子宫内膜癌机器人单部位与机器人多孔子宫切除术:系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 3.4 2区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY
Weimin Xie, Zhangyi Wang, Xiaohang Liu, Songhong Tan
{"title":"子宫内膜癌机器人单部位与机器人多孔子宫切除术:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Weimin Xie, Zhangyi Wang, Xiaohang Liu, Songhong Tan","doi":"10.1186/s12885-025-13968-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This meta-analysis aims to compare the safety and efficacy of robotic single-site hysterectomy (RSSH) with robotic multiport hysterectomy (RMPH) in treating endometrial cancer.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a comprehensive literature search across several databases, including PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase, the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wan Fang, and the Chinese Science and Technology Journal Full Text Database (VIP). The search covered literature from inception until October 17, 2024. The primary outcomes included intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, postoperative pain scores, and satisfaction with cosmetic outcomes. The secondary outcomes included operative time (min), estimated blood loss (ml), hemoglobin drop, blood transfusion, conversion, postoperative hospital stay, lymph nodes harvested, sentinel lymph node identification, recurrence, and mortality during follow-up. Data analysis was performed using random-effects or fixed-effects models, calculating combined risk ratios (RR), weighted mean difference (WMD), and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five studies describing a total of 448 patients were retained and included for this meta-analysis. No significant differences were found between RSSH and RMPH regarding intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, and postoperative pain scores. There were also no differences in terms of operation time, estimated blood loss, hemoglobin drop, blood transfusion, conversion, postoperative hospital stay, lymph nodes harvested, and sentinel lymph node identification.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This systematic review and meta-analysis provides evidence that RSSH is effective and safe for the treatment of endometrial cancer, as it is generally equivalent to RMPH regarding perioperative outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":9131,"journal":{"name":"BMC Cancer","volume":"25 1","pages":"554"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11951834/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Robotic single site versus robotic multiport hysterectomy in endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Weimin Xie, Zhangyi Wang, Xiaohang Liu, Songhong Tan\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12885-025-13968-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This meta-analysis aims to compare the safety and efficacy of robotic single-site hysterectomy (RSSH) with robotic multiport hysterectomy (RMPH) in treating endometrial cancer.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a comprehensive literature search across several databases, including PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase, the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wan Fang, and the Chinese Science and Technology Journal Full Text Database (VIP). The search covered literature from inception until October 17, 2024. The primary outcomes included intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, postoperative pain scores, and satisfaction with cosmetic outcomes. The secondary outcomes included operative time (min), estimated blood loss (ml), hemoglobin drop, blood transfusion, conversion, postoperative hospital stay, lymph nodes harvested, sentinel lymph node identification, recurrence, and mortality during follow-up. Data analysis was performed using random-effects or fixed-effects models, calculating combined risk ratios (RR), weighted mean difference (WMD), and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five studies describing a total of 448 patients were retained and included for this meta-analysis. No significant differences were found between RSSH and RMPH regarding intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, and postoperative pain scores. There were also no differences in terms of operation time, estimated blood loss, hemoglobin drop, blood transfusion, conversion, postoperative hospital stay, lymph nodes harvested, and sentinel lymph node identification.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This systematic review and meta-analysis provides evidence that RSSH is effective and safe for the treatment of endometrial cancer, as it is generally equivalent to RMPH regarding perioperative outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9131,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Cancer\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"554\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11951834/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Cancer\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-025-13968-6\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-025-13968-6","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本meta分析旨在比较机器人单站点子宫切除术(RSSH)与机器人多端口子宫切除术(RMPH)治疗子宫内膜癌的安全性和有效性。方法:我们在PubMed、Cochrane中央对照试验注册库(Central)、Embase、中国知网(CNKI)、万方和中国科技期刊全文数据库(VIP)等多个数据库中进行了全面的文献检索。搜索涵盖了从创立到2024年10月17日的文学作品。主要结果包括术中并发症、术后并发症、术后疼痛评分和对美容结果的满意度。次要结局包括手术时间(min)、估计失血量(ml)、血红蛋白下降、输血、转化、术后住院时间、淋巴结收获、前哨淋巴结识别、复发和随访期间死亡率。采用随机效应或固定效应模型进行数据分析,计算联合风险比(RR)、加权平均差(WMD)和95%置信区间(95% CI)。结果:本荟萃分析保留并纳入了5项研究,共涉及448例患者。RSSH和RMPH在术中并发症、术后并发症和术后疼痛评分方面无显著差异。两组在手术时间、估计失血量、血红蛋白下降、输血、转化、术后住院时间、淋巴结收获和前哨淋巴结识别方面也无差异。结论:本系统综述和荟萃分析提供了RSSH治疗子宫内膜癌的有效和安全的证据,因为它在围手术期的预后方面与RMPH大致相当。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Robotic single site versus robotic multiport hysterectomy in endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objective: This meta-analysis aims to compare the safety and efficacy of robotic single-site hysterectomy (RSSH) with robotic multiport hysterectomy (RMPH) in treating endometrial cancer.

Methods: We conducted a comprehensive literature search across several databases, including PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase, the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wan Fang, and the Chinese Science and Technology Journal Full Text Database (VIP). The search covered literature from inception until October 17, 2024. The primary outcomes included intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, postoperative pain scores, and satisfaction with cosmetic outcomes. The secondary outcomes included operative time (min), estimated blood loss (ml), hemoglobin drop, blood transfusion, conversion, postoperative hospital stay, lymph nodes harvested, sentinel lymph node identification, recurrence, and mortality during follow-up. Data analysis was performed using random-effects or fixed-effects models, calculating combined risk ratios (RR), weighted mean difference (WMD), and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).

Results: Five studies describing a total of 448 patients were retained and included for this meta-analysis. No significant differences were found between RSSH and RMPH regarding intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, and postoperative pain scores. There were also no differences in terms of operation time, estimated blood loss, hemoglobin drop, blood transfusion, conversion, postoperative hospital stay, lymph nodes harvested, and sentinel lymph node identification.

Conclusion: This systematic review and meta-analysis provides evidence that RSSH is effective and safe for the treatment of endometrial cancer, as it is generally equivalent to RMPH regarding perioperative outcomes.

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
BMC Cancer
BMC Cancer 医学-肿瘤学
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
2.60%
发文量
1204
审稿时长
6.8 months
期刊介绍: BMC Cancer is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of cancer research, including the pathophysiology, prevention, diagnosis and treatment of cancers. The journal welcomes submissions concerning molecular and cellular biology, genetics, epidemiology, and clinical trials.
×
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