Chen Jianhua, Wang Fei, Wang Yong, Zhou Jie, Yang Yapeng, Zhao Ziming, Wu Rongfan, Wang Liuhua, Ren Jun
Department of General Surgery, Northern Jiangsu People's Hospital Affiliated to Yangzhou University, 98 Nantong West Road, Yangzhou, 225001, People's Republic of China.
General Surgery Institute of Yangzhou, Northern Jiangsu People's Hospital, Yangzhou, People's Republic of China.
BMC Surg. 2025 May 15;25(1):212. doi: 10.1186/s12893-025-02934-5.
The application of robot-assisted technology in gastric cancer surgery is gradually gaining attention from surgeons. In this meta-analysis, our main objective was to assess whether robot-assisted techniques are more advantageous than laparoscopic-assisted technology in total gastrectomy.
We searched Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases for clinical studies published before October 2023 comparing robotic-assisted total gastrectomy (RATG) and laparoscopic-assisted total gastrectomy (LATG) for gastric cancer. Non-clinical studies, data unavailability, or fewer than 50 included cases were excluded. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the risk of bias by determining the quality of the observational studies. Statistical meta-analysis and drawing were performed using the Software Review Manager version 5.3 and Stata version 16.0. P < 0.05 was considered significant.
Nine studies that included 1,864 patients with gastric cancer were included, published between 2012 and 2023. The results of the analysis showed that RATG has advantages in the following aspects: intraoperative blood loss was 17.69 ml lower in the RATG group than in the LATG group (WMD: -17.69,95% CI:-20.90 ∼ -14.49; P < 0.05); In terms of the number of resected lymph nodes, the RATG group had 2.65 more than the LATG group (WMD: 2.65,95% CI:0.88 ∼ -4.42); P < 0.05); the time to start liquid and postoperative hospital stays were 0.62 and 0.90 days shorter in the RATG group than in the LATG group, respectively (WMD: -0.62,95%CI: -1.06 ∼ -0.19; P < 0.05), (WMD: -0.90,95%CI: -1.43 ∼ -0.37; P < 0.05)); the incidence of major complications and pancreas fistula in the RATG group was 0.59% and 0.17% lower than in the LATG group, respectively (OR: 0.59,95% CI: 0.38 ∼ 0.93; P < 0.05), (OR: 0.17,95% CI: 0.03 ∼ 0.94; P < 0.05). However, the analysis showed that the operative time in the RATG group was 30.96 min longer than in the LATG group (WMD: 30.96,95% CI: 21.24 ∼ 40.69; P < 0.05).
Based on the results of this meta-analysis, we concluded that robotic-assisted technology may be a worthwhile technique to apply in the surgical treatment of total gastrectomy. However, this meta-analysis has the limitations that the included studies were all non-randomized controlled trials and published in Asian countries, and more high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed for further validation in the future.
The study protocol for this meta-analysis is registered on the PROSPERO website under registration number CRD42024500512.
机器人辅助技术在胃癌手术中的应用逐渐受到外科医生的关注。在这项荟萃分析中,我们的主要目的是评估在全胃切除术中,机器人辅助技术是否比腹腔镜辅助技术更具优势。
我们检索了Pubmed、Embase、Web of Science和Cochrane图书馆数据库,以查找2023年10月之前发表的比较机器人辅助全胃切除术(RATG)和腹腔镜辅助全胃切除术(LATG)治疗胃癌的临床研究。排除非临床研究、数据不可用或纳入病例少于50例的研究。采用纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表通过确定观察性研究的质量来评估偏倚风险。使用Review Manager 5.3软件和Stata 16.0软件进行统计荟萃分析和绘图。P < 0.05被认为具有统计学意义。
纳入了9项研究,共1864例胃癌患者,发表时间为2012年至2023年。分析结果显示,RATG在以下方面具有优势:RATG组术中失血量比LATG组少17.69 ml(加权均数差:-17.69,95%可信区间:-20.90 ∼ -14.49;P < 0.05);在切除淋巴结数量方面,RATG组比LATG组多2.65个(加权均数差:2.65,95%可信区间:0.88 ∼ 4.42;P < 0.05);RATG组开始进食时间和术后住院时间分别比LATG组短0.62天和0.90天(加权均数差:-0.62,95%可信区间:-1.06 ∼ -0.19;P < 0.05),(加权均数差:-0.90,95%可信区间:-1.43 ∼ -0.37;P < 0.05);RATG组主要并发症和胰瘘的发生率分别比LATG组低0.59%和0.17%(比值比:0.59,95%可信区间:0.38 ∼ 0.93;P < 0.05),(比值比:0.17,95%可信区间:0.03 ∼ 0.94;P < 0.05)。然而,分析显示RATG组的手术时间比LATG组长30.96分钟(加权均数差:30.96,95%可信区间:21.24 ∼ 40.69;P < 0.05)。
基于这项荟萃分析的结果,我们得出结论,机器人辅助技术可能是一种值得应用于全胃切除手术治疗的技术。然而,这项荟萃分析存在局限性,纳入的研究均为非随机对照试验且发表于亚洲国家,未来需要更多高质量的随机对照试验进行进一步验证。
本荟萃分析的研究方案已在PROSPERO网站注册,注册号为CRD42024500512。