• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

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

机器人辅助前列腺根治术后盆腔引流管置入的系统评价和荟萃分析。

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Pelvic Drain Insertion After Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy.

机构信息

Nepean Urology Research Group, Nepean Hospital, Kingswood, Australia.

Faculty of Medicine, University of Queensland, Queensland, Australia.

出版信息

J Endourol. 2020 Apr;34(4):401-408. doi: 10.1089/end.2019.0554. Epub 2020 Mar 23.

DOI:10.1089/end.2019.0554
PMID:32037859
Abstract

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis and to assess the clinical benefit of prophylactic pelvic drain (PD) placement after robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) with pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) in patients with localized prostate cancer. An electronic search of databases, including Scopus, Medline, and EMbase, was conducted for articles that considered postoperative outcomes with PD placement and without PD (no drain) placement after RALP. The primary outcome was rate of symptomatic lymphocele (requiring intervention) and secondary outcomes were complications as described by the Clavien-Dindo classification system. Quality assessment was performed using the Modified Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Quality Assessment. Six relevant articles comprising 1783 patients (PD = 1253; ND = 530) were included. Use of PD conferred no difference in symptomatic lymphocoele rate (risk difference 0.01; 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.007 to 0.027), with an overall incidence of 2.2% (95% CI 0.013-0.032). No difference in low-grade (I-II; risk difference 0.035, 95% CI -0.065 to 0.148) or high-grade (III-V; risk difference -0.003, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.044) complications was observed between PD and ND groups. Low-grade (I-II) complications were 11.8% (95% CI 0-0.42) and 7.3% (95% CI 0-0.26), with similar rates of high-grade (III-V) complications, being 4.1% (95% CI 0.008-0.084) and 4.3% (95% CI 0.007-0.067) for PD and ND groups, respectively. PD insertion after RALP with extended PLND did not confer significant benefits in prevention of symptomatic lymphocoele or postoperative complications. Based on these results, PD insertion may be safely omitted in uncomplicated cases after consideration of clinical factors.

摘要

进行系统评价和荟萃分析,评估在机器人辅助腹腔镜前列腺切除术(RALP)联合盆腔淋巴结清扫术(PLND)治疗局限性前列腺癌患者中预防性放置盆腔引流管(PD)的临床获益。对包括 Scopus、Medline 和 EMbase 在内的数据库进行电子检索,以获取考虑 PD 放置和不放置 PD(无引流)对 RALP 术后结局影响的文章。主要结局是有症状的淋巴囊肿(需要干预)的发生率,次要结局是根据 Clavien-Dindo 分类系统描述的并发症。使用改良 Cochrane 偏倚风险工具进行质量评估。共纳入 6 篇相关文章,共纳入 1783 例患者(PD=1253 例;ND=530 例)。使用 PD 并未降低有症状的淋巴囊肿发生率(风险差异 0.01;95%置信区间[CI] -0.007 至 0.027),总体发生率为 2.2%(95% CI 0.013 至 0.032)。PD 组和 ND 组之间在低级别(I-II;风险差异 0.035,95% CI -0.065 至 0.148)或高级别(III-V;风险差异 -0.003,95% CI -0.05 至 0.044)并发症方面无差异。低级别(I-II)并发症发生率分别为 11.8%(95% CI 0 至 0.42)和 7.3%(95% CI 0 至 0.26),高级别(III-V)并发症发生率相似,分别为 4.1%(95% CI 0.008 至 0.084)和 4.3%(95% CI 0.007 至 0.067)。RALP 联合广泛 PLND 后放置 PD 并不能显著预防有症状的淋巴囊肿或术后并发症。基于这些结果,在考虑临床因素后,在无并发症的情况下,PD 放置可安全省略。

相似文献

1
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Pelvic Drain Insertion After Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy.机器人辅助前列腺根治术后盆腔引流管置入的系统评价和荟萃分析。
J Endourol. 2020 Apr;34(4):401-408. doi: 10.1089/end.2019.0554. Epub 2020 Mar 23.
2
Prospective randomised non-inferiority trial of pelvic drain placement vs no pelvic drain placement after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术后盆腔引流管放置与不放置盆腔引流管的前瞻性随机非劣效性试验
BJU Int. 2018 Mar;121(3):357-364. doi: 10.1111/bju.14010. Epub 2017 Sep 22.
3
Examination of Necessity for Pelvic Drain Placement After Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy.机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术后盆腔引流放置的必要性检查。
In Vivo. 2021 Sep-Oct;35(5):2895-2899. doi: 10.21873/invivo.12579.
4
Pelvic lymph node dissection during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: efficacy, limitations, and complications-a systematic review of the literature.机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术时的盆腔淋巴结清扫术:疗效、局限性和并发症——文献系统评价。
Eur Urol. 2014 Jan;65(1):7-16. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.03.057. Epub 2013 Apr 6.
5
Impact of Peritoneal Interposition Flap on Patients Undergoing Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy and Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.腹膜间置瓣对机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术和盆腔淋巴结清扫术患者的影响:随机对照试验的系统评价和荟萃分析。
Eur Urol Focus. 2024 Jan;10(1):80-89. doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2023.07.007. Epub 2023 Aug 3.
6
Robot-Assisted Treatment of Symptomatic Lymphocele Postradical Prostatectomy and Lymphadenectomy in the Era or Robotic Surgery: .机器人辅助治疗根治性前列腺切除术和淋巴结清扫术后症状性淋巴囊肿:机器人手术时代的一项研究。
Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2023 Jan-Dec;22:15330338221145248. doi: 10.1177/15330338221145248.
7
Utilization of a Peritoneal Interposition Flap to Prevent Symptomatic Lymphoceles After Robotic Radical Prostatectomy and Bilateral Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection.利用腹膜间置瓣预防机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术和双侧盆腔淋巴结清扫术后症状性淋巴囊肿。
J Endourol. 2020 Aug;34(8):821-827. doi: 10.1089/end.2020.0073. Epub 2020 May 13.
8
Prospective Randomized Trial Comparing Titanium Clips to Bipolar Coagulation in Sealing Lymphatic Vessels During Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection at the Time of Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy.前瞻性随机对照试验比较了在机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术中,钛夹与双极电凝在结扎淋巴结时封闭淋巴管的效果。
Eur Urol. 2017 Feb;71(2):155-158. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.006. Epub 2016 Aug 17.
9
Is a Drain Needed After Robotic Radical Prostatectomy With or Without Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection? Results of a Single-Center Randomized Clinical Trial.机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术是否需要引流?有无盆腔淋巴结清扫的单中心随机临床试验结果。
J Endourol. 2021 Jun;35(6):922-928. doi: 10.1089/end.2018.0176. Epub 2019 Jul 31.
10
The efficacy of peritoneal flap fixation on symptomatic lymphocele formation following robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.机器人辅助腹腔镜根治性前列腺切除术加盆腔淋巴结清扫术后症状性淋巴囊肿形成中腹膜瓣固定的疗效:系统评价和荟萃分析。
Int J Surg. 2024 Feb 1;110(2):1172-1182. doi: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000000893.

引用本文的文献

1
Neurovascular bundle preservation improves postoperative continence recovery in robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy after neoadjuvant hormonal therapy in the treatment of locally advanced prostate cancer: results from a propensity score-matched analysis.在新辅助激素治疗后采用机器人辅助腹腔镜根治性前列腺切除术治疗局部晚期前列腺癌时,保留神经血管束可改善术后控尿功能的恢复:倾向评分匹配分析结果
World J Urol. 2025 Aug 31;43(1):520. doi: 10.1007/s00345-025-05794-z.
2
Essential Japanese Guidelines for the Prevention of Perioperative Infections in the Urological Field: 2023 Edition.《日本泌尿外科领域围手术期感染预防基本指南:2023年版》
Int J Urol. 2025 Jun;32(6):621-632. doi: 10.1111/iju.70026. Epub 2025 Mar 10.
3
Omission of intraoperative drain placement during robotic partial nephrectomy and robotic radical prostatectomy is safe: an analysis of 18,000 patients.
机器人辅助部分肾切除术和机器人根治性前列腺切除术时术中引流管放置的省略是安全的:一项 18000 例患者的分析。
World J Urol. 2024 Oct 29;42(1):601. doi: 10.1007/s00345-024-05320-7.
4
Pelvic drain placement after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: meta-analysis.机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术后盆腔引流管的放置:荟萃分析
BJS Open. 2023 Nov 1;7(6). doi: 10.1093/bjsopen/zrad143.
5
American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status system predicts the risk of postoperative Clavien-Dindo complications greater than one at 90 days after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: final results of a tertiary referral center.美国麻醉医师学会(ASA)身体状况系统预测机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术后 90 天后发生 Clavien-Dindo 并发症≥1 级的风险:来自三级转诊中心的最终结果。
J Robot Surg. 2023 Jun;17(3):987-993. doi: 10.1007/s11701-022-01505-7. Epub 2022 Nov 27.
6
The Impact of intra-abdominal Pressure on Perioperative Outcomes in Robotic-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.腹内压对机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术围手术期结局的影响:一项随机对照试验的系统评价和网状Meta分析
J Oncol. 2022 Nov 14;2022:4974027. doi: 10.1155/2022/4974027. eCollection 2022.
7
Examination of Necessity for Pelvic Drain Placement After Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy.机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术后盆腔引流放置的必要性检查。
In Vivo. 2021 Sep-Oct;35(5):2895-2899. doi: 10.21873/invivo.12579.