Suppr超能文献

手术方式对中低位直肠癌手术切除质量的影响:一项贝叶斯网络荟萃分析

Impact of Surgical Approach on Surgical Resection Quality in Mid- and Low Rectal Cancer, A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis.

作者信息

Wang Xiaojie, Zheng Zhifang, Yu Qian, Ghareeb Waleed M, Lu Xingrong, Huang Ying, Huang Shenghui, Lin Shuangming, Chi Pan

机构信息

Department of Colorectal Surgery, Union Hospital, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.

Department of Pathology, Union Hospital, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.

出版信息

Front Oncol. 2021 Aug 11;11:699200. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.699200. eCollection 2021.

Abstract

AIM

To evaluate the evidence concerning the quality of surgical resection in laparoscopic (LapTME), robotic (RobTME) and transanal (TaTME) total mesorectal excision for mid-/low rectal cancer.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases was performed. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was utilized to compare surgical resection involved in these 3 surgical techniques by using ADDIS software. Rates of positive circumferential resection margins (CRMs) were the primary endpoint.

RESULTS

A total of 34 articles, 2 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and 32 non-RCTs, were included in this meta-analysis. Pooled data showed CRM positivity in 114 of 1763 LapTME procedures (6.5%), 54 of 1051 RobTME procedures (5.1%) and 60 of 1276 TaTME procedures (4.7%). There was no statistically significant difference among these 3 surgical approaches in terms of CRM involvement rates and all other surgical resection quality outcomes. The incomplete mesorectal excision rates were 9.6% (69/720) in the LapTME group, 1.9% (11/584) in the RobTME group and 5.6% (45/797) in the TaTME group. Pooled network analysis observed a higher but not statistically significant risk of incomplete mesorectum when comparing both LapTME with RobTME (OR = 1.99; 95% CI = 0.48-11.17) and LapTME with TaTME (OR = 1.90; 95% CI = 0.99-5.25). By comparison, RobTME was most likely to be ranked the best or second best in terms of CRM involvement, complete mesorectal excision, rate of distal resection margin (DRM) involvement and length of DRMs. In addition, RobTME achieved a greater mean tumor distance to the CRM than TaTME. It is worth noting that TaTME was most likely to be ranked the worst in terms of CRM involvement for intersphincteric resection of low rectal cancer.

CONCLUSION

Overall, RobTME was most likely to be ranked the best in terms of the quality of surgical resection for the treatment of mid-/low rectal cancer. TaTME should be performed with caution in the treatment of low rectal cancer.

摘要

目的

评估腹腔镜全直肠系膜切除术(LapTME)、机器人辅助全直肠系膜切除术(RobTME)及经肛门全直肠系膜切除术(TaTME)治疗中低位直肠癌时手术切除质量的相关证据。

方法

对PubMed、EMBASE及Cochrane对照试验中心注册库数据库进行系统文献检索。采用贝叶斯网络荟萃分析,运用ADDIS软件比较这三种手术技术的手术切除情况。环周切缘阳性(CRM)率为主要终点指标。

结果

本荟萃分析共纳入34篇文章,其中2篇随机对照试验(RCT)和32篇非RCT。汇总数据显示,1763例LapTME手术中有114例CRM阳性(6.5%),1051例RobTME手术中有54例CRM阳性(5.1%),1276例TaTME手术中有60例CRM阳性(4.7%)。这三种手术方式在CRM累及率及所有其他手术切除质量指标方面无统计学显著差异。LapTME组的直肠系膜切除不完整率为9.6%(69/720),RobTME组为1.9%(11/584),TaTME组为5.6%(45/797)。汇总网络分析显示,LapTME与RobTME比较(OR = 1.99;95%CI = 0.48 - 11.17)以及LapTME与TaTME比较(OR = 1.90;95%CI = 0.99 - 5.25)时,直肠系膜切除不完整的风险较高,但无统计学显著差异。相比之下,在CRM累及、直肠系膜完整切除、远切缘(DRM)累及率及DRM长度方面,RobTME最有可能排名最佳或次佳。此外,RobTME的平均肿瘤距CRM距离比TaTME更大。值得注意的是,对于低位直肠癌的括约肌间切除,TaTME在CRM累及方面最有可能排名最差。

结论

总体而言,在治疗中低位直肠癌的手术切除质量方面,RobTME最有可能排名最佳。TaTME在低位直肠癌治疗中应谨慎施行。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d059/8385749/072347e345e1/fonc-11-699200-g001.jpg

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