机器人辅助腹腔镜手术与传统腹腔镜手术的临床效果比较

IF 0.1 Q4 SURGERY Surgical Techniques Development Pub Date : 2024-01-31 DOI:10.3390/std13010003
Storm Chabot, J. Calleja-Agius, T. Horeman
{"title":"机器人辅助腹腔镜手术与传统腹腔镜手术的临床效果比较","authors":"Storm Chabot, J. Calleja-Agius, T. Horeman","doi":"10.3390/std13010003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Although robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery has become more in popular, it remains unclear what clinical advantages it offers over conventional laparoscopic surgery. Objective: This (systematic) umbrella review aims to synthesize and compare the clinical outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed and Scopus. All systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in the past five years that compared the clinical outcomes for cholecystectomy, colectomy, hysterectomy, nephrectomy, and/or prostatectomy were included. The quality of all included reviews was assessed with the AMSTAR 2 quality assessment tool. Each review’s study characteristics and primary sources were extracted, along with the quantitative and qualitative data for blood loss, rate of conversion to open surgery, hospitalization costs, incisional hernia rate, intraoperative complication rate, postoperative complication rate, length of hospital stay, operative time, readmission rate, and wound infection. Results: Fifty-two systematic reviews and (network) meta-analyses were included in this umbrella review, covering more than 1,288,425 patients from 1046 primary sources published between 1996 and 2022. The overall quality of the included reviews was assessed to be low or critically low. Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery yielded comparable results to conventional laparoscopic surgery in terms of blood loss, conversion to open surgery rate, intraoperative complication rate, postoperative complication rate, readmission rate, and wound infection rate for most surgical procedures. While the hospitalization costs of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery were higher and the operative times of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery were longer than conventional laparoscopic surgery, robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery reduced the length of hospital stay of patients in nearly all cases. Conclusion: Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery achieved comparable results with conventional laparoscopic surgery for cholecystectomy, colectomy, hysterectomy, nephrectomy, and prostatectomy based on ten clinical outcomes.","PeriodicalId":40379,"journal":{"name":"Surgical Techniques Development","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Comparison of Clinical Outcomes of Robot-Assisted and Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery\",\"authors\":\"Storm Chabot, J. Calleja-Agius, T. Horeman\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/std13010003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Although robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery has become more in popular, it remains unclear what clinical advantages it offers over conventional laparoscopic surgery. Objective: This (systematic) umbrella review aims to synthesize and compare the clinical outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed and Scopus. All systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in the past five years that compared the clinical outcomes for cholecystectomy, colectomy, hysterectomy, nephrectomy, and/or prostatectomy were included. The quality of all included reviews was assessed with the AMSTAR 2 quality assessment tool. Each review’s study characteristics and primary sources were extracted, along with the quantitative and qualitative data for blood loss, rate of conversion to open surgery, hospitalization costs, incisional hernia rate, intraoperative complication rate, postoperative complication rate, length of hospital stay, operative time, readmission rate, and wound infection. Results: Fifty-two systematic reviews and (network) meta-analyses were included in this umbrella review, covering more than 1,288,425 patients from 1046 primary sources published between 1996 and 2022. The overall quality of the included reviews was assessed to be low or critically low. Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery yielded comparable results to conventional laparoscopic surgery in terms of blood loss, conversion to open surgery rate, intraoperative complication rate, postoperative complication rate, readmission rate, and wound infection rate for most surgical procedures. While the hospitalization costs of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery were higher and the operative times of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery were longer than conventional laparoscopic surgery, robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery reduced the length of hospital stay of patients in nearly all cases. Conclusion: Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery achieved comparable results with conventional laparoscopic surgery for cholecystectomy, colectomy, hysterectomy, nephrectomy, and prostatectomy based on ten clinical outcomes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":40379,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Surgical Techniques Development\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Surgical Techniques Development\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/std13010003\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgical Techniques Development","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/std13010003","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

摘要

背景:虽然机器人辅助腹腔镜手术越来越受欢迎,但与传统腹腔镜手术相比,机器人辅助腹腔镜手术有哪些临床优势仍不清楚。目的:本(系统)综述旨在综合比较机器人辅助腹腔镜手术与传统腹腔镜手术的临床优势:本(系统性)综述旨在综合比较机器人辅助腹腔镜手术与传统腹腔镜手术的临床效果。方法在 PubMed 和 Scopus 上进行了系统性文献检索。纳入了过去五年中发表的所有比较胆囊切除术、结肠切除术、子宫切除术、肾切除术和/或前列腺切除术临床效果的系统综述和荟萃分析。所有纳入的综述均采用 AMSTAR 2 质量评估工具进行质量评估。提取了每篇综述的研究特点和主要资料来源,以及失血量、转为开放手术率、住院费用、切口疝发生率、术中并发症发生率、术后并发症发生率、住院时间、手术时间、再入院率和伤口感染的定量和定性数据。结果:本综述共纳入 52 篇系统综述和(网络)荟萃分析,涵盖 1996 年至 2022 年间发表的 1046 篇主要资料中的 1,288,425 多名患者。所纳入综述的总体质量被评估为低或极低。在大多数外科手术中,机器人辅助腹腔镜手术在失血量、转为开腹手术率、术中并发症发生率、术后并发症发生率、再入院率和伤口感染率等方面的结果与传统腹腔镜手术相当。虽然与传统腹腔镜手术相比,机器人辅助腹腔镜手术的住院费用更高,手术时间更长,但几乎在所有病例中,机器人辅助腹腔镜手术都缩短了患者的住院时间。结论根据十项临床结果,机器人辅助腹腔镜手术在胆囊切除术、结肠切除术、子宫切除术、肾切除术和前列腺切除术方面取得了与传统腹腔镜手术相当的效果。
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
A Comparison of Clinical Outcomes of Robot-Assisted and Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery
Background: Although robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery has become more in popular, it remains unclear what clinical advantages it offers over conventional laparoscopic surgery. Objective: This (systematic) umbrella review aims to synthesize and compare the clinical outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed and Scopus. All systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in the past five years that compared the clinical outcomes for cholecystectomy, colectomy, hysterectomy, nephrectomy, and/or prostatectomy were included. The quality of all included reviews was assessed with the AMSTAR 2 quality assessment tool. Each review’s study characteristics and primary sources were extracted, along with the quantitative and qualitative data for blood loss, rate of conversion to open surgery, hospitalization costs, incisional hernia rate, intraoperative complication rate, postoperative complication rate, length of hospital stay, operative time, readmission rate, and wound infection. Results: Fifty-two systematic reviews and (network) meta-analyses were included in this umbrella review, covering more than 1,288,425 patients from 1046 primary sources published between 1996 and 2022. The overall quality of the included reviews was assessed to be low or critically low. Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery yielded comparable results to conventional laparoscopic surgery in terms of blood loss, conversion to open surgery rate, intraoperative complication rate, postoperative complication rate, readmission rate, and wound infection rate for most surgical procedures. While the hospitalization costs of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery were higher and the operative times of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery were longer than conventional laparoscopic surgery, robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery reduced the length of hospital stay of patients in nearly all cases. Conclusion: Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery achieved comparable results with conventional laparoscopic surgery for cholecystectomy, colectomy, hysterectomy, nephrectomy, and prostatectomy based on ten clinical outcomes.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
期刊最新文献
Increased Postoperative Glycemic Variability Is Associated with Increased Revision Surgery Rates in Diabetic Patients Undergoing Hip Fracture Fixation Simultaneous Laparoscopic Surgery for Esophageal Achalasia Combined with Epiphrenic Diverticulum: A Case Report Modified Tension Band Wiring Using Only Non-Absorbable Braided Polyblend Sutures for the Treatment of Patellar Fractures The Method of 3D C-arm Navigated AC Joint Stabilization-Surgical Technique Locoregional vs. General Anaesthesia for Minimally Invasive Video-Assisted Parathyroidectomy (MIVAP) Using Propensity Score Matching Analysis: A Feasibility Study
×
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