系统性评价并对比机器人（Robotic system，RS）组与正中开胸（Median sternotomy，MS）组在 心脏外科手术中的安全性及有效性。方法：计算机检索知网、维普、万方、中国生物医学文献、Embase、PubMed 及 Cochrane Library 数据库。筛选建库至 2021 年关于机器人与正中开胸在心脏外科效果方面对比的相关研究。结果：共 纳入 22 个研究，4875 例患者，其中机器人组 2372 例，正中开胸组 2503 例。共 14 个结局指标进入 Meta 分析，其 中 11个指标合并结果具有统计学意义，包括 CPB时间（P<0.01）、升主动脉阻断时间（P<0.01）、机械通气时间（P<0.01）、 ICU 停留时间（P=0.007）、术后住院时间（P<0.01）、胸腔引流量（P<0.01），并发症发生率（P<0.01）、术中输 血（P<0.01）、切口满意（P<0.01）、生理评分（P<0.01）、心理评分（P=0.008）。结论：心脏外科机器人系统较 正中开胸手术治疗效果更佳。

To systematically evaluate and compare the safety and efficacy of robotic system (RS) and median sternotomy (MS) in cardiac surgery. Methods: CNKI, VIP, Wanfang Data, CBMdisc, Embase, PubMed and Cochrane library were searched. The database on clinical effects of robotic system versus median sternotomy in cardiac surgery by the end of 2021 was established. Results: A total of 22 studies involving 4 875 patients were included, 2 372 patients were divided into robotic group and 2 503 patients into traditional thoracotomy group. 14 outcome indicators were analyzed by Meta-analysis, and results of 11 indexes were statistically significant, including CPB time (P<0.01), ascending aorta occlusion time (P<0.01), mechanical ventilation time (P<0.01), ICU stay time (P=0.007), postoperative hospital stay (P<0.01), thoracic drainage volume (P<0.01), complication rate (P<0.01), intraoperative blood transfusion (P<0.01), incision satisfaction (P<0.01), physiological score (P<0.01), psychological score (P=0.008), Conclusion: The clinical effect of robotic surgical system is better than that of median sternotomy in cardiac surgery.

收稿日期：2021-06-04  录用日期：2021-10-05 Received Date: 2021-06-04 

Accepted Date: 2021-10-05 

基金项目：内蒙古自治区应用技术研究与开发资金计划（201803010） 

Foundation Item: Foundation for Reasearch and Development on Applied Technology of the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region(201803010)

通讯作者：王亮，Email：wangliangtong@qq.com 

Corresponding Author: WANG Liang, Email: wangliangtong@qq.com 

引用格式：黄伟民，侯骉，李钦，等 . 机器人辅助与正中开胸在心脏外科手术中疗效对比的系统评价与 Meta 分析 [J]. 机器人外科 学杂志（中英文），2022，3（5）：396-405.

Citation: HUANG W M, HOU B, LI Q, et al. Systematic review and Meta-analysis on efficacy of robotic cardiac surgery versus median sternotomy [J]. Chinese Journal of Robotic Surgery, 2022, 3 (5): 396-405.

[1] Nishimura K. Current status of robotic surgery in Japan[J]. Korean J Urol, 2015, 56(3): 170-178. 

[2] Poffo R, Toschi A P, Pope R B, et al. Robotic surgery in cardiology: a safe and effective procedure[J]. Einstein (Sao Paulo), 2013, 11(3): 296-302. 

[3] 刘灿 , 张成鑫 , 刘状 , 等 . 机器人与经胸骨正中切 开入路行房间隔缺损修补术的疗效对比 [J]. 中国胸 心血管外科临床杂志 , 2021, 28(5): 529-533. 

[4] 刘洋 , 张宏 , 胡昊宇 , 等 , 达芬奇机器人辅助与传 统二尖瓣成形术后近中期疗效的对比研究 [J]. 中国 胸心血管外科临床杂志 , 2020, 27(10): 1161-1167.

[5] 赵海智 , 张华军 , 杨明 , 等 . 机器人辅助与胸骨正中 切开二尖瓣置换术的生活质量及远期疗效比较 [J]. 南方医科大学学报 , 2020, 40(11): 1557-1563.

[6] 尹立明 . 达芬奇机器人辅助与常规开胸二尖瓣成形 术的临床对比研究 [D]. 青岛大学 , 2019.

[7] 李双磊 , 高长青 . 机器人手术与传统开胸手术在心 脏肿瘤患者治疗中的对比 : 倾向评分匹配分析 [J]. 南方医科大学学报 , 2017, 37(10): 1296-1300.

[8] 刘国鹏 . 全机器人与正中开胸非体外循环冠状动脉 旁路移植术的临床及生活质量对比研究 [D]. 中国 人民解放军医学院 , 2014.

[9] 李梁钢 . 全机器人与正中开胸房间隔室间隔缺损修 补术的临床对比研究 [D]. 中国人民解放军医学院 , 2014.

[10] 袁宁宁 . 全机器人二尖瓣成形与正中开胸手术中期 成形效果及生活质量对比研究 [D]. 中国人民解放 军医学院 , 2013.

[11] LIN T H, WANG C W, SHEN C H, et al. Clinical outcomes of multivessel coronary artery disease patients revascularized by robot-assisted vs conventional standard coronary artery bypass graft surgeries in realworld practice[J]. Medicine (Baltimore), 2021, 100(3): e23830. [12] SU C S, CHEN Y W, SHEN C H, et al. Clinical outcomes of left main coronary artery disease patients undergoing three different revascularization approaches[J]. Medicine, 2018, 97(7): e9778. 

[13] Raad W N, Forest S, Follis M, et al. The impact of robotic versus conventional coronary artery bypass grafting on in-hospital narcotic use: a propensitymatched analysis[J]. Innovations, 2016, 11(2): 112-115. 

[14] Leyvi G, C B Schechter, Sehgal S, et al. Comparison of index hospitalization costs between robotic CABG and conventional CABG: implications for hybrid coronary revascularization[J]. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth, 2016, 30(1): 12-18.

[15] Seo Y J, Sanaiha Y, Bailey K, et al. Outcomes and resource utilization in robotic mitral valve repair: beyond the learning curve[J]. J Surg Res, 2019. DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2018.10.007. 

[16] Coyan G, Wei L M, Althouse A, et al. Robotic mitral valve operations by experienced surgeons are costneutral and durable at 1 year[J]. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg, 2018, 156(3): 1040-1047.

[17] Kesävuori R, Raivio P, J Jokinen J, et al. Early experience with robotic mitral valve repair with intraaortic occlusion[J]. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 2018, 155(4): 1463-1471.

[18] Wang A, Brennan J M, Zhang S Q, et al. Robotic mitral valve repair in older individuals: an analysis of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons database[J]. Ann Thorac Surg, 2018, 106(5): 1388-1393.

[19] Suri R M, Burkhart H M, Daly R C, et al. Robotic mitral valve repair for all prolapse subsets using techniques identical to open valvuloplasty: establishing the benchmark against which percutaneous interventions should be judged[J]. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg, 2011, 142(5): 970-979. 

[20] Kadiroullar E, Onan B, Aydn N, et al. A comparison of robotically-assisted endoscopic versus sternotomy approach[J]. Turkish Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 2020, 28(3): 450-459.

[21] Moss E, Halkos M E, Miller J S, et al. Comparison of endoscopic robotic versus sternotomy approach for the resection of left atrial tumors[J]. Innovations Technology and Techniques in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery, 2016, 11(4): 1.

[22] Schilling J, Engel A M, Hassan M, et al. Robotic excision of atrial myxoma[J]. Journal of Cardiac Surgery, 2012, 27(4): 423-426.

[23] Morgan J A, Peacock J C, Kohmoto T, et al. Robotic techniques improve quality of life in patients undergoing atrial septal defect repair[J]. Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 2004, 77(4): 1328-1333.

[24] Hemli J M, Patel N C. Robotic Cardiac Surgery[J]. Surg Clin North Am, 2020. 100(2): 219-236. [25] Doulamis I P, Spartalis E, Machairas N, et al. The role of robotics in cardiac surgery: a systematic review[J]. J Robot Surg, 2019. 13(1): 41-52.