Suppr超能文献

腹腔镜全结肠系膜切除术与非全结肠系膜切除术:系统评价与荟萃分析

Laparoscopic Complete Mesocolic Excision Versus Noncomplete Mesocolic Excision: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

作者信息

Dai Qiaoqiong, Tu Shiliang, Dong Quanjin, Chen Bingchen

机构信息

The Surgical Department of Coloproctology, Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, China.

出版信息

Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2020 Aug 5;31(1):96-103. doi: 10.1097/SLE.0000000000000845.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Complete mesocolic excision (CME) emphasizes sharp dissection along the mesocolon plane and ligation of the supplying vessels at their origin. Although laparoscopic CME is reported to be feasible and safe, the benefit of laparoscopic CME over noncomplete mesocolic excision (NCME) remains unclear. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the safety, quality, and effect of laparoscopic CME with NCME.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search with no limits was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science on March 27, 2020. Studies comparing laparoscopic CME with NCME were enrolled. Outcomes of interests included intraoperative, pathologic, postoperative, and survival outcomes.

RESULTS

Seven studies (5 articles and 2 conference abstracts) published between 2015 and 2020 with a total of 1595 patients (742 by CME and 853 by NCME) were enrolled. Compared with NCME, laparoscopic CME was associated with less intraoperative blood loss [P<0.001, weighted mean difference (WMD)=-12.01, 95% confidence interval (CI): -13.56 to -10.45, I2=44%], more harvested lymph nodes (P<0.001, WMD=6.50, 95% CI: 3.57-9.42, I2=89%), longer length of specimens (P=0.004, WMD=3.57, 95% CI: 1.12-6.03, I2=93%), longer distance from tumor to high tie (P<0.001, WMD=1.36, 95% CI: 0.87-1.85, I2=76%), and longer distance from nearest bowel wall to high tie (P<0.001, WMD=1.36, 95% CI: 0.87-1.85, I2=85%). No differences were observed in terms of operative time, postoperative complications, wound infection, ileus, proximal, and distal resection margin or disease-free survival between 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The currently limited evidences suggest that laparoscopic CME can slightly decrease intraoperative blood loss and improve specimen quality, but its safety and survival benefits need to be further studied. High-quality evidences are needed before laparoscopic CME can be recommended as the standard procedure for colon cancer surgery.

摘要

背景

完整结肠系膜切除术(CME)强调沿结肠系膜平面进行锐性分离,并在供应血管的起始处进行结扎。尽管有报道称腹腔镜CME是可行且安全的,但与非完整结肠系膜切除术(NCME)相比,腹腔镜CME的优势仍不明确。本荟萃分析旨在比较腹腔镜CME与NCME的安全性、质量和效果。

材料与方法

2020年3月27日在PubMed、Embase和Web of Science上进行了无限制的系统文献检索。纳入比较腹腔镜CME与NCME的研究。感兴趣的结果包括术中、病理、术后和生存结果。

结果

纳入了2015年至2020年间发表的7项研究(5篇文章和2篇会议摘要),共1595例患者(CME组742例,NCME组853例)。与NCME相比,腹腔镜CME术中失血更少[P<0.001,加权平均差(WMD)=-12.01,95%置信区间(CI):-13.56至-10.45,I2=44%],获取的淋巴结更多(P<0.001,WMD=6.50,95%CI:3.57-9.42,I2=89%),标本长度更长(P=0.004,WMD=3.57,95%CI:1.12-6.03,I2=93%),肿瘤至高位结扎的距离更长(P<0.001,WMD=1.36,95%CI:0.87-1.85,I2=76%),最近肠壁至高位结扎的距离更长(P<0.001,WMD=1.36,95%CI:0.87-1.85,I2=85%)。两组在手术时间、术后并发症、伤口感染、肠梗阻、近端和远端切缘或无病生存期方面未观察到差异。

结论

目前有限的证据表明,腹腔镜CME可略微减少术中失血并提高标本质量,但其安全性和生存获益有待进一步研究。在腹腔镜CME被推荐作为结肠癌手术的标准术式之前,需要高质量的证据。

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