机器人与腹腔镜手术系统在侃骨固定术中应用与疗效的 Meta 分析

摘要/Abstract

目的：比较机器人胀骨固定术(Robotic sacrocolopexy,RSC) 与腹腔镜胀骨固定术(Laparoscopic sacrocolopexy,LSC) 的临床疗效。方法：检索 2020 年 3 月前万方、维普、中国知网(CNKI)、中国生物医学文献数据库(CBM)、Pubmed、EMbase、Cochrane Library 以及 Scopus 等数据库公开发表的关千 RSC 和 LSC 临床疗效比较的研究,采用 Cochrane RevMan 5.3 软件进行 Meta 分析。结果：共纳入 18 篇文献,收集病例 2 472例, 其中 RSC 组 1 134 例,LSC 组 1 338 例。Meta 分析结果显示,RSC 组手术时间较 LSC 组长(WMD=37.35, 95%CI=24.46-50.24,P<0.00001),术中出血噩较 lsc="" wmd="-58.48,95%CI=-100.58--16.39,P=0.006),腔镜中转率较" or="0.35,95%CI=0.15-0.79,P=0.01),两组在平均住院日、术中并发症、术后并发症、盆腔器官脱垂(Pelvic" organ="" p="">0.05)。结论：RSC 和 LSC均具有高治愈率和低复发的临床疗效,而RSC 在手术精细化操作和安全性方面更具有优势,在临床中有较大的应用前早

Objective: To compare the clinical effects between robotic sacrocolpopexy (RSC) and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) with meta-analysis. Methods: A literature search was performed in WANFANG Data, CQVIP Data, CNKI data, China Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), Pubmed, EMbase, Cochrane Library and Scopus database for clinical researches published on comparison between RSC and LSC before March 2020. Results: 18 literatures were included in this study and a total of 2 472 cases were collected, including 1 134 cases of RSC and 1 338 cases of LSC. The results shows that RSC group has longer operation time (WMD=37.35, 95% CI=24.46-50.24, P<0.00001), less="" intraoperative="" blood="" loss="" wmd="-58.48," ci="0.15-0.79," p="" lower="" conversion="" rate="" or="0.35," comparing="" with="" lsc="" group.="" no="" significant="" differences="" on="" hospital="" postoperative="" pop="" cure="" and="" objective="" recurrence="" between="" the="" two="" groups="">0.05).Conclusion: RSC has the high cure rate and low recurrence same as LSC, it is superior to LSC in fine operation and surgical safety, which has great application prospects in clinical practice.

稿件信息

参考文献

[1]PENG P, ZHU L, LANG J H, et al.Unilateral sacro- spinous ligament fixation for treatment of genital prolapse[J].Chin Med J (Engl), 2010, 123 (15): 1995-1998.

[2]Luber K M, Boero S, Choe J Y.The demographics of pelvic floor disorders: Current observations and future projections[J]. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2001, 184 (7): 1496-1503.

[3]张晓薇 . 腹腔镜下阴道胀骨固定术应用现况与思考 [J]. 中国实用妇科与产科杂志 , 2015, 31 (4): 301- 304.

[4]李秀丽 , 杨怡卓 , 刘忠宇 , 等 . 机器人系统在子宫脱垂临床治疗上的应用 [J]. 中华腔镜外科杂志 ( 电子版 ), 2013, 6 (5): 362-364.

[5]Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D, et al.Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument[J].ANZ J Surg, 2003, 73 (9): 712-716.

[6]Anger J T, Mueller E R, Tarnay C, et al.Robotic Compared With Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy[J]. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2014, 123 (1): 5-12.

[7]Awad N, Mustafa S, Amit A, et al.Implementation of a new procedure: laparoscopic versus robotic sacrocolpopexy[J].Arch Gynecol Obstet, 2013, 287 (6): 1181-1186.

[8]Chan S S C, Pang S M W, Cheung T H, et al. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of vaginal vault prolapse: with or without robotic assistance[J]. Hong Kong Medical Journal, 2011, 17 (1): 54.

[9]Cucinella G, Calagna G, Romano G, et al.Robotic versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for apical prolapse: A case-control study[J].IL Giornale Di Chirurgia, 2016, 37 (3): 113-117.

[10]Illiano E, Ditonno P, Giannitsas K, et al.Robot-assisted Vs Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy for High-stage Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Prospective, Randomized, Single-center Study[J].Urology, 2019. DOI: 10.1016/ j.urology.2019.07.043.

[11]Mueller M G, Jacobs K M, Mueller E R, et al.Outcomes in 450 Women After Minimally Invasive Abdominal Sacrocolpopexy for Pelvic Organ Prolapse[J].Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg, 2016, 22 (4): 267-271.

[12]Pulliam S J, Weinstein M M, Wakamatsu M M.Minimally Invasive Apical Sacropexy[J].Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery, 2012, 18 (2): 122-126.

[13]Seror J, Yates D R, Seringe E, et al.Prospective comparison of short-term functional outcomes obtained after pure laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy[J].World J Urol, 2012, 30 (3): 393-398.

[14]Tan-Kim J, Menefee S A, Luber K M, et al.Robotic- Assisted and Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy: Comparing Operative Times, Costs and Outcomes[J].Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery, 2011, 17 (1): 44-49.

[15]Ferrando C A, Paraiso M F R.A Prospective Randomized Trial Comparing Restorelle Y Mesh and Flat Mesh for Laparoscopic and Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy[J].Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery, 2019, 25 (2): 83-87.

[16]Paraiso M F R, Jelovsek J E, Frick A, et al.Laparoscopic Compared With Robotic Sacrocolpopexy for Vaginal Prolapse A Randomized Controlled Trial[J].Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2011, 118 (5): 1005.

[17]Unger C A, Paraiso M F R, Jelovsek J E, et al. Perioperative adverse events after minimally invasive abdominal sacrocolpopexy[J]. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2014, 211 (5): 541-547.

[18]Antosh D D, Grotzke S A, Mcdonald M A, et al.Short- Term Outcomes of Robotic Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Sacral Colpopexy[J].Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery, 2012, 18 (3): 158.

[19]Nosti P A, Andy U U, Kane S, et al.Outcomes of Abdominal and Minimally Invasive Sacrocolpopexy: A Retrospective Cohort Study[J].Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery, 2014, 20 (1): 33.

[20]Joubert M, Thubert T, Lefranc J P, et al.Comparison of functional outcomes with purely laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy and robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy in obese women[J].Prog Urol, 2014, 24 (17): 1106-1113.

[21]Kenton K, Mueller E R, Tarney C, et al.One-Year Outcomes After Minimally Invasive Sacrocolpopexy[J] Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery, 2016, 22 (5): 382.

[22]Ganatra A M, Rozet F, Sanchez-Salas R, et al.The Current Status of Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy: A Review[J].European Urology, 2009, 55 (5): 1089-1105.

[23]Gaston R, Ramsden A.Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy[J]. BJU International, 2011, 107 (3): 500-517.

[24]Westerman M E, Elliott D S, Shimko M S, et al.Robotic Sacrocolpopexy[M]. Springer International Publishing, 2017: 351-363.

[25]Gou W, Norihiro I.Da Vinci surgical system[J].Kyobu Geka. The Japanese Journal of Thoracic Surgery, 2014, 67 (8): 686-689.

[26]刘国晓 , 申伟松 , 陈溃 , 等 . 机器人与腹腔镜胃癌手术临床疗效对比的 Meta 分析 [J]. 中华胃肠外科杂志 , 2016, 19 (3): 328-333.

[27]Mohamed N A, Jaime B L, Dobie L G, et al.Robotic- assisted sacrocolpopexy: technique and learning curve[J].Surgical Endoscopy, 2009, 23 (10): 2390- 2394.

[28]HAN C, SHAN X, YAO L, et al.Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy for benign gallbladder diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J].Surg Endosc, 2018, 32 (11): 4377-4392.

[0]	经腹膜外机器人辅助腹腔镜治疗大体积前列腺癌一例报道
[1]	机器人技术在冠状动脉介人治疗中的应用与研究进展
[2]	机器人膝关节单悚置换术护理配合
[3]	加速康复外科理念在腹腔镜下宫颈癌根治术中的管理实践及效果评价
[4]	机器人辅助腹腔镜黏膜下隧道法输尿管再植术的临床疗效分析
[5]	加速康复外科联合关闭盆底腹膜在机器人直肠癌手术中的短期临床疗效
[6]	机器人与腹腔镜手术系统在侃骨固定术中应用与疗效的 Meta 分析
[7]	达芬奇机器人辅助胸腔镜肺部手术护理配合中常见机器人设备相关问题的回顾性分析