Suppr超能文献

评估机器人胃癌根治术联合D2淋巴结清扫术相对于传统腹腔镜手术的安全性:一项系统评价和荟萃分析。

Evaluating the safety of robotic total gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer against the conventional laparoscopic approach: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

作者信息

Kossenas Konstantinos, Moutzouri Olga, Georgopoulos Filippos

机构信息

Department of Basic and Clinical Sciences, University of Nicosia Medical School, 21 Ilia Papakyriakou, 2414 Engomi, P.O. Box 24005, 1700, Nicosia, Cyprus.

Head of Interventional Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Al Zahra Hospital, Dubai, UAE.

出版信息

J Robot Surg. 2025 Feb 3;19(1):59. doi: 10.1007/s11701-025-02219-2.

Abstract

Gastric cancer poses a significant global health challenge, necessitating effective surgical interventions. A critical gap in the literature exists, as most studies do not differentiate between various surgical approaches, i.e., total, distal, and subtotal gastrectomy, and level of lymphadenectomy, when comparing robotic to conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy. This leads to a lack of clear evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of robotic total gastrectomy (RTG) specifically in the context of total gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy.This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the safety of RTG with D2 lymphadenectomy compared to conventional laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG). A literature search was conducted up to November 1, 2024, following PRISMA guidelines. Eligible studies included studies comparing RTG and LTG, focusing on anastomotic leakage, Clavien-Dindo Grade ≥ III complications, conversion rates, mortality, overall complications, and reoperation rates. Data were synthesized using odds ratios (OR) and weighted mean differences (WMD), with statistical heterogeneity assessed using the I statistic. Five studies comprising 1131 patients (432 RTG, 700 LTG) were included. No significant differences were found in the following outcomes: anastomotic leakage (OR = 0.79 [95% CI: 0.35, 1.78], I = 0%, P = 0.57), Clavien-Dindo Grade ≥ III complications (OR = 0.86 [95% CI: 0.51, 1.45], I = 0%, P = 0.56), conversion to open surgery (OR = 0.34 [95% CI: 0.10, 1.18], I = 0%, P = 0.09), mortality (OR = 1.78 [95% CI: 0.23, 13.48], I = 0%, P = 0.58), overall complications (OR = 0.84 [95% CI: 0.62, 1.14], I = 0%, P = 0.26), and reoperation rates (OR = 0.88 [95% CI: 0.29, 2.67], I = 0%, P = 0.82). Sensitivity analysis proves the robustness of the findings. The analysis shows no significant differences in safety outcomes between RTG and LTG for gastric cancer, indicating both techniques are comparable. RTG may be a viable alternative to LTG, especially in centers with appropriate robotic capabilities. Further research is warranted to investigate long-term outcomes and the learning curve of robotic surgery.PROSPERO Registration: CRD42024606570.

摘要

胃癌是一项重大的全球健康挑战,需要有效的手术干预。文献中存在一个关键空白,因为大多数研究在比较机器人辅助与传统腹腔镜胃癌切除术时,并未区分各种手术方式,即全胃切除术、远端胃切除术和次全胃切除术,以及淋巴结清扫范围。这导致缺乏关于机器人辅助全胃切除术(RTG)在D2淋巴结清扫的全胃切除术中安全性和有效性的明确证据。本系统评价和荟萃分析评估了与传统腹腔镜全胃切除术(LTG)相比,D2淋巴结清扫的RTG的安全性。按照PRISMA指南进行文献检索,截至2024年11月1日。符合条件的研究包括比较RTG和LTG的研究,重点关注吻合口漏、Clavien-Dindo≥III级并发症、中转率、死亡率、总体并发症和再次手术率。数据采用比值比(OR)和加权平均差(WMD)进行综合分析,使用I统计量评估统计异质性。纳入了5项研究,共1131例患者(432例RTG,700例LTG)。在以下结果中未发现显著差异:吻合口漏(OR = 0.79 [95% CI:0.35,1.78],I = 0%,P = 0.57)、Clavien-Dindo≥III级并发症(OR = 0.86 [95% CI:0.51,1.45],I = 0%,P = 0.56)、中转开腹手术(OR = 0.34 [95% CI:0.10,1.18],I = 0%,P = 0.09)、死亡率(OR = 1.78 [95% CI:0.23,13.48],I = 0%,P = 0.58)、总体并发症(OR = 0.84 [95% CI:0.62,1.14],I = 0%,P = 0.26)和再次手术率(OR = 0.88 [95% CI:0.29,2.67],I = 0%,P = 0.82)。敏感性分析证明了研究结果的稳健性。分析表明,胃癌的RTG和LTG在安全性结果上无显著差异,表明两种技术具有可比性。RTG可能是LTG的一个可行替代方案,尤其是在具备适当机器人手术能力的中心。有必要进一步研究以调查机器人手术的长期结果和学习曲线。PROSPERO注册号:CRD42024606570。

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