IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Baobong Liao, Xueyi Xue, Hao Zeng, Wen Ye, Tingjiang Xie, Xiaojie Wang, Shuangming Lin
{"title":"Comparison of different surgical techniques and anastomosis methods in short-term outcomes of right colon cancer: a network meta-analysis of open surgery, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted techniques with extracorporeal and intracorporeal anastomosis.","authors":"Baobong Liao, Xueyi Xue, Hao Zeng, Wen Ye, Tingjiang Xie, Xiaojie Wang, Shuangming Lin","doi":"10.1007/s13304-025-02096-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>With the rapid development of minimally invasive surgical techniques, there remains considerable controversy regarding the choice of surgical approach and anastomosis method for patients with right-sded colon cancer (RSCC). This meta-analysis compared the short-term outcomes of open right colectomies (ORC), laparoscopic right colectomies with intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomosis (LRC-IA and LRC-EA), as well as robot right colectomies with intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomosis (RRC-IA and RRC-EA). A systematic search was conducted across PubMed (n = 549), Web of Science (n = 821), Embase (n = 591), and the Cochrane Central Register (n = 86) from January 2000 to August 2024. Studies comparing at least two of the surgical techniques for RSCC were included. The primary outcomes evaluated were overall complications, wound infection, ileus, and reoperation rates. Secondary outcomes included operative time, blood loss, hospital stay, time to resume diet, and conversion rates. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed. A total of 39 studies comprising 6098 patients were included. The results indicated that LRC-IA had the lowest overall complication rate (OR 0.65; 95% CI [0.41, 1.07]), while ORC had the highest. RRC-IA was most effective in reducing wound infection (OR 0.77; 95% CI [0.39, 1.35]), blood loss (MD 18.01; 95% CI [4.62, 40.87]), and hospital stay (MD 0.93; 95% CI [0.67, 1.31]), while also demonstrating advantages in preventing postoperative ileus (OR 0.47; 95% CI [0.05, 1.31]) and ensuring faster bowel function recovery (OR 0.80; 95% CI [0.44, 1.53]). The analysis demonstrates that for patients with RSCC, RRC shows better short-term outcomes compared to LRC and ORC, while IA also surpasses EA.</p>","PeriodicalId":23391,"journal":{"name":"Updates in Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Updates in Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-025-02096-2","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

随着微创手术技术的快速发展,对于右侧结肠癌(RSCC)患者手术方式和吻合方法的选择仍存在相当大的争议。这项荟萃分析比较了开腹右结肠切除术(ORC)、腹腔镜右结肠切除术(LRC-IA 和 LRC-EA)以及机器人右结肠切除术(RRC-IA 和 RRC-EA)的短期疗效。从2000年1月到2024年8月,我们在PubMed(n = 549)、Web of Science(n = 821)、Embase(n = 591)和Cochrane Central Register(n = 86)上进行了系统检索。纳入的研究至少比较了两种治疗 RSCC 的手术技术。评估的主要结果是总体并发症、伤口感染、回肠梗阻和再次手术率。次要结果包括手术时间、失血量、住院时间、恢复饮食时间和转换率。研究人员进行了贝叶斯网络荟萃分析。共纳入 39 项研究,6098 名患者。结果显示,LRC-IA 的总体并发症发生率最低(OR 0.65;95% CI [0.41,1.07]),而 ORC 的并发症发生率最高。RRC-IA 在减少伤口感染(OR 0.77;95% CI [0.39,1.35])、失血量(MD 18.01;95% CI [4.62,40.87])和住院时间(MD 0.93;95% CI [0.67,1.31])方面最为有效,同时在预防术后回肠梗阻(OR 0.47;95% CI [0.05,1.31])和确保肠道功能更快恢复(OR 0.80;95% CI [0.44,1.53])方面也表现出优势。分析表明,对于 RSCC 患者,RRC 的短期疗效优于 LRC 和 ORC,而 IA 也优于 EA。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of different surgical techniques and anastomosis methods in short-term outcomes of right colon cancer: a network meta-analysis of open surgery, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted techniques with extracorporeal and intracorporeal anastomosis.

With the rapid development of minimally invasive surgical techniques, there remains considerable controversy regarding the choice of surgical approach and anastomosis method for patients with right-sded colon cancer (RSCC). This meta-analysis compared the short-term outcomes of open right colectomies (ORC), laparoscopic right colectomies with intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomosis (LRC-IA and LRC-EA), as well as robot right colectomies with intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomosis (RRC-IA and RRC-EA). A systematic search was conducted across PubMed (n = 549), Web of Science (n = 821), Embase (n = 591), and the Cochrane Central Register (n = 86) from January 2000 to August 2024. Studies comparing at least two of the surgical techniques for RSCC were included. The primary outcomes evaluated were overall complications, wound infection, ileus, and reoperation rates. Secondary outcomes included operative time, blood loss, hospital stay, time to resume diet, and conversion rates. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed. A total of 39 studies comprising 6098 patients were included. The results indicated that LRC-IA had the lowest overall complication rate (OR 0.65; 95% CI [0.41, 1.07]), while ORC had the highest. RRC-IA was most effective in reducing wound infection (OR 0.77; 95% CI [0.39, 1.35]), blood loss (MD 18.01; 95% CI [4.62, 40.87]), and hospital stay (MD 0.93; 95% CI [0.67, 1.31]), while also demonstrating advantages in preventing postoperative ileus (OR 0.47; 95% CI [0.05, 1.31]) and ensuring faster bowel function recovery (OR 0.80; 95% CI [0.44, 1.53]). The analysis demonstrates that for patients with RSCC, RRC shows better short-term outcomes compared to LRC and ORC, while IA also surpasses EA.

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
Updates in Surgery
Updates in Surgery Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
7.70%
发文量
208
期刊介绍: Updates in Surgery (UPIS) has been founded in 2010 as the official journal of the Italian Society of Surgery. It’s an international, English-language, peer-reviewed journal dedicated to the surgical sciences. Its main goal is to offer a valuable update on the most recent developments of those surgical techniques that are rapidly evolving, forcing the community of surgeons to a rigorous debate and a continuous refinement of standards of care. In this respect position papers on the mostly debated surgical approaches and accreditation criteria have been published and are welcome for the future. Beside its focus on general surgery, the journal draws particular attention to cutting edge topics and emerging surgical fields that are publishing in monothematic issues guest edited by well-known experts. Updates in Surgery has been considering various types of papers: editorials, comprehensive reviews, original studies and technical notes related to specific surgical procedures and techniques on liver, colorectal, gastric, pancreatic, robotic and bariatric surgery.
×
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