Suppr超能文献

开胸手术或机器人视频辅助胸外科手术行胸腺切除术:现在就能给出推荐意见了吗?

Thymectomy via open surgery or robotic video assisted thoracic surgery: Can a recommendation already be made?

作者信息

Buentzel Judith, Straube Carmen, Heinz Judith, Roever Christian, Beham Alexander, Emmert Andreas, Hinterthaner Marc, Danner Bernhard C, Emmert Alexander

机构信息

Department of Haematology and Oncology Department of Medical Statistics Department of General, Visceral and Pediatric Surgery, University of Goettingen, University Medical Center Goettingen, Goettingen Westklinikum Hamburg, Department of General and Visceral Surgery, Hamburg Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, University of Goettingen, University Medical Center Goettingen, Göttingen, Germany.

出版信息

Medicine (Baltimore). 2017 Jun;96(24):e7161. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000007161.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery (RVATS) is a relatively new technique applied for thymectomies. Only few studies directly compare RVATS to the mainstay therapy, open surgery (sternotomy).

METHODS

A systematic search of the literature was performed in October 2016. The meta-analysis includes studies comparing robotassisted and open thymectomy regarding operation time, length of hospitalization, intraoperative blood loss, and chest-in-tube days, postoperative complications, reoperation, arrhythmic events, pleural effusion, and postoperative bleeding.

RESULTS

Of 626 studies preliminary screened, 7 articles were included. There were no significant differences in comparison of operation time (-3.19 minutes [95% confidence interval, 95% CI -112.43 to 106.05]; P = .94), but patients undergoing RVATS spent significantly less time in hospital (-4.06 days [95% CI -7.98 to -0.13], P = .046). There were fewer chests-in-tube days (-2.50 days [95% CI -15.01 to 10.01]; P = .24) and less intraoperative blood loss (-256.84 mL [95% CI -627.47 to 113.80]; P = .10) observed in the RVATS group; due to a small number of studies, these results were not statistically significant. There were also less post-operative complications in the RVATS group (12 complications in 209 patients vs 51 complications in 259 patients); however, this difference was not statistical significant (odds ratio 0.27, 95% CI 0.07-1.12; P = .06).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing RVATS spent less time in hospital than patients treated by open surgery (sternotomy). These patients tended to have less postoperative complications, less intraoperative blood loss, and fewer chest-in-tube days. We found evidence for the safety and feasibility of RVATS compared with open surgery, which has to be further confirmed in randomised controlled trials.

摘要

背景

机器人辅助微创胸腺切除术(RVATS)是一种相对较新的胸腺切除技术。只有少数研究直接将RVATS与主要治疗方法——开放手术(胸骨切开术)进行比较。

方法

于2016年10月对文献进行系统检索。荟萃分析纳入了比较机器人辅助胸腺切除术和开放胸腺切除术在手术时间、住院时间、术中失血量、胸管留置天数、术后并发症、再次手术、心律失常事件、胸腔积液及术后出血等方面的研究。

结果

在初步筛选的626项研究中,纳入了7篇文章。手术时间比较无显著差异(-3.19分钟[95%置信区间,95%CI -112.43至106.05];P = 0.94),但接受RVATS的患者住院时间显著缩短(-4.06天[95%CI -7.98至-0.13],P = 0.046)。RVATS组胸管留置天数较少(-2.50天[95%CI -15.01至10.01];P = 0.24),术中失血量较少(-256.84 mL[95%CI -627.47至113.80];P = 0.10);由于研究数量较少,这些结果无统计学意义。RVATS组术后并发症也较少(209例患者中有12例并发症,259例患者中有51例并发症);然而,这种差异无统计学意义(优势比0.27,95%CI 0.07 - 1.12;P = 0.06)。

结论

接受RVATS的患者住院时间比接受开放手术(胸骨切开术)的患者短。这些患者术后并发症倾向于更少,术中失血量更少,胸管留置天数更少。我们发现与开放手术相比,RVATS具有安全性和可行性的证据,这有待在随机对照试验中进一步证实。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验