• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

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

机器人辅助腹腔镜与开放性根治性膀胱切除术治疗膀胱癌:系统评价和网络荟萃分析。

Robot-assisted, laparoscopic and open radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

机构信息

Department of Urology, Tianjin First Central Hospital, Tianjin, China.

出版信息

Int Braz J Urol. 2024 Nov-Dec;50(6):683-702. doi: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2024.0191.

DOI:10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2024.0191
PMID:39172861
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11554271/
Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC), laparoscopic radical cystectomy (LRC), and open radical cystectomy (ORC) in bladder cancer.

METHODS

A literature search for network meta-analysis was conducted using international databases up to February 29, 2024. Outcomes of interest included baseline characteristics, perioperative outcomes and oncological outcomes.

RESULTS

Forty articles were finally selected for inclusion in the network meta-analysis. Both LRC and RARC were associated with longer operative time, smaller amount of estimated blood loss, lower transfusion rate, shorter time to regular diet, fewer incidences of complications, and fewer positive surgical margin compared to ORC. LRC had a shorter time to flatus than ORC, while no difference between RARC and ORC was observed. Considering lymph node yield, there were no differences among LRC, RARC and ORC. In addition, there were statistically significant lower transfusion rates (OR=-0.15, 95% CI=-0.47 to 0.17), fewer overall complication rates (OR=-0.39, 95% CI=-0.79 to 0.00), fewer minor complication rates (OR=-0.23, 95% CI=-0.48 to 0.02), fewer major complication rates (OR=-0.23, 95% CI=-0.68 to 0.21), fewer positive surgical margin rates (OR=0.22, 95% CI=-0.27 to 0.68) in RARC group compared with LRC group.

CONCLUSION

LRC and RARC could be considered as a feasible and safe alternative to ORC for bladder cancer. Notably, compared with LRC, RARC may benefit from significantly lower transfusion rates, fewer complications and lower positive surgical margin rates. These data thus showed that RARC might improve the management of patients with muscle invasive or high-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer.

摘要

目的

评估机器人辅助根治性膀胱切除术(RARC)、腹腔镜根治性膀胱切除术(LRC)和开放性根治性膀胱切除术(ORC)治疗膀胱癌的安全性和有效性。

方法

截至 2024 年 2 月 29 日,我们对国际数据库进行了网络荟萃分析的文献检索。感兴趣的结局包括基线特征、围手术期结局和肿瘤学结局。

结果

最终有 40 篇文章被纳入网络荟萃分析。与 ORC 相比,LRC 和 RARC 的手术时间更长、估计失血量更少、输血率更低、恢复正常饮食时间更短、并发症发生率更低、切缘阳性率更低。与 ORC 相比,LRC 的肛门排气时间更短,而 RARC 与 ORC 之间无差异。考虑到淋巴结产量,LRC、RARC 和 ORC 之间没有差异。此外,RARC 组的输血率(OR=-0.15,95%CI=-0.47 至 0.17)、总并发症发生率(OR=-0.39,95%CI=-0.79 至 0.00)、轻微并发症发生率(OR=-0.23,95%CI=-0.48 至 0.02)、主要并发症发生率(OR=-0.23,95%CI=-0.68 至 0.21)、切缘阳性率(OR=0.22,95%CI=-0.27 至 0.68)均显著低于 LRC 组。

结论

LRC 和 RARC 可被视为膀胱癌的一种可行且安全的 ORC 替代方案。值得注意的是,与 LRC 相比,RARC 可能受益于显著更低的输血率、更少的并发症和更低的切缘阳性率。这些数据表明,RARC 可能改善肌层浸润性或高危非肌层浸润性膀胱癌患者的治疗管理。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/4da2/11554271/3baee0d42e85/1677-6119-ibju-50-06-0683-gf05.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/4da2/11554271/7b2b2a70fb5e/1677-6119-ibju-50-06-0683-gf02.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/4da2/11554271/3baee0d42e85/1677-6119-ibju-50-06-0683-gf05.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/4da2/11554271/7b2b2a70fb5e/1677-6119-ibju-50-06-0683-gf02.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/4da2/11554271/3baee0d42e85/1677-6119-ibju-50-06-0683-gf05.jpg

相似文献

1
Robot-assisted, laparoscopic and open radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.机器人辅助腹腔镜与开放性根治性膀胱切除术治疗膀胱癌:系统评价和网络荟萃分析。
Int Braz J Urol. 2024 Nov-Dec;50(6):683-702. doi: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2024.0191.
2
Safety and Effectiveness of Robot-Assisted Versus Open Radical Cystectomy for Bladder Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.机器人辅助与开放性根治性膀胱切除术治疗膀胱癌的安全性和有效性:一项系统评价和荟萃分析。
J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2017 Nov;27(11):1109-1120. doi: 10.1089/lap.2016.0437. Epub 2017 Mar 28.
3
Robotic-assisted Versus Laparoscopic Versus Open Radical Cystectomy-A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.机器人辅助与腹腔镜与开放性根治性膀胱切除术的比较:一项随机对照试验的系统评价和网络荟萃分析。
Eur Urol Focus. 2023 May;9(3):480-490. doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2022.12.001. Epub 2022 Dec 16.
4
Comparative effectiveness of open, laparoscopic and robot-assisted radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.开放性、腹腔镜及机器人辅助根治性膀胱切除术治疗膀胱癌的比较效果:一项系统评价和网状Meta分析
Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2020 Jun;72(3):251-264. doi: 10.23736/S0393-2249.20.03680-2. Epub 2020 Feb 19.
5
A Single-centre Early Phase Randomised Controlled Three-arm Trial of Open, Robotic, and Laparoscopic Radical Cystectomy (CORAL).一项关于开放性、机器人辅助及腹腔镜根治性膀胱切除术的单中心早期随机对照三臂试验(CORAL)
Eur Urol. 2016 Apr;69(4):613-621. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.038. Epub 2015 Aug 10.
6
Systematic review and cumulative analysis of perioperative outcomes and complications after robot-assisted radical cystectomy.机器人辅助根治性膀胱切除术围手术期结局和并发症的系统评价和累积分析。
Eur Urol. 2015 Mar;67(3):376-401. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.12.007. Epub 2015 Jan 2.
7
Laparoscopic and robotic-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy for the treatment of localised prostate cancer.腹腔镜及机器人辅助与开放根治性前列腺切除术治疗局限性前列腺癌的比较
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Sep 12;9(9):CD009625. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009625.pub2.
8
Robot-assisted vs open radical cystectomy for bladder cancer in adults.机器人辅助与开放性根治性膀胱切除术治疗成人膀胱癌。
BJU Int. 2020 Jun;125(6):765-779. doi: 10.1111/bju.14870.
9
Systematic review and cumulative analysis of oncologic and functional outcomes after robot-assisted radical cystectomy.机器人辅助根治性膀胱切除术的肿瘤学和功能结局的系统评价和累积分析。
Eur Urol. 2015 Mar;67(3):402-22. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.12.008. Epub 2015 Jan 2.
10
Perioperative outcomes of intracorporeal robot-assisted radical cystectomy versus open radical cystectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies.机器人辅助腹腔镜根治性膀胱切除术与开放性根治性膀胱切除术的围手术期结局比较:系统评价和荟萃分析。
Int J Surg. 2021 Oct;94:106137. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.106137. Epub 2021 Sep 30.

引用本文的文献

1
Telesurgery and the International Brazilian Journal of Urology in 2024.2024年的远程手术与《巴西国际泌尿学杂志》。
Int Braz J Urol. 2024 Nov-Dec;50(6):667-669. doi: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2024.06.01.

本文引用的文献

1
Robotic versus open radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: evaluation of complications, survival, and opioid prescribing patterns.机器人与开放根治性膀胱切除术治疗膀胱癌:并发症、生存和阿片类药物处方模式评估。
J Robot Surg. 2024 Jan 12;18(1):10. doi: 10.1007/s11701-023-01749-x.
2
European Association of Urology Guidelines on Muscle-invasive and Metastatic Bladder Cancer: Summary of the 2023 Guidelines.欧洲泌尿外科学会肌层浸润性和转移性膀胱癌指南:2023 年指南摘要。
Eur Urol. 2024 Jan;85(1):17-31. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2023.08.016. Epub 2023 Oct 17.
3
Robot-assisted radical cystectomy and ileal conduit with Hugo RAS system: feasibility, setting and perioperative outcomes.
机器人辅助根治性膀胱切除术和回肠导管术联合 Hugo RAS 系统:可行性、设置和围手术期结果。
Int Braz J Urol. 2023 Nov-Dec;49(6):787-788. doi: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2023.0349.
4
Cost-Effectiveness of Robot-Assisted Radical Cystectomy vs Open Radical Cystectomy for Patients With Bladder Cancer.机器人辅助根治性膀胱切除术与开放性根治性膀胱切除术治疗膀胱癌患者的成本效益比较。
JAMA Netw Open. 2023 Jun 1;6(6):e2317255. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.17255.
5
Efficiency and Safety of Laparoscopic Radical Cystectomy for Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer, and Postoperative Recurrence.腹腔镜根治性膀胱切除术治疗肌层浸润性膀胱癌的疗效和安全性,以及术后复发情况。
Arch Esp Urol. 2023 May;76(3):196-202. doi: 10.56434/j.arch.esp.urol.20237603.23.
6
Perioperative comparison between robot-assisted and laparoscopic radical cystectomy: An update meta-analysis.机器人辅助与腹腔镜根治性膀胱切除术的围手术期比较:一项更新的荟萃分析。
Asian J Surg. 2023 Sep;46(9):3464-3479. doi: 10.1016/j.asjsur.2023.04.030. Epub 2023 May 13.
7
Perioperative mortality for radical cystectomy in the modern Era: experience from a tertiary referral center.在现代时代,根治性膀胱切除术的围手术期死亡率:来自三级转诊中心的经验。
Int Braz J Urol. 2023 May-Jun;49(3):351-358. doi: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2022.0405.
8
Robotic-assisted Versus Laparoscopic Versus Open Radical Cystectomy-A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.机器人辅助与腹腔镜与开放性根治性膀胱切除术的比较:一项随机对照试验的系统评价和网络荟萃分析。
Eur Urol Focus. 2023 May;9(3):480-490. doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2022.12.001. Epub 2022 Dec 16.
9
Comparison of Laparoscopic and Open Radical Cystectomy for Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer.腹腔镜与开放性根治性膀胱切除术治疗肌层浸润性膀胱癌的比较。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Nov 30;19(23):15995. doi: 10.3390/ijerph192315995.
10
Bayesian network analysis of long-term oncologic outcomes of open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical cystectomy for bladder cancer.贝叶斯网络分析膀胱癌开放式、腹腔镜式和机器人辅助根治性膀胱切除术的长期肿瘤学结局。
Medicine (Baltimore). 2022 Aug 26;101(34):e30291. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000030291.