Suppr超能文献

微创右半结肠切除术后的体内或体外吻合:一项系统评价和荟萃分析。

Intracorporeal or extracorporeal anastomosis after minimally invasive right colectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

作者信息

Squillaro A I, Kohn J, Weaver L, Yankovsky A, Milky G, Patel N, Kreaden U S, Gaertner W B

机构信息

Department of Surgery, University of Minnesota, 420 Delaware St. S.E., Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA.

Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, University of Minnesota, Mayo Mail Code 450, 420 Delaware St. S.E., Minneapolis, MN, 55455-0341, USA.

出版信息

Tech Coloproctol. 2023 Nov;27(11):1007-1016. doi: 10.1007/s10151-023-02850-x. Epub 2023 Aug 10.

Abstract

PURPOSE

As part of the wide adoption of minimally invasive surgery, intracorporeal anastomosis is becoming increasingly common. The benefits of minimally invasive versus open right colectomy are well known although the additional benefits of an intracorporeal anastomosis, performed laparoscopically or robotically, are unclear. The aim of this study was to assess the current literature comparing intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomosis in the setting of laparoscopic and robotic-assisted right colectomy.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to PRISMA and AMSTAR methods. Studies included were randomized controlled trials and prospective or retrospective cohort studies, between January 1 2010 and July 1 2021, comparing intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomosis with laparoscopic and robotic approaches. Four groups were identified: laparoscopic extracorporeal anastomosis (L-ECA), laparoscopic intracorporeal anastomosis (L-ICA), robotic extracorporeal anastomosis (R-ECA), and robotic intracorporeal anastomosis (R-ICA). Operative time, rate of conversion to an open procedure, surgical site infection, reoperation within 30 days, postoperative complications within 30 days, and length of hospital stay were assessed.

RESULTS

Twenty-one retrospective cohort studies were included in the final analysis. R-ICA and R-ECA had comparable operative times, but a robotic approach required more time than laparoscopic (68 min longer, p < 0.00001). Conversion to open surgery was 55% less likely in the R-ICA group vs. L-ICA, and up to 94% less likely in the R-ICA group in comparison to the R-ECA group. Length of hospital stay was shorter for R-ICA by a half day vs. R-ECA, and up to 1 day less vs. L-ECA. There were no differences in postoperative complications, reoperations, or surgical site infections, regardless of approach. However, the included studies all had high risks of bias due to confounding variables and patient selection.

CONCLUSION

Robotic-assisted right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis was associated with shorter length of hospitalization and decreased rate of conversion to open surgery, compared to either laparoscopic or extracorporeal robotic approaches. Prospective studies are needed to better understand the true impact of robotic approach and intracorporeal anastomosis in right colectomy.

摘要

目的

作为微创手术广泛应用的一部分,体内吻合术正变得越来越普遍。尽管通过腹腔镜或机器人进行的体内吻合术的额外益处尚不清楚,但微创手术与开放性右半结肠切除术相比的益处是众所周知的。本研究的目的是评估当前比较腹腔镜和机器人辅助右半结肠切除术中体内和体外吻合术的文献。

方法

根据PRISMA和AMSTAR方法进行系统评价和荟萃分析。纳入的研究为2010年1月1日至2021年7月1日期间比较腹腔镜和机器人手术中体内和体外吻合术的随机对照试验以及前瞻性或回顾性队列研究。确定了四组:腹腔镜体外吻合术(L-ECA)、腹腔镜体内吻合术(L-ICA)、机器人体外吻合术(R-ECA)和机器人体内吻合术(R-ICA)。评估了手术时间、转为开放手术的比例、手术部位感染、30天内再次手术、30天内术后并发症以及住院时间。

结果

最终分析纳入了21项回顾性队列研究。R-ICA和R-ECA的手术时间相当,但机器人手术比腹腔镜手术需要更多时间(长68分钟,p<0.00001)。与L-ICA相比,R-ICA组转为开放手术的可能性降低55%,与R-ECA组相比,R-ICA组降低多达94%。R-ICA的住院时间比R-ECA短半天,比L-ECA短多达1天。无论采用何种手术方式,术后并发症、再次手术或手术部位感染均无差异。然而,由于混杂变量和患者选择,纳入的研究均存在较高的偏倚风险。

结论

与腹腔镜或体外机器人手术方法相比,机器人辅助右半结肠切除术联合体内吻合术与较短的住院时间和较低的转为开放手术的比例相关。需要进行前瞻性研究以更好地了解机器人手术方法和体内吻合术在右半结肠切除术中的真正影响。

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