PP94 机器人辅助胸腔镜手术与视频辅助胸腔镜手术和开胸手术的比较:系统回顾与元分析

IF 2.6 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care Pub Date : 2023-12-14 DOI:10.1017/s0266462323002209
Jiyeon Lee, Youjin Jung
{"title":"PP94 机器人辅助胸腔镜手术与视频辅助胸腔镜手术和开胸手术的比较:系统回顾与元分析","authors":"Jiyeon Lee, Youjin Jung","doi":"10.1017/s0266462323002209","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<span>Introduction</span><p>Robot-assisted surgery is one of the minimally invasive surgical approaches that has been increasingly utilized across a wide range of surgeries. However, there is limited evidence of robotic-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) for patients with lung cancer. This study aims to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of RATS in lung cancer patients compared with video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) and open thoracotomy.</p><span>Methods</span><p>A comprehensive search for studies that compared RATS versus VATS or open thoracotomy published until 12 April 2022, was conducted. Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and risk of bias, and extracted data. We used results of reported perioperative outcomes, oncological outcomes, and survival outcomes. When more than two studies contributed data, meta-analyses were performed.</p><span>Results</span><p>Four randomized controlled trials (RCT) were included. Firstly, three RCTs comparing RATS with VATS were identified. Compared with the VATS group, the RATS group had significantly lower blood loss, more harvested lymph nodes and lymph node stations. However, there were no significant differences in operative time, transfusion rates, hospital stay, drainage duration, reoperation, readmission, postoperative pain, and postoperative complications. Survival outcomes were not reported. Secondly, one RCT comparing RATS with open thoracotomy was identified. Compared with open thoracotomy group, the RATS group had significantly lower blood loss, less postoperative pain, and shorter chest drainage duration. On the other hand, there were no significant differences in operative time, hospital stay, postoperative complications, number of harvested lymph nodes and lymph node stations, and survival outcomes (disease-free survival, overall survival).</p><span>Conclusions</span><p>Evidence on the effectiveness and safety of RATS compared with VATS or open thoracotomy for lung cancer is of low certainty, but we suggest that RATS is a feasible and safe alternative to conventional thoracic surgeries for lung cancer patients on the basis of current data. Additionally, more and better studies are required to provide evidence on the benefits and cost-effectiveness of RATS.</p>","PeriodicalId":14467,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"PP94 Robotic-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery Versus Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery And Open Thoracotomy: A Systematic Review And Meta-Analysis\",\"authors\":\"Jiyeon Lee, Youjin Jung\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s0266462323002209\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<span>Introduction</span><p>Robot-assisted surgery is one of the minimally invasive surgical approaches that has been increasingly utilized across a wide range of surgeries. However, there is limited evidence of robotic-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) for patients with lung cancer. This study aims to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of RATS in lung cancer patients compared with video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) and open thoracotomy.</p><span>Methods</span><p>A comprehensive search for studies that compared RATS versus VATS or open thoracotomy published until 12 April 2022, was conducted. Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and risk of bias, and extracted data. We used results of reported perioperative outcomes, oncological outcomes, and survival outcomes. When more than two studies contributed data, meta-analyses were performed.</p><span>Results</span><p>Four randomized controlled trials (RCT) were included. Firstly, three RCTs comparing RATS with VATS were identified. Compared with the VATS group, the RATS group had significantly lower blood loss, more harvested lymph nodes and lymph node stations. However, there were no significant differences in operative time, transfusion rates, hospital stay, drainage duration, reoperation, readmission, postoperative pain, and postoperative complications. Survival outcomes were not reported. Secondly, one RCT comparing RATS with open thoracotomy was identified. Compared with open thoracotomy group, the RATS group had significantly lower blood loss, less postoperative pain, and shorter chest drainage duration. On the other hand, there were no significant differences in operative time, hospital stay, postoperative complications, number of harvested lymph nodes and lymph node stations, and survival outcomes (disease-free survival, overall survival).</p><span>Conclusions</span><p>Evidence on the effectiveness and safety of RATS compared with VATS or open thoracotomy for lung cancer is of low certainty, but we suggest that RATS is a feasible and safe alternative to conventional thoracic surgeries for lung cancer patients on the basis of current data. Additionally, more and better studies are required to provide evidence on the benefits and cost-effectiveness of RATS.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14467,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266462323002209\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266462323002209","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

机器人辅助手术是一种微创手术方法,已越来越多地应用于各种手术。然而,机器人辅助胸外科手术(RATS)用于肺癌患者的证据有限。本研究旨在评价大鼠在肺癌患者中的安全性和有效性,并与视频胸腔镜手术(VATS)和开胸手术进行比较。方法全面检索截至2022年4月12日发表的RATS与VATS或开胸术比较的研究。两位综述作者独立评估了研究的纳入和偏倚风险,并提取了数据。我们使用了报告的围手术期结果、肿瘤结果和生存结果。当两个以上的研究提供数据时,进行荟萃分析。结果纳入4项随机对照试验(RCT)。首先,我们确定了3个比较RATS和VATS的随机对照试验。与VATS组比较,大鼠组出血量明显减少,淋巴结清扫量和淋巴结站数明显增加。然而,两组在手术时间、输血率、住院时间、引流时间、再手术、再入院、术后疼痛和术后并发症方面无显著差异。生存结果未报道。其次,选取了一项比较大鼠与开胸术的RCT。与开胸组相比,大鼠组出血量明显减少,术后疼痛明显减轻,胸引流时间明显缩短。另一方面,两组在手术时间、住院时间、术后并发症、淋巴结清扫数量和淋巴结位置以及生存结果(无病生存期、总生存期)方面无显著差异。结论与VATS或开胸手术相比,RATS治疗肺癌的有效性和安全性尚不确定,但根据目前的资料,我们认为RATS是一种可行且安全的替代肺癌常规胸外科手术的方法。此外,还需要更多更好的研究来证明RATS的益处和成本效益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
PP94 Robotic-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery Versus Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery And Open Thoracotomy: A Systematic Review And Meta-Analysis
Introduction

Robot-assisted surgery is one of the minimally invasive surgical approaches that has been increasingly utilized across a wide range of surgeries. However, there is limited evidence of robotic-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) for patients with lung cancer. This study aims to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of RATS in lung cancer patients compared with video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) and open thoracotomy.

Methods

A comprehensive search for studies that compared RATS versus VATS or open thoracotomy published until 12 April 2022, was conducted. Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and risk of bias, and extracted data. We used results of reported perioperative outcomes, oncological outcomes, and survival outcomes. When more than two studies contributed data, meta-analyses were performed.

Results

Four randomized controlled trials (RCT) were included. Firstly, three RCTs comparing RATS with VATS were identified. Compared with the VATS group, the RATS group had significantly lower blood loss, more harvested lymph nodes and lymph node stations. However, there were no significant differences in operative time, transfusion rates, hospital stay, drainage duration, reoperation, readmission, postoperative pain, and postoperative complications. Survival outcomes were not reported. Secondly, one RCT comparing RATS with open thoracotomy was identified. Compared with open thoracotomy group, the RATS group had significantly lower blood loss, less postoperative pain, and shorter chest drainage duration. On the other hand, there were no significant differences in operative time, hospital stay, postoperative complications, number of harvested lymph nodes and lymph node stations, and survival outcomes (disease-free survival, overall survival).

Conclusions

Evidence on the effectiveness and safety of RATS compared with VATS or open thoracotomy for lung cancer is of low certainty, but we suggest that RATS is a feasible and safe alternative to conventional thoracic surgeries for lung cancer patients on the basis of current data. Additionally, more and better studies are required to provide evidence on the benefits and cost-effectiveness of RATS.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
15.60%
发文量
116
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care serves as a forum for the wide range of health policy makers and professionals interested in the economic, social, ethical, medical and public health implications of health technology. It covers the development, evaluation, diffusion and use of health technology, as well as its impact on the organization and management of health care systems and public health. In addition to general essays and research reports, regular columns on technology assessment reports and thematic sections are published.
期刊最新文献
Development of an MCDA Framework for Rare Disease Reimbursement Prioritization in Malaysia. Experiences of patient organizations' involvement in medicine appraisal and reimbursement processes in Finland - a qualitative study. PP78 Real-World Trends And Medical Costs Of Stroke After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation In Korea: A Nationwide, Population-Based Study Can requests for real-world evidence by the French HTA body be planned? An exhaustive retrospective case-control study of medicinal products appraisals from 2016 to 2021. A systematic review of the cost and cost-effectiveness of immunoglobulin treatment in patients with hematological malignancies.
×
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