Suppr超能文献

仅探讨单切口腹腔镜手术与传统多端口腹腔镜手术在结直肠切除术中作用的随机对照试验的荟萃分析。

Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials only exploring the role of single incision laparoscopic surgery versus conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery for colorectal resections.

作者信息

Hebbar Madhusoodhana, Riaz Waleed, Sains Parv, Baig Mirza Khurrum, Sajid Muhammad Shafique

机构信息

Department of General and Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery, Western Sussex Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Worthing Hospital, Worthing, West Sussex, BN11 2DH, UK.

Department of General and Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery, Brighton & Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust, The Royal Sussex County Hospital, Brighton, West Sussex, BN2 5BE, UK.

出版信息

Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 May 29;3:30. doi: 10.21037/tgh.2018.05.05. eCollection 2018.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The objective of this article is to evaluate the surgical outcomes in patients undergoing single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) versus conventional multi-incision laparoscopic surgery (MILS) for colorectal resections.

METHODS

The data retrieved from the published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting the surgical outcomes in patients undergoing SILS versus MILS for colorectal resections was analysed using the principles of meta-analysis. The combined outcome of dichotomous data was represented as risk ratio (RR) and continuous data was shown as standardized mean difference (SMD).

RESULTS

Five RCTs on 525 patients reported the colorectal resections by SILS versus MILS technique. In the random effects model analysis using the statistical software Review Manager 5.3, the operation time (SMD, 0.20; 95% CI, -0.11 to 0.52; z=1.28; P=0.20), length of in-patient stay (SMD, -0.18; 95% CI, -0.51 to 0.14; z=1.10; P=0.27) and lymph node harvesting (SMD, 0.09; 95% CI, -0.14 to 0.33; z=0.76; P=0.45) were comparable between both techniques. Furthermore, post-operative complications (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.65-1.54; z=0.02; P=0.99), post-operative mortality, surgical site infection rate (RR, 3.00; 95% CI, 0.13-70.92; z=0.68; P=0.50), anastomotic leak rate (RR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.11-1.63; z=1.24; P=0.21), conversion rate (P=0.13) and re-operation rate (P=0.43) were also statistically similar following SILS and MILS.

CONCLUSIONS

SILS failed to demonstrate any superiority over MILS for colorectal resections in all post-operative surgical outcomes.

摘要

背景

本文的目的是评估接受单切口腹腔镜手术(SILS)与传统多切口腹腔镜手术(MILS)进行结直肠切除术患者的手术结果。

方法

使用荟萃分析原则,对已发表的随机对照试验(RCT)中检索到的关于接受SILS与MILS进行结直肠切除术患者手术结果的数据进行分析。二分数据的合并结果表示为风险比(RR),连续数据表示为标准化均值差(SMD)。

结果

五项涉及525例患者的RCT报告了采用SILS与MILS技术进行的结直肠切除术。使用统计软件Review Manager 5.3进行的随机效应模型分析显示,两种技术在手术时间(SMD,0.20;95%CI,-0.11至0.52;z=1.28;P=0.20)、住院时间(SMD,-0.18;95%CI,-0.51至0.14;z=1.10;P=0.27)和淋巴结清扫(SMD,0.09;95%CI,-0.14至0.33;z=0.76;P=0.45)方面具有可比性。此外,SILS和MILS术后并发症(RR,1.00;95%CI,0.65 - 1.54;z=0.02;P=0.99)、术后死亡率、手术部位感染率(RR,3.00;95%CI,0.13 - 70.92;z=0.68;P=0.50)、吻合口漏率(RR,0.43;95%CI,0.11 - 1.63;z=1.24;P=0.21)、中转率(P=0.13)和再次手术率(P=0.43)在统计学上也相似。

结论

在所有术后手术结果方面,SILS在结直肠切除术中未显示出优于MILS的任何优势。

相似文献

6
Single incision laparoscopic colectomy for colorectal cancer: comparison with conventional laparoscopic colectomy.
Ann Surg Treat Res. 2014 Sep;87(3):131-8. doi: 10.4174/astr.2014.87.3.131. Epub 2014 Aug 26.
7
Single incision laparoscopy versus conventional multiport laparoscopy for colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2023 Nov;105(8):709-720. doi: 10.1308/rcsann.2022.0132. Epub 2023 Oct 16.
10
Robotic total meso-rectal excision for rectal cancer: A systematic review following the publication of the ROLARR trial.
World J Gastrointest Oncol. 2018 Nov 15;10(11):449-464. doi: 10.4251/wjgo.v10.i11.449.

引用本文的文献

1
Single-port laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy.
Surg Endosc. 2023 Feb;37(2):1166-1172. doi: 10.1007/s00464-022-09618-8. Epub 2022 Sep 23.
2
Analogies between medusa and single port surgery in gastroenterology and hepatology: A review.
World J Gastroenterol. 2021 Dec 21;27(47):8058-8068. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v27.i47.8058.

本文引用的文献

1
Multicenter, randomized single-port versus multiport laparoscopic surgery (SIMPLE) trial in colon cancer: an interim analysis.
Surg Endosc. 2018 Mar;32(3):1540-1549. doi: 10.1007/s00464-017-5842-0. Epub 2017 Sep 15.
2
Single-incision laparoscopy versus standard laparoscopy for colorectal surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Am J Surg. 2017 Jul;214(1):127-140. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2017.03.002. Epub 2017 Mar 14.
3
5
Randomized clinical trial of single-incision versus multiport laparoscopic colectomy.
Br J Surg. 2016 Sep;103(10):1276-81. doi: 10.1002/bjs.10212. Epub 2016 Aug 10.
6
Cancer statistics, 2016.
CA Cancer J Clin. 2016 Jan-Feb;66(1):7-30. doi: 10.3322/caac.21332. Epub 2016 Jan 7.
7
Single-port Colectomy VS Multi-port Laparoscopic Colectomy. Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of More Than 2800 Procedures.
Cir Esp. 2015 May;93(5):307-19. doi: 10.1016/j.ciresp.2014.11.009. Epub 2015 Feb 14.
9
Meta-analysis of randomized trials on single-incision laparoscopic versus conventional laparoscopic appendectomy.
Am J Surg. 2014 Apr;207(4):613-22. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2013.07.045. Epub 2013 Nov 9.
10
Single incision laparoscopic right colectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Colorectal Dis. 2014 Apr;16(4):O123-32. doi: 10.1111/codi.12526.

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