Department of Neurosurgery, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, 637000, China.
Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, 637000, China.
J Robot Surg. 2024 Aug 21;18(1):326. doi: 10.1007/s11701-024-02074-7.
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the perioperative and short-term results of the Robot of Stereotactic Assistance (ROSA) compared to traditional approaches in individuals with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). We will perform a comprehensive computerized search of PubMed, CNKI, Embase, and Google Scholar to identify relevant literature on ROSA vs. conventional therapy for intracerebral hemorrhage, covering publications from the inception of each database until July 2024. This study will include both English and Chinese language studies. Literature screening will adhere strictly to inclusion and exclusion criteria, focusing on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies. The ROBINS-I tool is utilized for evaluating bias risk in non-RCTs. Analysis of the data from the studies included will be conducted with Review Manager 5.4.1. The final analysis included 7 retrospective cohort studies and 1 randomized controlled study, involving a total of 844 patients. Among these, 433 patients underwent ROSA, while 411 received conventional treatment (conservative treatment, conventional craniotomy, or stereotactic frame-assisted surgery). Compared to conventional therapy, patients treated with ROSA showed improvements in operative time, postoperative rebleeding, postoperative extubation time, and intracranial infection. Nonetheless, there was no notable contrast in mortality or central hyperthermia outcomes between the two treatments. ROSA is a safe and viable option for treating patients with cerebral hemorrhage, showing significant advantages in terms of surgery duration, postoperative rebleeding, time to remove the breathing tube, and intracranial infection compared to conservative treatment, traditional craniotomy, or stereotactic surgery.
本系统评价和荟萃分析的目的是评估机器人辅助定向手术（ROSA）与传统方法在脑出血（ICH）患者中的围手术期和短期结果。我们将全面检索 PubMed、CNKI、Embase 和 Google Scholar，以确定关于 ROSA 与传统ICH 治疗方法的相关文献，涵盖每个数据库创建以来至 2024 年 7 月的出版物。本研究将包括英文和中文文献。文献筛选将严格遵循纳入和排除标准，重点关注随机对照试验（RCT）和队列研究。非 RCT 采用 ROBINS-I 工具评估偏倚风险。使用 Review Manager 5.4.1 对纳入研究的数据进行分析。最终分析纳入了 7 项回顾性队列研究和 1 项随机对照研究，共涉及 844 名患者。其中，433 例患者接受了 ROSA 治疗，411 例患者接受了常规治疗（保守治疗、传统开颅术或立体定向框架辅助手术）。与常规治疗相比，ROSA 治疗组的手术时间、术后再出血、术后拔管时间和颅内感染均有所改善。然而，两种治疗方法在死亡率或中枢性高热结局方面没有显著差异。ROSAS 是治疗脑出血患者的一种安全可行的选择，与保守治疗、传统开颅术或立体定向手术相比，在手术持续时间、术后再出血、拔管时间和颅内感染方面具有显著优势。
