456 机器人手术与腹腔镜手术治疗炎症性肠病的术后效果比较:系统回顾与元分析

IF 5.5 2区 医学 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS ACS Biomaterials Science & Engineering Pub Date : 2024-07-01 DOI:10.1093/bjs/znae163.110
A. Wuheb
{"title":"456 机器人手术与腹腔镜手术治疗炎症性肠病的术后效果比较:系统回顾与元分析","authors":"A. Wuheb","doi":"10.1093/bjs/znae163.110","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n \n To evaluate comparative outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic bowel resection in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).\n \n \n \n A systematic online search was conducted using the following databases: PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane database, The Virtual Health Library, Clinical trials.gov and Science Direct. Comparative studies comparing robotic versus laparoscopic resection for IBD were included. Primary outcomes were post-operative complications rate. Operative time, conversion to open, length of hospital stays, and mortality were the evaluated outcome parameters.\n \n \n \n Eleven studies with total number of 5,566 patients divided between those undergoing robotic (n=365) and conventional laparoscopic (n=5,201) surgery. Moreover, subgroup analysis for sub-total colectomy group showed shorter LOS [MD: -1.62, P=0.03]. Overall complications rate was significantly higher in the laparoscopy group compared to robotic group [OR: 0.48, P=0.03], however the operative time was longer in the robotic group [MD: 40.61, P=0.00001]. Pooled analysis showed comparable results regarding conversion to open [OR: 0.46, P=0.15], anastomosis leak [OR: 0.92, P=0.84], abdominal abscess / collection [OR: 0.34, P=0.21], and mortality [RD: 0.00, P=1.00].\n \n \n \n Compared to laparoscopic approach, Robotic surgery provides a significantly lower rate of post-operative complications and shorter LOS at the expense of operative time with similar 30-day Mortality.\n","PeriodicalId":8,"journal":{"name":"ACS Biomaterials Science & Engineering","volume":"328 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"456 Comparison of Postoperative Outcomes Between Robotic and Laparoscopic Surgery for Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis\",\"authors\":\"A. Wuheb\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/bjs/znae163.110\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n \\n \\n To evaluate comparative outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic bowel resection in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).\\n \\n \\n \\n A systematic online search was conducted using the following databases: PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane database, The Virtual Health Library, Clinical trials.gov and Science Direct. Comparative studies comparing robotic versus laparoscopic resection for IBD were included. Primary outcomes were post-operative complications rate. Operative time, conversion to open, length of hospital stays, and mortality were the evaluated outcome parameters.\\n \\n \\n \\n Eleven studies with total number of 5,566 patients divided between those undergoing robotic (n=365) and conventional laparoscopic (n=5,201) surgery. Moreover, subgroup analysis for sub-total colectomy group showed shorter LOS [MD: -1.62, P=0.03]. Overall complications rate was significantly higher in the laparoscopy group compared to robotic group [OR: 0.48, P=0.03], however the operative time was longer in the robotic group [MD: 40.61, P=0.00001]. Pooled analysis showed comparable results regarding conversion to open [OR: 0.46, P=0.15], anastomosis leak [OR: 0.92, P=0.84], abdominal abscess / collection [OR: 0.34, P=0.21], and mortality [RD: 0.00, P=1.00].\\n \\n \\n \\n Compared to laparoscopic approach, Robotic surgery provides a significantly lower rate of post-operative complications and shorter LOS at the expense of operative time with similar 30-day Mortality.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":8,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Biomaterials Science & Engineering\",\"volume\":\"328 5\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Biomaterials Science & Engineering\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znae163.110\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Biomaterials Science & Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znae163.110","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:评估炎症性肠病(IBD)患者接受机器人与腹腔镜肠切除术的疗效比较。 我们使用以下数据库进行了系统性在线搜索:PubMed、Scopus、Cochrane 数据库、虚拟健康图书馆、Clinical trials.gov 和 Science Direct。纳入了比较机器人与腹腔镜切除术治疗 IBD 的对比研究。主要结果为术后并发症发生率。手术时间、转为开腹手术时间、住院时间和死亡率是评估的结果参数。 11项研究共纳入5566名患者,分为机器人手术(365人)和传统腹腔镜手术(5201人)。此外,对结肠次全切除术组进行的亚组分析显示,LOS 更短[MD:-1.62,P=0.03]。腹腔镜组的总体并发症发生率明显高于机器人组[OR:0.48,P=0.03],但机器人组的手术时间更长[MD:40.61,P=0.00001]。汇总分析显示,转为开腹手术[OR:0.46,P=0.15]、吻合口漏[OR:0.92,P=0.84]、腹腔脓肿/积液[OR:0.34,P=0.21]和死亡率[RD:0.00,P=1.00]的结果相当。 与腹腔镜方法相比,机器人手术的术后并发症发生率明显降低,手术时间更短,30 天死亡率相似。
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
456 Comparison of Postoperative Outcomes Between Robotic and Laparoscopic Surgery for Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
To evaluate comparative outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic bowel resection in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). A systematic online search was conducted using the following databases: PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane database, The Virtual Health Library, Clinical trials.gov and Science Direct. Comparative studies comparing robotic versus laparoscopic resection for IBD were included. Primary outcomes were post-operative complications rate. Operative time, conversion to open, length of hospital stays, and mortality were the evaluated outcome parameters. Eleven studies with total number of 5,566 patients divided between those undergoing robotic (n=365) and conventional laparoscopic (n=5,201) surgery. Moreover, subgroup analysis for sub-total colectomy group showed shorter LOS [MD: -1.62, P=0.03]. Overall complications rate was significantly higher in the laparoscopy group compared to robotic group [OR: 0.48, P=0.03], however the operative time was longer in the robotic group [MD: 40.61, P=0.00001]. Pooled analysis showed comparable results regarding conversion to open [OR: 0.46, P=0.15], anastomosis leak [OR: 0.92, P=0.84], abdominal abscess / collection [OR: 0.34, P=0.21], and mortality [RD: 0.00, P=1.00]. Compared to laparoscopic approach, Robotic surgery provides a significantly lower rate of post-operative complications and shorter LOS at the expense of operative time with similar 30-day Mortality.
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
ACS Biomaterials Science & Engineering
ACS Biomaterials Science & Engineering Materials Science-Biomaterials
CiteScore
10.30
自引率
3.40%
发文量
413
期刊介绍: ACS Biomaterials Science & Engineering is the leading journal in the field of biomaterials, serving as an international forum for publishing cutting-edge research and innovative ideas on a broad range of topics: Applications and Health – implantable tissues and devices, prosthesis, health risks, toxicology Bio-interactions and Bio-compatibility – material-biology interactions, chemical/morphological/structural communication, mechanobiology, signaling and biological responses, immuno-engineering, calcification, coatings, corrosion and degradation of biomaterials and devices, biophysical regulation of cell functions Characterization, Synthesis, and Modification – new biomaterials, bioinspired and biomimetic approaches to biomaterials, exploiting structural hierarchy and architectural control, combinatorial strategies for biomaterials discovery, genetic biomaterials design, synthetic biology, new composite systems, bionics, polymer synthesis Controlled Release and Delivery Systems – biomaterial-based drug and gene delivery, bio-responsive delivery of regulatory molecules, pharmaceutical engineering Healthcare Advances – clinical translation, regulatory issues, patient safety, emerging trends Imaging and Diagnostics – imaging agents and probes, theranostics, biosensors, monitoring Manufacturing and Technology – 3D printing, inks, organ-on-a-chip, bioreactor/perfusion systems, microdevices, BioMEMS, optics and electronics interfaces with biomaterials, systems integration Modeling and Informatics Tools – scaling methods to guide biomaterial design, predictive algorithms for structure-function, biomechanics, integrating bioinformatics with biomaterials discovery, metabolomics in the context of biomaterials Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine – basic and applied studies, cell therapies, scaffolds, vascularization, bioartificial organs, transplantation and functionality, cellular agriculture
期刊最新文献
A Methodological Approach to Relate Pentapeptide Sequence, Atomistic Self-Assembly, and Gelation Behavior. Corynoline and Extracellular Vesicles Co-Loaded Scaffold Accelerates Vascularized Bone Regeneration with Photothermal Stimulation. Prediction of Mesenchymal Stromal Cell Immune Suppression Using Live Imaging in a Three-Dimensional Microfluidic Device. An Injectable Rapid-Adhesion and Self-Expanding Underwater Hydrogel Adhesive with Biodegradation and Reinforced Hemostasis for Deep Noncompressible Hemorrhage Management. A SiNP-Chitosan Nanocomposite Converts Hydrophobic 3D-Printed Microchannels into Whole-Blood-Operable Nanoplasmonic Biosensors.
×
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学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
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