Suppr超能文献

腹腔镜下保留神经的根治性子宫切除术治疗宫颈癌:随机对照试验的荟萃分析。

Laparoscopic nerve‑sparing radical hysterectomy for the treatment of cervical cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

机构信息

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Heilongjiang University of Chinese Medicine, No. 26 Heping Road, Xiangfang District, Harbin City, 150040, Heilongjiang Province, China.

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Harbin Fifth Hospital, Harbin City, China.

出版信息

World J Surg Oncol. 2021 Oct 18;19(1):301. doi: 10.1186/s12957-021-02408-x.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The effects and safety of laparoscopic nerve‑sparing radical hysterectomy (LNSRH) and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) in cervical cancer treatment remain unclear. This article aims to evaluate the role of LNSRH versus LRH in the treatment of cervical cancer. This is because the updated meta-analysis with synthesized data may provide more reliable evidence on the role of LNSRH and LRH.

METHODS

We searched Pubmed et al. databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving laparoscopic nerve‑sparing radical hysterectomy (LNSRH) and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) for cervical cancer treatment from the inception of databases to June 15, 2021. The RevMan 5.3 software was used for data analyses. This meta-analysis protocol had been registered online (available at: https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2021-9-0047/ ).

RESULTS

Thirteen RCTs involving a total of 1002 cervical cancer patients were included. Synthesized results indicated that the duration of surgery of the LNSRH group was significantly longer than that of the LRH group [SMD 1.11, 95% CI (0.15 ~ 2.07), P = 0.02]. The time to intestinal function recovery [SMD -1.27, 95% CI (-1.84 ~ -0.69), P < 0.001] and the time to postoperative urinary catheter removal of the LNSRH group [SMD -1.24, 95% CI (-1.62 ~ -0.86), P < 0.001] were significantly less than that of the LRH group. There were no significant differences in the estimated blood loss [SMD 0.10, 95% CI (-0.14 ~ 0.34), P = 0.41], the length of parauterine tissue resection [SMD -0.10, 95% CI (-0.25 ~ 0.05), P = 0.19], length of vaginal excision [SMD 0.04, 95% CI (-0.26 ~ 0.34), P = 0.78], and incidence of intraoperative adverse events [RR 0.97, 95% CI (0.44 ~ 2.13), P = 0.94] between the LNSRH group and the LRH group.

CONCLUSIONS

LNSRH significantly results in earlier bladder and bowel function after surgery. Limited by sample size, LNSRH should be considered with caution in the future.

摘要

背景

腹腔镜下保留神经的根治性子宫切除术(LNSRH)和腹腔镜根治性子宫切除术(LRH)在宫颈癌治疗中的疗效和安全性仍不清楚。本文旨在评估 LNSRH 与 LRH 在宫颈癌治疗中的作用。这是因为更新的荟萃分析综合数据可能会为 LNSRH 和 LRH 的作用提供更可靠的证据。

方法

我们检索了从数据库创建到 2021 年 6 月 15 日的 Pubmed 等数据库中涉及腹腔镜下保留神经的根治性子宫切除术(LNSRH)和腹腔镜根治性子宫切除术(LRH)治疗宫颈癌的随机对照试验(RCT)。使用 RevMan 5.3 软件进行数据分析。本荟萃分析方案已在网上注册(可在:https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2021-9-0047/ )。

结果

共纳入 13 项 RCT,共纳入 1002 例宫颈癌患者。综合结果表明,LNSRH 组的手术时间明显长于 LRH 组[SMD 1.11,95%CI(0.152.07),P=0.02]。LNSRH 组肠功能恢复时间[SMD-1.27,95%CI(-1.84-0.69),P<0.001]和术后导尿管拔除时间[SMD-1.24,95%CI(-1.62-0.86),P<0.001]明显短于 LRH 组。两组估计出血量[SMD 0.10,95%CI(-0.140.34),P=0.41]、宫旁组织切除长度[SMD-0.10,95%CI(-0.250.05),P=0.19]、阴道切除长度[SMD 0.04,95%CI(-0.260.34),P=0.78]和术中不良事件发生率[RR 0.97,95%CI(0.44~2.13),P=0.94]差异均无统计学意义。

结论

LNSRH 可显著改善术后膀胱和肠道功能。受样本量限制,未来应谨慎考虑 LNSRH。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/97d5/8522166/a3571428d6b3/12957_2021_2408_Fig1_HTML.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