Park D A, Lee D H, Kim S W, Lee S H
Division for Healthcare Technology Assessment Research, National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency, Seoul, South Korea.
Clinical Research Center, Woosuk University Korean Medicine Hospital, Jeonju, South Korea.
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2016 Sep;42(9):1303-14. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2016.06.400. Epub 2016 Jun 29.
This study aimed to evaluate the surgical safety and clinical effectiveness of RH compared to OH and LH for endometrial cancer.
We searched Ovid-Medline, Ovid-EMBASE, and the Cochrane library for studies published through May 2015. The outcomes of interest included safety (overall; peri-operative and post-operative complications; death within 30-days; and specific morbidities), effectiveness (survival, recurrence, length of stay [LOS], estimated blood loss [EBL], and operative time [OT]), and patient-reported outcomes (pain score, pain medication use, length of pain medication use, and time to return to work). Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed the risk of bias.
Twenty-four studies comparing RH to OH and 24 comparing RH to LH were identified. No significant differences were found in survival outcomes. The LOS was shorter, there was less EBL, and the rates of complications, readmission, and transfusion were lower with RH compared to OH. However, RH showed a longer OT and a higher incidence of vaginal cuff dehiscence compared to those for OH. Compared to LH, the LOS was shorter, there was less EBL, and the rates of conversion to laparotomy, intra-operative complications, urinary tract injuries, and cystotomy were lower in RH. Several patient-reported outcomes showed a significant benefit of RH, but each outcome was reported in only one study.
RH may be a generally safer and better option than OH and LH for patients with endometrial cancer. Further prospective studies with long-term follow-up are required.
本研究旨在评估与卵巢切除术(OH)和腹腔镜手术(LH)相比,机器人辅助手术(RH)治疗子宫内膜癌的手术安全性和临床疗效。
我们检索了Ovid-Medline、Ovid-EMBASE和Cochrane图书馆,查找截至2015年5月发表的研究。感兴趣的结果包括安全性(总体;围手术期和术后并发症;30天内死亡;以及特定的发病率)、有效性(生存率、复发率、住院时间[LOS]、估计失血量[EBL]和手术时间[OT])以及患者报告的结果(疼痛评分、止痛药物使用情况、止痛药物使用时间和恢复工作时间)。两名独立的审阅者提取数据并评估偏倚风险。
确定了24项比较RH与OH的研究以及24项比较RH与LH的研究。在生存结果方面未发现显著差异。与OH相比,RH的住院时间更短,失血量更少,并发症、再次入院和输血率更低。然而,与OH相比,RH的手术时间更长,阴道残端裂开的发生率更高。与LH相比,RH的住院时间更短,失血量更少,开腹手术转化率、术中并发症、尿路损伤和膀胱切开术的发生率更低。一些患者报告的结果显示RH有显著益处,但每个结果仅在一项研究中报道。
对于子宫内膜癌患者,RH可能是比OH和LH总体上更安全、更好的选择。需要进一步进行长期随访的前瞻性研究。