Current Evidence of Single-Port Laparoscopic versus Single Port-Robotic Techniques in Colorectal Surgery: A Meta-Analysis.

IF 0.8 Q4 SURGERY Chirurgia Pub Date : 2024-10-01 DOI:10.21614/chirurgia.3036
Maria Chara Stylianidi, Sascha Vaghiri, Wolfram Trudo Knoefel, Dimitrios Prassas
{"title":"Current Evidence of Single-Port Laparoscopic versus Single Port-Robotic Techniques in Colorectal Surgery: A Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Maria Chara Stylianidi, Sascha Vaghiri, Wolfram Trudo Knoefel, Dimitrios Prassas","doi":"10.21614/chirurgia.3036","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Introduction:</b> The primary aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the operative outcomes of single-port laparoscopic versus single-port robotic platforms in colorectal surgery. <b>Materials and Methods:</b> A comprehensive literature search was conducted for studies comparing operative outcomes and short-term follow-up data of single-port laparoscopic versus single-port robotic colectomy. Data from eligible studies were extracted, qualitatively assessed, and included in a meta-analysis. Odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences with 95 per cent confidence intervals were calculated. <b>Results:</b> Three studies with a total of 346 patients (Robotic: 112 cases versus Laparoscopic: 234 cases) were included. There was no statistical difference noted with regard to overall morbidity, length of hospital stay and intra- and postoperative complications between the two groups. However, the robotic approach resulted in higher lymph nodes yield in oncologic cases (SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.50 to -0.01, p = 0.04, I2 = 0%). Conclusion: Both single-port laparoscopic and robotic techniques appear to be safe and feasible options in colorectal surgery displaying comparable perioperative outcomes. Larger randomized controlled trials are needed to justify their application, particularly with regard to procedurerelated costs.</p>","PeriodicalId":10171,"journal":{"name":"Chirurgia","volume":"119 5","pages":"471-482"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chirurgia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21614/chirurgia.3036","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The primary aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the operative outcomes of single-port laparoscopic versus single-port robotic platforms in colorectal surgery. Materials and Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted for studies comparing operative outcomes and short-term follow-up data of single-port laparoscopic versus single-port robotic colectomy. Data from eligible studies were extracted, qualitatively assessed, and included in a meta-analysis. Odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences with 95 per cent confidence intervals were calculated. Results: Three studies with a total of 346 patients (Robotic: 112 cases versus Laparoscopic: 234 cases) were included. There was no statistical difference noted with regard to overall morbidity, length of hospital stay and intra- and postoperative complications between the two groups. However, the robotic approach resulted in higher lymph nodes yield in oncologic cases (SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.50 to -0.01, p = 0.04, I2 = 0%). Conclusion: Both single-port laparoscopic and robotic techniques appear to be safe and feasible options in colorectal surgery displaying comparable perioperative outcomes. Larger randomized controlled trials are needed to justify their application, particularly with regard to procedurerelated costs.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
单孔腹腔镜与单孔机器人技术在结直肠手术中的应用:元分析。
简介这项荟萃分析的主要目的是比较单孔腹腔镜与单孔机器人平台在结直肠手术中的手术效果。材料和方法:对比较单孔腹腔镜与单孔机器人结肠切除术的手术效果和短期随访数据的研究进行了全面的文献检索。从符合条件的研究中提取数据,进行定性评估,并纳入荟萃分析。计算出了比值比 (OR) 和平均差异以及 95% 的置信区间。分析结果三项研究共纳入 346 名患者(机器人手术:112 例;腹腔镜手术:234 例)。两组患者在总发病率、住院时间、术中和术后并发症方面没有统计学差异。不过,在肿瘤病例中,机器人方法的淋巴结产量更高(SMD -0.25,95% CI -0.50至-0.01,P = 0.04,I2 = 0%)。结论单孔腹腔镜和机器人技术似乎都是结直肠手术中安全可行的选择,其围手术期效果相当。需要更大规模的随机对照试验来证明其应用的合理性,尤其是在与手术相关的成本方面。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Chirurgia
Chirurgia Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
75
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Chirurgia is a bimonthly journal. In Chirurgia, original papers in the area of general surgery which neither appeared, nor were sent for publication in other periodicals, can be published. You can send original articles, new surgical techniques, or comprehensive general reports on surgical topics, clinical case presentations and, depending on publication space, - reviews of some articles of general interest to surgeons from other publications. Chirurgia is also a place for sharing information about the activity of various branches of the Romanian Society of Surgery, information on Congresses and Symposiums organized by the Romanian Society of Surgery and participation notes in other scientific meetings. Letters to the editor: Letters commenting on papers published in Chirurgia are welcomed. They should contain substantive ideas and commentaries supported by appropriate data, and should not exceed 2 pages. Please submit these letters to the editor through our online system.
期刊最新文献
Ramp Lesions with ACL Injuries Between MRI and Arthroscopic Evaluation. Axillary Lymph Node Dissection versus Loco-regional Radiotherapy in Management of the Axilla in Node-Negative Locally Advanced Breast Cancer Post Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy. Burn Injuries in the Pediatric Population - The Experience of a Single Center Over a Period of Two Years. Cold Ischemia Time as a Risk Factor for Graft Dysfunction Types in Kidney Transplant Recipients. Current Evidence of Single-Port Laparoscopic versus Single Port-Robotic Techniques in Colorectal Surgery: A Meta-Analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1