Albright Benjamin B, Witte Tilman, Tofte Alena N, Chou Jeremy, Black Jonathan D, Desai Vrunda B, Erekson Elisabeth A
Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, NH; Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT.
Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, NH; Institute for Community Medicine, University of Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016 Jan;23(1):18-27. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2015.08.003. Epub 2015 Aug 10.
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the safety and effectiveness of robotic vs laparoscopic hysterectomy in women with benign uterine disease, as determined by randomized studies. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Controlled-Trials.com from study inception to October 9, 2014, using the intersection of the themes "robotic" and "hysterectomy." We included only randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials of robotic vs laparoscopic hysterectomy in women for benign disease. Four trials met our inclusion criteria and were included in the analyses. We extracted data, and assessed the studies for methodological quality in duplicate. For meta-analysis, we used random effects to calculate pooled risk ratios (RRs) and weighted mean differences. For our primary outcome, we used a modified version of the Expanded Accordion Severity Grading System to classify perioperative complications. We identified 41 complications among 326 patients. Comparing robotic and laparoscopic hysterectomy, revealed no statistically significant differences in the rate of class 1 and 2 complications (RR, 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.23-1.89) or in the rate of class 3 and 4 complications (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.22-4.40). Analyses of secondary outcomes were limited owing to heterogeneity, but showed no significant benefit of the robotic technique over the laparoscopic technique in terms of length of hospital stay (weighted mean difference, -0.39 day; 95% CI, -0.92 to 0.14 day), total operating time (weighted mean difference, 9.0 minutes; 95% CI, -31.27 to 47.26 minutes), conversions to laparotomy, or blood loss. Outcomes of cost, pain, and quality of life were reported inconsistently and were not amenable to pooling. Current evidence demonstrates neither statistically significant nor clinically meaningful differences in surgical outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign disease. The role of robotic surgery in benign gynecology remains unclear.
我们进行了一项系统评价和荟萃分析,以评估随机研究确定的机器人辅助子宫切除术与腹腔镜子宫切除术治疗良性子宫疾病的安全性和有效性。我们从研究开始到2014年10月9日检索了MEDLINE、EMBASE、Cochrane图书馆、ClinicalTrials.gov和Controlled-Trials.com,使用“机器人”和“子宫切除术”主题的交集。我们仅纳入了机器人辅助子宫切除术与腹腔镜子宫切除术治疗良性疾病的随机和半随机对照试验。四项试验符合我们的纳入标准并纳入分析。我们提取数据,并对研究进行重复的方法学质量评估。对于荟萃分析,我们使用随机效应计算合并风险比(RRs)和加权平均差。对于我们的主要结局,我们使用改良版的扩展手风琴严重程度分级系统对围手术期并发症进行分类。我们在326例患者中识别出41例并发症。比较机器人辅助子宫切除术和腹腔镜子宫切除术,1级和2级并发症发生率(RR,0.66;95%置信区间[CI],0.23 - 1.89)或3级和4级并发症发生率(RR,0.99;95%CI,0.22 - 4.40)无统计学显著差异。由于异质性,次要结局的分析有限,但在住院时间(加权平均差,-0.39天;95%CI,-0.92至0.14天)、总手术时间(加权平均差,9.0分钟;95%CI,-31.27至47.26分钟)、转为开腹手术或失血方面,机器人技术相对于腹腔镜技术未显示出显著优势。成本、疼痛和生活质量的结局报告不一致,无法合并。目前的证据表明,机器人辅助子宫切除术和腹腔镜子宫切除术治疗良性疾病的手术结局在统计学上无显著差异,在临床上也无意义。机器人手术在良性妇科中的作用仍不明确。