Department of General and Specialistic Surgery, Federico II University of Naples, Via Sergio Pansini, 5, 80131, Naples, Italy.
Department of General and Specialistic Surgery, Federico II University of Naples, Via Sergio Pansini, 5, 80131, Naples, Italy.
J Visc Surg. 2019 Sep;156(4):305-318. doi: 10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2019.01.004. Epub 2019 Feb 6.
To perform a systematic review and meta-analyses of studies comparing the totally laparoscopic procedures with intracorporeal anastomosis (IA) to laparoscopic-assisted surgery with extracorporeal anastomosis (EA) in gastric resections.
We performed a systematic search in the electronic databases. Outcomes analysed were: intraoperative (operative time and intraoperative blood loss), oncologic (harvested nodes, distance of the tumour from proximal and distal margin), postoperative complications (gastric stasis, intraluminal and extraluminal bleeding, leakage and wound infection) recovery (time to first flatus, time to first oral intake and hospital stay). We performed meta-regression analyses after implementing a regression model with the analysed outcomes as dependent variables (y) and the demographic and pathologic covariates as independent variables (x).
A total of 26 studies (20 on distal gastrectomy and 6 on total gastrectomy) were included in the final analysis. Regarding distal gastrectomy, there was no statistical difference between the two groups in the above-mentioned outcomes, except for intraoperative blood loss (less in IA group, P=0.003), number of harvested nodes (better in the IA group, P=0.022) and length of hospital stay (shorter in the IA group, P=0.037). Regarding total gastrectomy, there was no statistical difference for all outcomes, except for the distal margin (further in the EA group, P=0.040). Meta-regression analysis showed that a lot of variables influenced results in distal gastric resections, but not in total gastric resections.
We can state laparoscopic gastric resections with IA are safe and feasible when performed by expert surgeons. However, new well-designed studies comparing the two techniques are needed to confirm the benefits of laparoscopic IA.
系统评价和荟萃分析比较全腹腔镜手术与腔内吻合术(IA)和腹腔镜辅助手术与腔外吻合术(EA)在胃切除术中的研究。
我们在电子数据库中进行了系统搜索。分析的结果是:术中(手术时间和术中出血量)、肿瘤学(采集的淋巴结、肿瘤距近端和远端切缘的距离)、术后并发症(胃排空障碍、腔内和腔外出血、漏出和伤口感染)恢复(首次排气时间、首次口服摄入时间和住院时间)。我们使用回归模型,将分析结果作为因变量(y),将人口统计学和病理协变量作为自变量(x),进行元回归分析。
共有 26 项研究(20 项远端胃切除术和 6 项全胃切除术)被纳入最终分析。对于远端胃切除术,两组在上述结果中没有统计学差异,除了术中出血量(IA 组较少,P=0.003)、采集的淋巴结数量(IA 组更好,P=0.022)和住院时间(IA 组较短,P=0.037)。对于全胃切除术,除了远端切缘(EA 组更远,P=0.040)外,所有结果均无统计学差异。元回归分析表明,许多变量影响远端胃切除术的结果,但不影响全胃切除术的结果。
我们可以说,由专家外科医生进行的腹腔镜胃切除术中 IA 是安全可行的。然而,需要新的设计良好的研究来比较这两种技术,以确认腹腔镜 IA 的益处。