临床荟萃

• 荟萃分析 • 上一篇    下一篇

机器人辅助与胸腔镜胸腺切除术的疗效对比:系统评价与Meta分析

  

  1. 1.甘肃中医药大学,甘肃 兰州 730000; 2.甘肃省人民医院 胸外科,甘肃 兰州 730000
  • 出版日期:2019-02-20 发布日期:2019-03-11
  • 通讯作者: 通信作者:苟云久,Email:gouyunjiu@163.com
  • 基金资助:
    甘肃省卫生行业计划--高海拔地区达芬奇机器人治疗非小细胞肺癌患者的疗效分析(GSWSKY2017-56);甘肃省人民
    医院院内科研基金-高海拔地区达芬奇机器人治疗非小细胞肺癌患者的疗效分析(16GSSY3-1)

Videoassisted thoracoscopic versus robotic--assisted thoracoscopic thymectomy:a systematic review and metaanalysis

  1. 1. Department of Clinical Medicine,  Gansu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine,  Lanzhou  730000,  China;
    2. Department of  Thoracic Surgery,  Gansu Province People’s Hospital,  Lanzhou  730000,  China
  • Online:2019-02-20 Published:2019-03-11
  • Contact: Corresponding author:Gou Yunjiu, Email:gouyunjiu@163.com

摘要: 目的  系统评价机器人辅助下(RATS)与胸腔镜辅助下(VATS)的胸腺切除术的安全性与有效性。方法  计算机检索PubMed,EMBASE,Cochrane library,CNKI,WanFang Data和CBM数据库,搜集关于RATS对比VATS的临床研究,采用RevMan 5.3进行Meta分析。结果 纳入9篇病例对照研究,共纳入668名行胸腺切除术的患者。Meta分析结果显示,RATS住院天数少于VATS组[MD=-1.42,  95%CI(-2.32; -0.52),P=0.002]。术后引流天数RATS组少于VATS组[MD=-0.70,95%CI(-1.26; -0.14),P=0.01]。手术时间RATS更长[MD=13.24,95%CI(3.82; 22.66),P=0.006]。术中失血量,两组差异无统计学意义[MD=-19.22,95%CI(-52.66; 14.22),P=0.26]。中转开胸,两组差异无统计学意义[OR=0.42,95%CI(0.07; 2.35),P=0.32]。两组术后肺炎发生率差异无统计学意义[OR=0.72,95%CI(0.15; 3.42),P=0.67]。术后重症肌无力危象发生率,两组差异无统计学意义[OR=0.61,95%CI(0.17; 2.15),P=0.45]。两组术后总体并发症发生率差异无统计学意义[OR=1.4,95%CI(0.42; 4.69),P=0.59]。结论 现有证据表明RATS是安全有效的,在术中失血量,中转开胸,术后肺炎并发症,术后重症肌无力发生率,术后总体并发症发生率上两种手术方式无差异,但在住院天数,术后引流天数上RATS组更有优势,手术时间RATS组更长。

关键词: 机器人, 胸腺瘤, 重症肌无力

Abstract: Objective  To systematically evaluate the safety and effectiveness of roboticassisted thoracoscopic surgery (RATS) and videoassisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) for thymectomy. Methods  A computerized search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library and CBM database for clinical studies on RATS comparing VATS. RevMan 5.3 was used for metaanalysis. Results  Nine casecontrol studies were included, including 668 patients undergoing thymectomy. Metaanalysis showed that the days of hospitalization in RATS group were less than those in VATS group (MD=-1.42, 95%CI[-2.32; -0.52], P=0.002).The number of days of postoperative drainage was less than that in VATS group (MD=-0.70,95%CI[-1.26; -0.14],P=0.01).The operation time was longer in RATS (MD=13.24,95%CI[3.82; 22.66],P=0.006). The intraoperative blood loss showed no statistical difference between two groups (MD=-19.22,95%CI[-52.66; 14.22],P=0.26).Transthoracic thoracotomy showed no statistical difference between two groups (OR=0.42, 95%CI[0.07; 2.35], P=0.32). There was no statistical difference in the incidence of postoperative pneumonia between two groups (OR=0.72,95%CI[0.15; 3.42],P=0.67).  There was no significant difference in the incidence of myasthenia gravis crisis between two groups (OR=0.61, 95%CI[0.17; 2.15],P=0.45).  The overall incidence of postoperative complications was not statistically different between two groups (OR=1.4, 95%CI[0.42; 4.69],P=0.59).Conclusion  The robotassisted thymectomy is safe and effective. There is no difference between two surgical methods: intraoperative blood loss, transthoracic thoracotomy and postoperative pneumonia complications, the incidence of myasthenia gravis crisis after surgery and overall postoperative complication rate.

Key words: robotics, thymoma, myasthenia gravis