Suppr超能文献

机器人与腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补术比较:更新的系统评价和荟萃分析。

Robotic versus laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

机构信息

Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences (DIMEC), University of Bologna, Forlì, Italy.

General and Oncologic Surgery, Morgagni-Pierantoni Hospital, Via Forlanini 34, Forlì, FC, Italy.

出版信息

J Robot Surg. 2022 Aug;16(4):775-781. doi: 10.1007/s11701-021-01312-6. Epub 2021 Oct 5.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to review the latest evidence on the robotic approach (RHR) for inguinal hernia repair comparing the pooled outcome of this technique with those of the standard laparoscopic procedure (LHR). A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus for studies published between 2010 and 2021 concerning the comparison between RHR versus LHR. After screening 582 articles, 9 articles with a total of 64,426 patients (7589 RHRs) were eligible for inclusion. Among preoperative variables, a pooled higher ratio of ASA > 2 patients was found in the robotic group (12.4 vs 8.6%, p < 0.001). Unilateral hernia repair was more common in the laparoscopic group (79.9 vs 68.1, p < 0.001). Overall, operative time was longer in the robotic group (160 vs 90 min, p < 0.001); this was confirmed also in the sub-analysis on unilateral procedures (88 vs 68 min, p = 0.040). The operative time for robotic bilateral repair was similar to the laparoscopic one (111 vs 100, p = 0.797). Conversion to open surgery was 0% in the robotic group. The pooled rate of chronic pain and postoperative complications was similar between the groups. The standardized mean difference MD of the costs between LHR versus RHR was - 3270$ (95% CI - 4757 to - 1782, p < 0.001). In conclusion, laparoscopic and robotic inguinal hernia repair have similar safety parameters and postoperative outcomes. Robotic approach may require longer operative time if the unilateral repair is performed. Costs are higher in the robotic group.

摘要

本研究旨在回顾机器人腹股沟疝修补术(RHR)的最新证据,比较该技术与标准腹腔镜手术(LHR)的汇总结果。在 PubMed、Web of Science 和 Scopus 中进行了系统的文献检索,以检索 2010 年至 2021 年间比较 RHR 与 LHR 的研究。在筛选了 582 篇文章后,有 9 篇文章共 64426 例患者(7589 例 RHR)符合纳入标准。在术前变量中,机器人组的 ASA > 2 患者比例较高(12.4%比 8.6%,p < 0.001)。腹腔镜组更常见单侧疝修补术(79.9%比 68.1%,p < 0.001)。总体而言,机器人组的手术时间较长(160 分钟比 90 分钟,p < 0.001);在单侧手术的亚分析中也得到了证实(88 分钟比 68 分钟,p = 0.040)。机器人双侧修复的手术时间与腹腔镜相似(111 分钟比 100 分钟,p = 0.797)。机器人组无中转开放手术。两组慢性疼痛和术后并发症的发生率相似。LHR 与 RHR 的成本标准化均数差 MD 为 -3270 美元(95%CI -4757 至 -1782,p < 0.001)。总之,腹腔镜和机器人腹股沟疝修补术具有相似的安全参数和术后结果。如果进行单侧修复,机器人方法可能需要更长的手术时间。机器人组的成本更高。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0a96/9314304/89b858370191/11701_2021_1312_Fig1_HTML.jpg

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