Department of Pediatric Nephrology, Lanzhou University Second Hospital, Lanzhou, China.
Gansu Renal Disease Clinical Research Centre, Lanzhou, China.
J Robot Surg. 2024 Oct 3;18(1):360. doi: 10.1007/s11701-024-02106-2.
The goal of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the perioperative and oncologic results of natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) compared to conventional transabdominal specimen extraction (TASE) in robotic-assisted surgery for colorectal cancer. A comprehensive electronic search will be performed on PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to find research articles published from the beginning of the databases to July 2024 that focus on patients who have undergone robotic-assisted surgery for colorectal cancer. Specifically, this review will compare NOSE with conventional TASE. Only studies published in English will be considered. Literature screening will adhere closely to predetermined criteria for inclusion and exclusion, specifically targeting randomized controlled trials and cohort studies. The evaluation of quality will involve the use of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Meta-analysis of the included studies' data will be performed using Review Manager 5.4.1. In the final analysis, 9 retrospective cohort studies comprising 1571 patients were included. Out of these, 732 patients opted for NOSE, while 839 patients chose conventional TASE in robotic colorectal surgery. Patients who received TASE experienced enhancements in hospital stay duration, time until first gas passage, wound infection rates, and time until the first intake of a liquid diet. Nevertheless, there were no notable distinctions noted between the two methods regarding surgery duration, projected blood loss, intestinal blockage, or frequency of anastomotic leakage. In patients undergoing robotic-assisted colorectal surgery, the safety and feasibility of NOSE are demonstrated. Compared to traditional TASE, it provides clear benefits including shorter hospital stays, earlier first flatus, quicker initiation of a liquid diet, and lower risk of wound infection.
本系统评价和荟萃分析的目的是评估经自然腔道标本取出术(NOSE)与传统经腹标本取出术(TASE)在机器人辅助结直肠癌手术中的围手术期和肿瘤学结果。将在 PubMed、Embase 和 Cochrane Library 上进行全面的电子检索,以查找从数据库开始到 2024 年 7 月发表的专注于接受机器人辅助结直肠癌手术的患者的研究文章。具体来说,本综述将比较 NOSE 与传统 TASE。仅考虑发表英文的研究。文献筛选将严格遵循纳入和排除的预定标准,专门针对随机对照试验和队列研究。质量评估将使用纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表(NOS)。使用 Review Manager 5.4.1 对纳入研究的数据进行荟萃分析。最终分析包括 9 项回顾性队列研究,共纳入 1571 例患者。其中,732 例患者选择 NOSE,839 例患者选择机器人结直肠手术中的传统 TASE。接受 TASE 的患者在住院时间、首次排气时间、伤口感染率和首次摄入液体饮食时间方面有所改善。然而,两种方法在手术时间、预计失血量、肠阻塞或吻合口漏发生率方面没有明显差异。在接受机器人辅助结直肠癌手术的患者中,NOSE 的安全性和可行性得到了证实。与传统的 TASE 相比,它具有明显的优势,包括缩短住院时间、更早排气、更快开始液体饮食以及降低伤口感染的风险。