Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital and National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Ministry of Health Holdings Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Surg Endosc. 2024 Sep;38(9):4846-4857. doi: 10.1007/s00464-024-11162-6. Epub 2024 Aug 15.
Minimally invasive oncological resections have become increasingly widespread in the surgical management of cancers. However, the role of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for gallbladder cancer (GBC) remains unclear. We aim to perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis of existing literature to evaluate the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic and robotic surgery in the management of GBC compared to open surgery (OS) by comparing outcomes.
A literature search of the PubMed/MEDLINE (2000 to December 2021) and EMBASE (2000 to December 2021) databases was conducted. The primary outcome studied was overall survival, and secondary outcomes studied were postoperative morbidity, severe complications, incidence of bile leak, length of hospital stay, operation time, R0 resection rate, local recurrence and lymph node yield.
Thirty-two full-text articles met the eligibility criteria and were included in the final analysis with a total of 5883 patients undergoing either OS or MIS (laparoscopic or robotic) for GBC. 1- and 2-stage meta-analyses did not reveal any significant differences between OS, laparoscopic and robotic surgery in terms of overall survival, R0 resection, lymph node harvest, local recurrence and post-operative complications. Patients who underwent OS had significantly longer hospitalization stay and intra-operative blood loss compared to those who underwent laparoscopic or robotic surgery. Network meta-analysis did not reveal any significant differences between post-operative and survival outcomes of laparoscopic vs robotic surgery groups.
This network meta-analysis suggests that both laparoscopic and robotic surgery are safe and effective approaches in the surgical management of GBC, with post-operative and survival outcomes comparable to OS. An MIS approach may also lead to shorter hospitalization stay, less intraoperative blood loss and post-operative complications compared to OS. There was no obvious benefit of either MIS approach (laparoscopic versus robotic) over the other.
微创肿瘤切除术在癌症的外科治疗中已经越来越广泛。然而,微创手术(MIS)在胆囊癌(GBC)中的作用仍不清楚。我们旨在对现有文献进行系统评价和网络荟萃分析,以评估与开腹手术(OS)相比,腹腔镜和机器人手术在 GBC 管理中的安全性和可行性,通过比较结果。
对 PubMed/MEDLINE(2000 年至 2021 年 12 月)和 EMBASE(2000 年至 2021 年 12 月)数据库进行文献检索。主要研究结果是总生存率,次要研究结果是术后发病率、严重并发症、胆漏发生率、住院时间、手术时间、R0 切除率、局部复发和淋巴结产量。
32 篇全文文章符合纳入标准,并最终纳入分析,共 5883 例患者接受 OS 或 MIS(腹腔镜或机器人)治疗 GBC。1 期和 2 期荟萃分析未显示 OS、腹腔镜和机器人手术在总生存率、R0 切除、淋巴结采集、局部复发和术后并发症方面存在任何显著差异。与腹腔镜或机器人手术相比,接受 OS 的患者住院时间和术中出血量明显更长。网络荟萃分析未显示腹腔镜与机器人手术组之间术后和生存结果存在任何显著差异。
本网络荟萃分析表明,腹腔镜和机器人手术都是 GBC 外科治疗的安全有效方法,术后和生存结果与 OS 相当。与 OS 相比,MIS 方法还可能导致住院时间缩短、术中出血量减少和术后并发症减少。两种 MIS 方法(腹腔镜与机器人)之间没有明显的优势。