95% CI [-5.37 to -2.31]; SUCRA 90.2%), transfusion rate (OR 0.13; 95% CI [0.06 to 0.28]; SUCRA 87%), intraoperative complications (OR 0.23; 95% CI [0.06 to 0.8]; SUCRA 91.3%), postoperative complications (OR 0.29; 95% CI [0.18 to 0.51]; SUCRA 98.8%), and total complications (OR 0.24; 95% CI [0.1 to 0.61]; SUCRA 96%). However, the analysis showed no significant differences in the dissection of lymph nodes and tumor survival outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our results showed that RAS was the most effective surgical method for improving perioperative indicators in EC. If hospital resources are limited, LPS is a suitable alternative. Further research is needed to confirm these findings and ensure that the benefits of minimally invasive surgeries extend to long-term survival outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":14401,"journal":{"name":"International journal of surgery","volume":" ","pages":"2208-2215"},"PeriodicalIF":12.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing robotic, laparoscopic, and laparotomy in endometrial cancer: a network meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Wen-Rui Huang, Xing-Yan Ou, Xing-Zi Fang, Xiao-Xuan Tang, Lei Chen, Jing Ling, Wen-Cong Song, Xue-Lian Du\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/JS9.0000000000002175\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study aims to assess the comparative effectiveness and safety of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS), laparoscopy (LPS), and laparotomy (LPT) in improving perioperative indicators, lymph node dissection, and tumor survival outcomes in patients with endometrial carcinoma (EC) through a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>We searched China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, WeiPu, China Biology Medicine Disc, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies (CSs) involving RAS, LPS and LPT in individuals with EC. The NMA employed a Bayesian framework to integrate direct and indirect evidence, calculating odds ratios (OR) and mean difference (MD). Markov chain Monte Carlo methods generated posterior distributions, comparing and ranking treatments using surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) values. Regression and sensitivity analyses assessed the impact of different variables on the results.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>37 eligible trials involving 3 surgical techniques and 6,558 participants were included in this NMA. Our data showed that RAS was the most effective way for reducing estimated blood loss (MD -193; 95% CI [-279.38 to -106.95]; SUCRA 80.3%), length of hospital stay (MD -3.8; 95% CI [-5.37 to -2.31]; SUCRA 90.2%), transfusion rate (OR 0.13; 95% CI [0.06 to 0.28]; SUCRA 87%), intraoperative complications (OR 0.23; 95% CI [0.06 to 0.8]; SUCRA 91.3%), postoperative complications (OR 0.29; 95% CI [0.18 to 0.51]; SUCRA 98.8%), and total complications (OR 0.24; 95% CI [0.1 to 0.61]; SUCRA 96%). However, the analysis showed no significant differences in the dissection of lymph nodes and tumor survival outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our results showed that RAS was the most effective surgical method for improving perioperative indicators in EC. If hospital resources are limited, LPS is a suitable alternative. Further research is needed to confirm these findings and ensure that the benefits of minimally invasive surgeries extend to long-term survival outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14401,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International journal of surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"2208-2215\"},\"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/JS9.0000000000002175\",\"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/JS9.0000000000002175","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:本研究旨在通过系统综述和网络荟萃分析,评估机器人辅助手术(RAS)、腹腔镜手术(LPS)和剖腹手术(LPT)在改善子宫内膜癌(EC)患者围手术期指标、淋巴结清扫和肿瘤生存结局方面的比较有效性和安全性。材料和方法:我们检索了中国国家知识基础设施、万方、微谱、中国生物医学数据库、Embase、PubMed、Web of Science和Cochrane图书馆,检索了涉及RAS、LPS和LPT在EC患者中的随机对照试验(RCTs)和队列研究(CSs)。网络荟萃分析采用贝叶斯框架整合直接和间接证据,计算优势比(OR)和平均差(MD)。马尔可夫链蒙特卡罗方法生成后验分布,使用曲面下累积排序(SUCRA)值对处理进行比较和排序。回归分析和敏感性分析评估了不同变量对结果的影响。结果:37项符合条件的试验,涉及3种手术技术,6,558名受试者纳入该网络荟萃分析。我们的数据显示RAS是减少估计失血量最有效的方法(MD - 193;95% CI [-279.38 ~ - 106.95];SUCRA 80.3%)、住院时间(MD - 3.8;95% CI [-5.37 ~ - 2.31];SUCRA 90.2%),输血率(OR 0.13;95% CI [0.06 ~ 0.28];SUCRA 87%),术中并发症(OR 0.23;95% CI [0.06 ~ 0.8];SUCRA 91.3%),术后并发症(OR 0.29;95% CI [0.18 ~ 0.51];SUCRA 98.8%)和总并发症(OR 0.24;95% CI [0.1 ~ 0.61];SUCRA 96%)。然而,分析显示淋巴结清扫和肿瘤生存结果没有显著差异。结论:RAS是改善EC围手术期指标最有效的手术方式。如果医院资源有限,LPS是一个合适的选择。需要进一步的研究来证实这些发现,并确保微创手术的益处延伸到长期生存结果。
Comparing robotic, laparoscopic, and laparotomy in endometrial cancer: a network meta-analysis.
Background: This study aims to assess the comparative effectiveness and safety of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS), laparoscopy (LPS), and laparotomy (LPT) in improving perioperative indicators, lymph node dissection, and tumor survival outcomes in patients with endometrial carcinoma (EC) through a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA).
Materials and methods: We searched China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, WeiPu, China Biology Medicine Disc, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies (CSs) involving RAS, LPS and LPT in individuals with EC. The NMA employed a Bayesian framework to integrate direct and indirect evidence, calculating odds ratios (OR) and mean difference (MD). Markov chain Monte Carlo methods generated posterior distributions, comparing and ranking treatments using surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) values. Regression and sensitivity analyses assessed the impact of different variables on the results.
Results: 37 eligible trials involving 3 surgical techniques and 6,558 participants were included in this NMA. Our data showed that RAS was the most effective way for reducing estimated blood loss (MD -193; 95% CI [-279.38 to -106.95]; SUCRA 80.3%), length of hospital stay (MD -3.8; 95% CI [-5.37 to -2.31]; SUCRA 90.2%), transfusion rate (OR 0.13; 95% CI [0.06 to 0.28]; SUCRA 87%), intraoperative complications (OR 0.23; 95% CI [0.06 to 0.8]; SUCRA 91.3%), postoperative complications (OR 0.29; 95% CI [0.18 to 0.51]; SUCRA 98.8%), and total complications (OR 0.24; 95% CI [0.1 to 0.61]; SUCRA 96%). However, the analysis showed no significant differences in the dissection of lymph nodes and tumor survival outcomes.
Conclusion: Our results showed that RAS was the most effective surgical method for improving perioperative indicators in EC. If hospital resources are limited, LPS is a suitable alternative. Further research is needed to confirm these findings and ensure that the benefits of minimally invasive surgeries extend to long-term survival outcomes.
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.