Suppr超能文献

机器人辅助与腹腔镜子宫切除术治疗良性疾病:一项随机试验的系统评价和荟萃分析

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Hysterectomy for Benign Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

作者信息

Albright Benjamin B, Witte Tilman, Tofte Alena N, Chou Jeremy, Black Jonathan D, Desai Vrunda B, Erekson Elisabeth A

机构信息

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.

出版信息

J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016 Jan;23(1):18-27. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2015.08.003. Epub 2015 Aug 10.

Abstract

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.

摘要

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。

相似文献

1
Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Hysterectomy for Benign Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016 Jan;23(1):18-27. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2015.08.003. Epub 2015 Aug 10.
2
Laparoscopic versus open resection for sigmoid diverticulitis.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Nov 25;11(11):CD009277. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009277.pub2.
3
Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023 Aug 29;8(8):CD003677. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003677.pub6.
4
Surgery versus medical therapy for heavy menstrual bleeding.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Jan 29;2016(1):CD003855. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003855.pub3.
5
Robotic surgery for benign gynaecological disease.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Feb 15(2):CD008978. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008978.pub2.
6
Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Apr 19;4(4):CD011535. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011535.pub4.
7
Drugs for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults after general anaesthesia: a network meta-analysis.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Oct 19;10(10):CD012859. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012859.pub2.
8
Laparoscopic and robotic-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy for the treatment of localised prostate cancer.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Sep 12;9(9):CD009625. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009625.pub2.
9
Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for the management of early stage endometrial cancer.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Sep 12(9):CD006655. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006655.pub2.
10

引用本文的文献

2
Association of body mass index with surgical complications after minimally invasive hysterectomy.
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2025 Jun 1. doi: 10.1007/s00404-025-08073-9.
3
Safety and Efficacy of Robotic Hysterectomy Using an Indigenous Robotic System: A Retrospective Study.
Cureus. 2025 Apr 7;17(4):e81832. doi: 10.7759/cureus.81832. eCollection 2025 Apr.
5
Robotic Surgery for Benign Hysterectomy: A Real-World Study From India.
Cureus. 2024 Dec 1;16(12):e74932. doi: 10.7759/cureus.74932. eCollection 2024 Dec.
6
7
Expanding Robotic-Assisted Surgery in Gynecology Using the Potential of an Advanced Robotic System.
Medicina (Kaunas). 2023 Dec 27;60(1):53. doi: 10.3390/medicina60010053.
8
The new surgical robot Hugo™ RAS for total hysterectomy: a pilot study.
Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2023 Dec;15(4):331-337. doi: 10.52054/FVVO.15.4.11.
9
Robotic-assisted benign hysterectomy compared with laparoscopic, vaginal, and open surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
J Robot Surg. 2023 Dec;17(6):2647-2662. doi: 10.1007/s11701-023-01724-6. Epub 2023 Oct 19.
10
Robotic surgery in Gynecology: the present and the future.
Obstet Gynecol Sci. 2023 Nov;66(6):518-528. doi: 10.5468/ogs.23132. Epub 2023 Jul 19.

本文引用的文献

1
Committee opinion no. 628: robotic surgery in gynecology.
Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Mar;125(3):760-767. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000461761.47981.07.
2
Robot-assisted surgery in gynaecology.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Dec 10;2014(12):CD011422. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011422.
4
A randomized trial comparing vaginal and laparoscopic hysterectomy vs robot-assisted hysterectomy.
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015 Jan;22(1):78-86. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2014.07.010. Epub 2014 Jul 19.
5
A systematic review and cost analysis of robot-assisted hysterectomy in malignant and benign conditions.
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014 Jun;177:1-10. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2014.03.010. Epub 2014 Mar 15.
6
A comparison of quality outcome measures in patients having a hysterectomy for benign disease: robotic vs. non-robotic approaches.
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014 May-Jun;21(3):389-93. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2013.10.008. Epub 2013 Oct 26.
7
Systematic review of robotic surgery in gynecology: robotic techniques compared with laparoscopy and laparotomy.
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014 May-Jun;21(3):353-61. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2013.11.010. Epub 2013 Dec 1.
8
Total laparoscopic hysterectomy with and without robotic assistance: a prospective controlled study.
Surg Innov. 2014 Jun;21(3):250-5. doi: 10.1177/1553350613492023. Epub 2013 Jul 5.
10
A randomized trial comparing conventional and robotically assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy.
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013 May;208(5):368.e1-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2013.02.008. Epub 2013 Feb 8.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验