Suppr超能文献

机器人手术与传统腹腔镜手术治疗结直肠子宫内膜异位症的围手术期结局比较:一项系统评价和荟萃分析

Comparison of perioperative outcomes between robotic surgery and traditional laparoscopy for colorectal endometriosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

作者信息

Zhang Xiao, Zhang Xin

机构信息

Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Zibo Central Hospital, Zibo, China.

出版信息

J Robot Surg. 2025 May 26;19(1):239. doi: 10.1007/s11701-025-02374-6.

Abstract

Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) offers a broader surgical field, enhanced visualization, and greater instrument maneuverability, suggesting potential advantages over traditional laparoscopic surgery (LPS), which is currently the gold standard for treating colorectal endometriosis. To address this gap, we conducted a comprehensive review of existing studies to compare the perioperative outcomes of RAS and LPS in the management of colorectal endometriosis. A comprehensive search was conducted in the databases of PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and SpringerLink to identify any studies that prior to February 2nd, 2025. To compare RAS to LPS for colorectal endometriosis, we looked at things like operation duration, expected blood loss, length of stay, conversion to laparotomy, all complications, and bowel endometriosis resection. The operative time for RAS in colorectal endometriosis resection was significantly longer than that for LPS (data aggregated from six studies; WMD 21.51 min, 95% CI 4.58-38.43, p < 0.05). However, there were no significant differences between the two groups in intraoperative blood loss (four studies; WMD 1.2 ml, 95% CI - 34.01-36.41, p = 0.95), length of hospital stay (four studies; WMD 0.2 days, 95% CI - 1.09-1.49, p = 0.76), or the number of cases requiring conversion to laparotomy (four studies; OR 2.27, 95% CI 0.52-9.95, p = 0.28) (Fig. 2). LPS demonstrated a significantly higher utilization of segmental resection (six studies; OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.54-0.93, p < 0.05), while no significant differences were observed in the rates of shaving (six studies; OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.77-1.47, p = 0.71) or double discoid excision (six studies; OR 1.3, 95% CI 0.95-1.78, p = 0.1) (Fig. 3). Additionally, the included studies reported no significant differences in overall complication rates (five studies; OR 0.9, 95% CI 0.64-1.28, p = 0.57) (Fig. 3) or the incidence of Clavien-Dindo classification complications classified as Grade I(five studies; OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.44-1.65, p = 0.64), II(five studies; OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.35-1.0, p = 0.5), III(five studies; OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.63-2.0, p = 0.7), or IV(five studies; OR 0.8, 95% CI 0.14-4.59, p = 0.81). Our study found that, apart from a significantly longer operative time for RAS compared to LPS, RAS demonstrated comparable outcomes in intraoperative blood loss, length of hospital stay, conversion to open surgery, bowel endometriosis resection, and postoperative complication rates. These findings suggest that RAS has the potential to become a viable alternative to LPS in the future. However, this conclusion still requires validation through large-scale, prospective, randomized controlled trials.

摘要

机器人辅助手术(RAS)提供了更广阔的手术视野、增强的可视化效果以及更高的器械可操作性,相较于传统腹腔镜手术(LPS)具有潜在优势,而传统腹腔镜手术目前是治疗结直肠子宫内膜异位症的金标准。为填补这一空白,我们对现有研究进行了全面综述,以比较RAS和LPS在结直肠子宫内膜异位症治疗中的围手术期结果。在PubMed、Web of Science、Cochrane图书馆和SpringerLink数据库中进行了全面检索,以识别2025年2月2日前的任何研究。为比较RAS和LPS治疗结直肠子宫内膜异位症的情况,我们观察了手术时间、预期失血量、住院时间、中转开腹、所有并发症以及肠道子宫内膜异位症切除术等指标。RAS用于结直肠子宫内膜异位症切除的手术时间显著长于LPS(六项研究汇总数据;加权均数差21.51分钟,95%可信区间4.58 - 38.43,p < 0.05)。然而,两组在术中失血量(四项研究;加权均数差1.2毫升,95%可信区间 - 34.01 - 36.41,p = 0.95)、住院时间(四项研究;加权均数差0.2天,95%可信区间 - 1.09 - 1.49,p = 0.76)或需要中转开腹的病例数(四项研究;比值比2.27,95%可信区间0.52 - 9.95,p = 0.28)方面无显著差异(图2)。LPS在节段性切除的应用上显著更高(六项研究;比值比0.71,95%可信区间0.54 - 0.93,p < 0.05),而在削除术(六项研究;比值比1.06,95%可信区间0.77 - 1.47,p = 0.71)或双盘状切除术(六项研究;比值比1.3,95%可信区间0.95 - 1.78,p = 0.1)的发生率上未观察到显著差异(图3)。此外,纳入研究报告在总体并发症发生率(五项研究;比值比0.9,95%可信区间0.64 - 1.28,p = 0.57)(图3)或Clavien - Dindo分类为I级(五项研究;比值比0.85,95%可信区间0.44 - 1.65,p = 0.64)、II级(五项研究;比值比0.59,95%可信区间0.35 - 1.0,p = 0.5)、III级(五项研究;比值比1.12,95%可信区间0.63 - 2.0,p = 0.7)或IV级(五项研究;比值比0.8,95%可信区间0.14 - 4.59,p = 0.81)的并发症发生率上无显著差异。我们的研究发现,除了RAS的手术时间显著长于LPS外,RAS在术中失血量、住院时间、中转开腹、肠道子宫内膜异位症切除以及术后并发症发生率方面显示出相当的结果。这些发现表明,RAS未来有可能成为LPS的可行替代方案。然而,这一结论仍需通过大规模、前瞻性、随机对照试验进行验证。

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