腹腔镜和机器人辅助部分肾切除术治疗复杂肾肿瘤(肾评分≥7或最大肿瘤大小> 4cm)的疗效比较:系统综述和荟萃分析。

Pengxiu Lin, Minhong Wu, Hong-li Gu, L. Tu, Shilan Liu, Zhiling Yu, Qingsheng Chen, Cailing Liu
{"title":"腹腔镜和机器人辅助部分肾切除术治疗复杂肾肿瘤(肾评分≥7或最大肿瘤大小> 4cm)的疗效比较:系统综述和荟萃分析。","authors":"Pengxiu Lin, Minhong Wu, Hong-li Gu, L. Tu, Shilan Liu, Zhiling Yu, Qingsheng Chen, Cailing Liu","doi":"10.23736/S0393-2249.20.04135-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"INTRODUCTION\nWe reviewed current studies and performed a meta-analysis to compare outcomes between laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) treating complex renal tumors (RENAL score ≥ 7 or maximum clinical tumor size > 4cm).\n\n\nEVIDENCE ACQUISITION\nUsing the databases of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, a comprehensive literature search was performed in April, 2020. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) or weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using fixed-effect or random-effect model. Publication bias was evaluated by funnel plots.\n\n\nEVIDENCE SYNTHESIS\nTen observational studies including 5193 patients (LPN: 1574; RAPN: 3619) were included. There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding conversion to open (P = 0.07) surgery, all complications (P = 0.12), grade 1-2 complications (P = 0.10), grade 3-5 complications (P = 0.93), operative time (P = 0.94), estimated blood loss (P = 0.17). Patients undergoing LPN had a significant higher rate of conversion to radical (OR: 4.33; 95% CI: 2.01-9.33; p < 0.001), a longer ischemia time (IT, P < 0.001; WMD: 3.02 min; 95% CI, 1.67 to 4.36), a longer length of stay (LOS, P < 0.001; WMD: 0.67 days; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.99), a lower rate of positive surgical margin (P = 0.03; OR: 0.71; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.96), a greater eGFR decline (P < 0.001; WMD: 2.41 ml/min/1.73 m2; 95% CI, 1.22 to 3.60), a higher rate of CKD upstaging (P < 0.001; OR:2.44; 95% CI, 1.54 to 3.87). No obvious publication bias was observed.\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nFor complex renal tumors, RAPN is more favorable than LPN in terms of lower rate of conversion to radical surgery, shorter IT, shorter LOS, less eGFR decline, and lower rate of CKD upstaging. Methodological limitations of observational studies should be taken into account in interpreting these results.","PeriodicalId":49015,"journal":{"name":"Minerva Urologica E Nefrologica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of outcomes between laparoscopic and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for complex renal tumors (RENAL score ≥ 7 or maximum tumor size > 4cm): a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Pengxiu Lin, Minhong Wu, Hong-li Gu, L. Tu, Shilan Liu, Zhiling Yu, Qingsheng Chen, Cailing Liu\",\"doi\":\"10.23736/S0393-2249.20.04135-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"INTRODUCTION\\nWe reviewed current studies and performed a meta-analysis to compare outcomes between laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) treating complex renal tumors (RENAL score ≥ 7 or maximum clinical tumor size > 4cm).\\n\\n\\nEVIDENCE ACQUISITION\\nUsing the databases of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, a comprehensive literature search was performed in April, 2020. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) or weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using fixed-effect or random-effect model. Publication bias was evaluated by funnel plots.\\n\\n\\nEVIDENCE SYNTHESIS\\nTen observational studies including 5193 patients (LPN: 1574; RAPN: 3619) were included. There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding conversion to open (P = 0.07) surgery, all complications (P = 0.12), grade 1-2 complications (P = 0.10), grade 3-5 complications (P = 0.93), operative time (P = 0.94), estimated blood loss (P = 0.17). Patients undergoing LPN had a significant higher rate of conversion to radical (OR: 4.33; 95% CI: 2.01-9.33; p < 0.001), a longer ischemia time (IT, P < 0.001; WMD: 3.02 min; 95% CI, 1.67 to 4.36), a longer length of stay (LOS, P < 0.001; WMD: 0.67 days; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.99), a lower rate of positive surgical margin (P = 0.03; OR: 0.71; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.96), a greater eGFR decline (P < 0.001; WMD: 2.41 ml/min/1.73 m2; 95% CI, 1.22 to 3.60), a higher rate of CKD upstaging (P < 0.001; OR:2.44; 95% CI, 1.54 to 3.87). No obvious publication bias was observed.\\n\\n\\nCONCLUSIONS\\nFor complex renal tumors, RAPN is more favorable than LPN in terms of lower rate of conversion to radical surgery, shorter IT, shorter LOS, less eGFR decline, and lower rate of CKD upstaging. Methodological limitations of observational studies should be taken into account in interpreting these results.\",\"PeriodicalId\":49015,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Minerva Urologica E Nefrologica\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Minerva Urologica E Nefrologica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.23736/S0393-2249.20.04135-1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minerva Urologica E Nefrologica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S0393-2249.20.04135-1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

摘要

我们回顾了目前的研究,并进行了一项荟荟性分析,比较腹腔镜部分肾切除术(LPN)和机器人辅助部分肾切除术(RAPN)治疗复杂肾肿瘤(肾评分≥7或最大临床肿瘤大小> 4cm)的结果。证据获取利用PubMed、Embase和Cochrane图书馆的数据库,于2020年4月进行了全面的文献检索。采用固定效应或随机效应模型计算95%置信区间(ci)的合并优势比(ORs)或加权平均差异(wmd)。用漏斗图评价发表偏倚。证据综合:包括5193例患者的观察性研究(LPN: 1574;RAPN: 3619)。两组在转行开腹手术(P = 0.07)、所有并发症(P = 0.12)、1-2级并发症(P = 0.10)、3-5级并发症(P = 0.93)、手术时间(P = 0.94)、预计失血量(P = 0.17)方面差异无统计学意义。接受LPN的患者转化为根治性肿瘤的比率明显更高(OR: 4.33;95% ci: 2.01-9.33;p < 0.001),缺血时间较长(IT, p < 0.001;WMD: 3.02分钟;95% CI, 1.67 ~ 4.36),更长的住院时间(LOS, P < 0.001;大规模杀伤性武器:0.67天;95% CI, 0.35 ~ 0.99),手术切缘阳性率较低(P = 0.03;OR: 0.71;95% CI, 0.53 ~ 0.96), eGFR下降幅度较大(P < 0.001;WMD: 2.41 ml/min/1.73 m2;95% CI, 1.22 ~ 3.60),较高的CKD占上风率(P < 0.001;OR: 2.44;95% CI, 1.54 ~ 3.87)。未观察到明显的发表偏倚。结论对于复杂的肾肿瘤,RAPN在转归根治性手术率较低、IT较短、LOS较短、eGFR下降较小、CKD前期率较低等方面优于LPN。在解释这些结果时应考虑观察性研究的方法学局限性。
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
Comparison of outcomes between laparoscopic and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for complex renal tumors (RENAL score ≥ 7 or maximum tumor size > 4cm): a systematic review and meta-analysis.
INTRODUCTION We reviewed current studies and performed a meta-analysis to compare outcomes between laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) treating complex renal tumors (RENAL score ≥ 7 or maximum clinical tumor size > 4cm). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION Using the databases of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, a comprehensive literature search was performed in April, 2020. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) or weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using fixed-effect or random-effect model. Publication bias was evaluated by funnel plots. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS Ten observational studies including 5193 patients (LPN: 1574; RAPN: 3619) were included. There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding conversion to open (P = 0.07) surgery, all complications (P = 0.12), grade 1-2 complications (P = 0.10), grade 3-5 complications (P = 0.93), operative time (P = 0.94), estimated blood loss (P = 0.17). Patients undergoing LPN had a significant higher rate of conversion to radical (OR: 4.33; 95% CI: 2.01-9.33; p < 0.001), a longer ischemia time (IT, P < 0.001; WMD: 3.02 min; 95% CI, 1.67 to 4.36), a longer length of stay (LOS, P < 0.001; WMD: 0.67 days; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.99), a lower rate of positive surgical margin (P = 0.03; OR: 0.71; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.96), a greater eGFR decline (P < 0.001; WMD: 2.41 ml/min/1.73 m2; 95% CI, 1.22 to 3.60), a higher rate of CKD upstaging (P < 0.001; OR:2.44; 95% CI, 1.54 to 3.87). No obvious publication bias was observed. CONCLUSIONS For complex renal tumors, RAPN is more favorable than LPN in terms of lower rate of conversion to radical surgery, shorter IT, shorter LOS, less eGFR decline, and lower rate of CKD upstaging. Methodological limitations of observational studies should be taken into account in interpreting these results.
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
Minerva Urologica E Nefrologica
Minerva Urologica E Nefrologica UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica publishes scientific papers on nephrology and urology. Manuscripts may be submitted in the form of Minerva opinion editorials, editorial comments, original articles, video illustrated articles, review articles and letters to the Editor.
期刊最新文献
Real-life data on long-term follow-up of patients successfully treated with percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS). Identifying tumor-related risk factors for simultaneous adrenalectomy in patients with cT1 - cT2 kidney cancer during robotic assisted laparoscopic radical nephrectomy. A systematic review of nerve-sparing surgery for high-risk prostate cancer. Comparison of outcomes between laparoscopic and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for complex renal tumors (RENAL score ≥ 7 or maximum tumor size > 4cm): a systematic review and meta-analysis. Totally intracorporeal robotic ileal ureter replacement: focus on surgical technique and outcomes.
×
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