Fabio Rondelli, Alessio Lucarini, Giovanni Maria Garbarino, Graziano Ceccarelli, Valentina Tassi, Gioia Brachini, Edoardo Maria Muttillo, Leonardo Di Cicco, Francesco Saverio Li Causi, Alice Ceccacci, Paolo Mercantini, Gianluca Costa
{"title":"腹腔镜和机器人侧淋巴结清扫治疗直肠癌的比较:短期和长期结果的系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Fabio Rondelli, Alessio Lucarini, Giovanni Maria Garbarino, Graziano Ceccarelli, Valentina Tassi, Gioia Brachini, Edoardo Maria Muttillo, Leonardo Di Cicco, Francesco Saverio Li Causi, Alice Ceccacci, Paolo Mercantini, Gianluca Costa","doi":"10.62713/aic.3917","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>The importance of lateral lymph node dissection (LLND) for advanced low rectal cancer is still questioned, but selected patients might benefit from this procedure. The purpose of this study was to compare robotic LLND (R-LLND) versus laparoscopic LLND (L-LLND) to identify the safety, feasibility, and advantages of R-LLND.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were searched for studies assessing the benefit of R-LLND over L-LLND. Pooled odds ratios (OR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) were obtained using models with random effects. The risk of bias was evaluated with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Six studies were included in our analysis for a total of 652 patients (316 robotic and 336 laparoscopic). The R-LLND group had a longer operative time (WMD 60.46, <i>p</i> = 0.02) and less blood loss (WMD -22.33, <i>p</i> = 0.01). Differences were found in the postoperative length of stays (7 days ± 1.2 and 14 ± 5.2 versus 7 days ± 0.3 and 16 ± 18.5, WMD -1.30, <i>p</i> = 0.03) and in the mean time to regular diet (3 days ± 0.5 and 5 ± 2.3 versus 3 days ± 1.2 and 6 ± 3.8, WMD -0.60 <i>p</i> = 0.01); a slightly higher number of harvested lateral lymph nodes was present in the L-LLND group (WMD 1.23, <i>p</i> = 0.02).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our work demonstrates a slight benefit from the robotic approach when performing LLND in terms of intra- and peri-operative outcomes, despite not reaching statistical significance a trend in favor of robotic surgery is evident in almost all the analyzed topic.</p>","PeriodicalId":8210,"journal":{"name":"Annali italiani di chirurgia","volume":"96 7","pages":"847-858"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Laparoscopic and Robotic Lateral Lymph Node Dissection for Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Short- and Long-term Outcomes.\",\"authors\":\"Fabio Rondelli, Alessio Lucarini, Giovanni Maria Garbarino, Graziano Ceccarelli, Valentina Tassi, Gioia Brachini, Edoardo Maria Muttillo, Leonardo Di Cicco, Francesco Saverio Li Causi, Alice Ceccacci, Paolo Mercantini, Gianluca Costa\",\"doi\":\"10.62713/aic.3917\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>The importance of lateral lymph node dissection (LLND) for advanced low rectal cancer is still questioned, but selected patients might benefit from this procedure. The purpose of this study was to compare robotic LLND (R-LLND) versus laparoscopic LLND (L-LLND) to identify the safety, feasibility, and advantages of R-LLND.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were searched for studies assessing the benefit of R-LLND over L-LLND. Pooled odds ratios (OR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) were obtained using models with random effects. The risk of bias was evaluated with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Six studies were included in our analysis for a total of 652 patients (316 robotic and 336 laparoscopic). The R-LLND group had a longer operative time (WMD 60.46, <i>p</i> = 0.02) and less blood loss (WMD -22.33, <i>p</i> = 0.01). Differences were found in the postoperative length of stays (7 days ± 1.2 and 14 ± 5.2 versus 7 days ± 0.3 and 16 ± 18.5, WMD -1.30, <i>p</i> = 0.03) and in the mean time to regular diet (3 days ± 0.5 and 5 ± 2.3 versus 3 days ± 1.2 and 6 ± 3.8, WMD -0.60 <i>p</i> = 0.01); a slightly higher number of harvested lateral lymph nodes was present in the L-LLND group (WMD 1.23, <i>p</i> = 0.02).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our work demonstrates a slight benefit from the robotic approach when performing LLND in terms of intra- and peri-operative outcomes, despite not reaching statistical significance a trend in favor of robotic surgery is evident in almost all the analyzed topic.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8210,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annali italiani di chirurgia\",\"volume\":\"96 7\",\"pages\":\"847-858\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annali italiani di chirurgia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.62713/aic.3917\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annali italiani di chirurgia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.62713/aic.3917","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:侧淋巴结清扫(LLND)对晚期低位直肠癌的重要性仍然存在疑问,但有选择的患者可能从该手术中受益。本研究的目的是比较机器人LLND (R-LLND)和腹腔镜LLND (L-LLND),以确定R-LLND的安全性、可行性和优势。方法:检索PubMed, Scopus和Cochrane数据库,以评估R-LLND优于L-LLND的研究。采用随机效应模型获得合并优势比(OR)和加权平均差(WMD)。偏倚风险采用纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表进行评估。结果:我们分析了6项研究,共652例患者(316例机器人手术和336例腹腔镜手术)。R-LLND组手术时间较长(WMD为60.46,p = 0.02),出血量较少(WMD为-22.33,p = 0.01)。术后住院时间(7天±1.2天和14±5.2天和7天±0.3天和16±18.5天,WMD -1.30, p = 0.03)和平均正常饮食时间(3天±0.5天和5±2.3天和3天±1.2天和6±3.8,WMD -0.60 p = 0.01)存在差异;L-LLND组侧淋巴结数量略高(WMD 1.23, p = 0.02)。结论:我们的研究表明,在进行LLND手术时,机器人方法在术中和术中预后方面有轻微的好处,尽管没有达到统计学意义,但在几乎所有分析的主题中,机器人手术的趋势都很明显。
Comparison of Laparoscopic and Robotic Lateral Lymph Node Dissection for Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Short- and Long-term Outcomes.
Aim: The importance of lateral lymph node dissection (LLND) for advanced low rectal cancer is still questioned, but selected patients might benefit from this procedure. The purpose of this study was to compare robotic LLND (R-LLND) versus laparoscopic LLND (L-LLND) to identify the safety, feasibility, and advantages of R-LLND.
Methods: PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were searched for studies assessing the benefit of R-LLND over L-LLND. Pooled odds ratios (OR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) were obtained using models with random effects. The risk of bias was evaluated with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale.
Results: Six studies were included in our analysis for a total of 652 patients (316 robotic and 336 laparoscopic). The R-LLND group had a longer operative time (WMD 60.46, p = 0.02) and less blood loss (WMD -22.33, p = 0.01). Differences were found in the postoperative length of stays (7 days ± 1.2 and 14 ± 5.2 versus 7 days ± 0.3 and 16 ± 18.5, WMD -1.30, p = 0.03) and in the mean time to regular diet (3 days ± 0.5 and 5 ± 2.3 versus 3 days ± 1.2 and 6 ± 3.8, WMD -0.60 p = 0.01); a slightly higher number of harvested lateral lymph nodes was present in the L-LLND group (WMD 1.23, p = 0.02).
Conclusions: Our work demonstrates a slight benefit from the robotic approach when performing LLND in terms of intra- and peri-operative outcomes, despite not reaching statistical significance a trend in favor of robotic surgery is evident in almost all the analyzed topic.
期刊介绍:
Annali Italiani di Chirurgia is a bimonthly journal and covers all aspects of surgery:elective, emergency and experimental surgery, as well as problems involving technology, teaching, organization and forensic medicine. The articles are published in Italian or English, though English is preferred because it facilitates the international diffusion of the journal (v.Guidelines for Authors and Norme per gli Autori). The articles published are divided into three main sections:editorials, original articles, and case reports and innovations.