Hebbar Madhusoodhana, Riaz Waleed, Sains Parv, Baig Mirza Khurrum, Sajid Muhammad Shafique
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.
Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 May 29;3:30. doi: 10.21037/tgh.2018.05.05. eCollection 2018.
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.
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).
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.
SILS failed to demonstrate any superiority over MILS for colorectal resections in all post-operative surgical outcomes.
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。
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)。
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。
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。