Department of Clinical Medcine and Surgery, Federico II University, Naples, Italy.
Division of Gastroenterology, Department of GI Physiology, University College London Hospitals, London, England, UK.
Dis Esophagus. 2019 Dec 13;32(10):1-8. doi: 10.1093/dote/doz062.
Minimally invasive Heller myotomy is considered the gold standard surgical approach for symptomatic achalasia because it is a safe and effective procedure. Over the last years, several studies comparing the laparoscopic and robotic approach for Heller myotomy have been published. Although the robotic approach appears to have some advantages over standard laparoscopy, data on this topic are still controversial and no definite conclusions have been drawn. This metanalysis has been designed to systematically evaluate and compare the effectiveness and safety of the robot-assisted Heller myotomy as compared to the standard laparoscopic approach. According to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a systematic search on both laparoscopic and robotic Heller myotomy was performed in all the major electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE), using the following search string: (achalasia OR Dor) AND robotic. Six articles were included in the final analysis. A metaregression analysis was performed to assess the possible effects of demographic variables (age, gender, body mass indes (BMI)) and previous abdominal surgery or endoscopic intervention on the analyzed outcomes. No statistical difference was observed in operative times (mean difference (MD) = 20.79, P = 0.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) -10.05,51,62), estimated blood loss (MD = -17.10, P = 0.13, 95% CI -40.48,5.08), conversion rate to open surgery (risk difference (RD) = -0.01, P = 0.33, 95% CI -0.05,0.02), length of hospital stay (MD = -0.73, P = 0.15, 95% CI -1.71,0.25) and long-term recurrence (odds ratio (OR) = 0.59, P = 0.45, 95% CI 0.15,2.33). On the contrary, the robotic approach was found to be associated with a significantly significant lower rate of intraoperative esophageal perforations (OR = 0.13, P < 0.001, 95% CI 0.04, 0.45). Our results suggest that the robotic approach is safer than the laparoscopic Heller myotomy, encouraging the use of robot-assisted surgery. However, our analysis is limited because of the exiguous number of comparative studies and because most of the included studies were statistically underpowered, given the small sample size. Moreover, a high degree of heterogeneity was observed in most of published studies. Taking in consideration the additional costs of robot-assisted procedures, larger Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) are advocated to confirm the safety and effectiveness of the robotic approach, and its advantages over standard laparoscopic surgery. In conclusion, well-designed prospective trials and RCTs with homogeneous parameters are needed to draw definitive conclusions about the best surgical approach to pursue in treating symptomatic achalasia.
微创 Heller 肌切开术被认为是治疗症状性贲门失弛缓症的金标准手术方法,因为它是一种安全有效的方法。在过去的几年中,已经发表了许多比较腹腔镜和机器人 Heller 肌切开术的研究。虽然机器人方法似乎比标准腹腔镜具有一些优势,但关于这个主题的数据仍然存在争议,没有得出明确的结论。本荟萃分析旨在系统评估和比较机器人辅助 Heller 肌切开术与标准腹腔镜方法的有效性和安全性。根据系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南,在所有主要的电子数据库(PubMed、Web of Science、Scopus、EMBASE)中对腹腔镜和机器人 Heller 肌切开术进行了系统搜索,使用以下搜索字符串:(贲门失弛缓症或 Dor)和机器人。最终分析纳入了 6 篇文章。进行了荟萃回归分析,以评估人口统计学变量(年龄、性别、体重指数(BMI))和先前的腹部手术或内镜干预对分析结果的可能影响。手术时间无统计学差异(平均差异(MD)=20.79,P=0.19,95%置信区间(CI)-10.05,51.62),估计出血量(MD=-17.10,P=0.13,95%CI-40.48,5.08),转为开放性手术的转化率(风险差异(RD)=-0.01,P=0.33,95%CI-0.05,0.02),住院时间(MD=-0.73,P=0.15,95%CI-1.71,0.25)和长期复发(比值比(OR)=0.59,P=0.45,95%CI 0.15,2.33)。相反,机器人方法与术中食管穿孔的发生率显著降低相关(OR=0.13,P<0.001,95%CI 0.04,0.45)。我们的结果表明,机器人方法比腹腔镜 Heller 肌切开术更安全,鼓励使用机器人辅助手术。然而,由于比较研究的数量较少,并且由于大多数纳入的研究由于样本量较小,因此在统计学上没有足够的效力,我们的分析受到限制。此外,大多数已发表的研究中观察到高度异质性。考虑到机器人辅助手术的额外成本,提倡进行更大规模的随机对照试验(RCT),以确认机器人方法的安全性和有效性,以及其相对于标准腹腔镜手术的优势。总之,需要设计良好的前瞻性试验和 RCT,并使用同质参数,以得出关于治疗症状性贲门失弛缓症的最佳手术方法的明确结论。