切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"
高级检索
中华结直肠疾病电子杂志

中华结直肠疾病电子杂志 ›› 2021, Vol. 10 ›› Issue (05) : 505 -513. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-3224.2021.05.010

论著

机器人和腹腔镜直肠癌根治术近期疗效的Meta分析
王素1, 孙振青2, 刘小雷2, 苏萌萌2, 王东升2,†(), 种瑞峰1   
  1. 1. 266109　青岛大学第十五临床医学院普外科
    2. 266003　青岛大学附属医院胃肠外科
  • 收稿日期:2020-08-17 出版日期:2021-10-25
  • 通信作者: 王东升

Short term efficacy of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis

Su Wang1, Zhenqing Sun2, Xiaolei Liu2, Mengmeng Su2, Dongsheng Wang2,†(), Ruifeng Chong1   

  1. 1. Department of General Surgery, the Fifteenth Clinical College of Qingdao University, Qingdao 266109, China
    2. Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao 266003, China
  • Received:2020-08-17 Published:2021-10-25
  • Corresponding author: Dongsheng Wang
全文 ( ) 下载PDF ( ) 导出引用
引用本文：

王素, 孙振青, 刘小雷, 苏萌萌, 王东升, 种瑞峰. 机器人和腹腔镜直肠癌根治术近期疗效的Meta分析[J/OL]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2021, 10(05): 505-513.

Su Wang, Zhenqing Sun, Xiaolei Liu, Mengmeng Su, Dongsheng Wang, Ruifeng Chong. Short term efficacy of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Colorectal Diseases(Electronic Edition), 2021, 10(05): 505-513.

目的

通过Meta分析的方法比较机器人直肠癌根治术与腹腔镜直肠癌根治术的安全性、可行性与近期疗效。

方法

检索包括Pubmed、EMBASE、Cochrane Library、中国生物医学文献数据库（CBM）、中国知网（CNKI）、万方数据、维普数据库在内的数据库。检索时间为建库至2020年3月。用NOS评分系统评价文献质量。用Review Manager 5.3软件进行统计分析。

结果

最终纳入符合标准的相关文献9篇，纳入患者1 527例，其中达芬奇机器人辅助直肠癌根治术（RP）组786例（51.5%）、腹腔镜辅助直肠癌根治术（LP）组741例（48.5%）。分析结果显示：与LP组相比，RP组手术时间长（WMD=36.74，95%CI=7.84~65.64，P=0.01＜0.05），RP组平均术中失血量少（WMD=-20.92，95% CI=-34.56~-7.28，P=0.003），平均住院时间缩短（WMD=0.85，95% CI=-1.37~-0.33，P=0.001），中转开腹率低（WMD=0.44，95% CI=0.20~0.98，P=0.04）。在淋巴结获取数目、肿瘤距远端切缘距离、术后首次排气时间、造口率、术后并发症总发生率等方面两组间差异均无统计学意义（均P＞0.05）。

结论

机器人直肠癌根治术可减少术中失血量、降低中转开腹率、缩短平均住院时间，但在淋巴结获取数目、肿瘤距远端切缘距离、术后首次排气时间、造口率、术后并发症总发生率等方面无明显优势。

关键词: 直肠肿瘤, 机器人, 腹腔镜, Meta分析
Objective

A meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate and compare the safety, feasibility and short-term efficacy between robotic and laparoscopic radical resection of rectal cancer.

Methods

A literature search was performed including Pubmed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), Chinese CNKI, Wanfang and VIP database. The retrieval time was set up to March 2020. NOS score system was used to evaluate literature quality. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Management 5.3 software.

Results

There were 9 relevant literatures that matched the standards, a total of 1 527 patients were included. There were 786 cases (51.5%) in RP group and 741 cases (48.5%) in LP group. The results showed that compared with LP group, RP group had a longer operative time (WMD=36.74, 95%CI=7.84~65.64, P=0.01＜0.05), less intraoperative blood loss (WMD=-20.92, 95% CI=-34.56~-7.28, P=0.003), shorter average length of hospital stay (WMD=0.85, 95% CI=-1.37~0.33, P=0.001), and lower conversion rate(WMD=0.44, 95% CI=0.20~0.98, P=0.04). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in the number of lymph nodes acquired, the distance between the tumor and the distal cutting edge, the time of first postoperative exhaust, the rate of stoma, and the total incidence of postoperative complications (all P＞0.05).

Conclusion

The robotic of rectal cancer can reduce intraoperative blood loss, reduce the rate of conversion rate, and shorten the average hospital stay, but it has no obvious advantages in the number of lymph nodes acquired, the distance between tumor and distal resection margin, the time of first postoperative exhaust, the rate of stoma, and the total incidence of postoperative complications.

Key words: Rectal neoplasms, Robotic surgery, Laparoscopic surgery, Meta analysis
图1 文献筛选流程图
表1 纳入研究文献的基本特征
第一作者 年份 国家 组别 例数

性别

（男/女）

年龄

（岁）

BMI

（kg/m2）

 术前新辅助（例）

ASA评分

（Ⅰ/Ⅱ/Ⅲ/Ⅳ）

 NOS评分
Pierre-Emmanuel Colombo［5］ 2016 法国 RP 60 40/20 62 25.8 47 20/30/9/1 6
LP 60 42/18 60 23.8 39 18/32/10/0
Soo Yeun Park［6］ 2013 韩国 RP 40 28/12 57.3±12.1 23.9±2.4 32 27/9/4/0 7
LP 40 25/15 63.6±10.6 24.1±3.1 20 24/14/2/0
Deniz Atasoy［7］ 2018 土耳其 RP 45 34/11 63±9 27±4 16 2（1~3） 6
LP 62 34/28 59±11 27±5 21 2（1~4）
Seung Hyuk Baik［8］ 2009 韩国 RP 56 37/19 60（60.3±8.3） 23.4 5 41/14/1/0 7
LP 57 34/23 64（63.2±10.4） 23 7 31/22/3/1
Byung-Eun Yoo［9］ 2015 韩国 RP 44 35/9 59.77±12.33 24.13±3.33 24 26/17/1/0 7
LP 26 19/7 60.5±10.75 21.42±3.13 7 15/11/0/0
D. Kamali［10］ 2017 英国 RP 18 13/5 73±11 未描述 7 0/8/10/0 6
LP 18 11/7 66±11 未描述 10 0/16/2/0
David Jayne［11］ 2017 英国 RP 237 161/76 64.4±10.98 细分 111 39/150/46/0 8
LP 234 159/75 65.5±11.93 细分 108 52/124/52/1
Min Jung Kim［12］ 2018 韩国 RP 66 51/15 90.4±9.7 24.1±3.3 51 20/46/0/0 7
LP 73 52/21 59.7±11.7 23.6±3.0 58 30/43/0/0
Wai Lun Law［13］ 2016 中国 RP 220 148/72 65 24.9 91 26/147/47/0 6
LP 171 97/74 67 24.6 50 20/103/35/0
图2 机器人组与腹腔镜组直肠癌根治术手术时间的Meta分析结果
图3 机器人组与腹腔镜组直肠癌根治术术中失血量的Meta分析结果
图4 机器人组与腹腔镜组直肠癌根治术中转开腹率的Meta分析结果
图5 机器人组与腹腔镜组直肠癌根治术平均住院时间的Meta分析结果
图6 机器人组与腹腔镜组直肠癌根治术造口率的Meta分析结果
图7 机器人组与腹腔镜组直肠癌根治术肿瘤距远端切缘距离的Meta分析结果
图8 机器人组与腹腔镜组直肠癌根治术淋巴结获取数的Meta分析结果
图9 机器人组与腹腔镜组直肠癌根治术术后首次排气时间的Meta分析结果
图10 机器人组与腹腔镜组直肠癌根治术术后并发症总发生率的Meta分析结果
图11 机器人组与腹腔镜组直肠癌根治术术后常见并发症亚组的Meta分析结果
图12 术后总并发症发生率漏斗图
[16]
Heemskerk J, Zandbergen HR, Keet SW, et al. Relax, it's just laparoscopy! A prospective randomized trial on heart rate variability of the surgeon in robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy[J]. Dig Surg, 2014, 31(3): 225-232.
[17]
蔡文智. 医务人员职业伤害现状调查及相关影响因素分析研究[D]. 西安: 第四军医大学, 2009.
[18]
Han C, Yan P, Jing W, et al. Clinical, pathological, and oncologic outcomes of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic proctectomy for rectal cancer: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies[J]. Asian J Surg, 2020, 43(9): 880-890.
[19]
Cui Y, Li C, Xu Z, et al. Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic operation in anus-preserving rectal cancer: a meta-analysis[J]. Ther Clin Risk Manag, 2017, 13: 1247-1257.
[20]
Jiménez-Rodríguez RM, Rubio-Dorado-Manzanares M, Díaz-Pavón JM, et al. Learning curve in robotic rectal cancer surgery: current state of affairs[J]. Int J Colorectal Dis, 2016, 31(12): 1807-1815.
[21]
Ohtani H, Maeda K, Nomura S, et al. Meta-analysis of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer[J]. In Vivo, 2018, 32(3): 611-623.
[22]
Li X, Wang T, Yao L, et al. The safety and effectiveness of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic TME in patients with rectal cancer: A meta-analysis and systematic review[J]. Medicine (Baltimore), 2017, 96(29): e7585.
[23]
Huang YJ, Kang YN, Huang YM, et al. Effects of laparoscopic vs. robotic-assisted mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: An update systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials[J]. Asian J Surg, 2019, 42(6): 657-666.
[24]
Sun Y, Xu H, Li Z, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis[J]. World J Surg Oncol, 2016, 14: 61.
[25]
Bretagnol F, Lelong B, Laurent C, et al. The oncological safety of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with sphincter preservation for rectal carcinoma[J]. Surg Endosc, 2005, 19(7): 892-896.
[1]
Feng RM, Zong YN, Cao SM, et al. Current cancer situation in China: good or bad news from the 2018 Global Cancer Statistics?[J]. Cancer Commun (Lond), 2019, 39(1): 22.
[2]
Köckerling F, Gastinger I, Schneider B, et al. Laparoscopic abdominoperineal excision of the rectum with high ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery in the management of rectal carcinoma[J]. Endosc Surg Allied Technol, 1993, 1(1): 16-19.
[3]
Pigazzi A, Ellenhorn JD, Ballantyne GH, et al. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer[J]. Surg Endosc, 2006, 20(10): 1521-1525.
[4]
杜晓辉, 沈笛, 夏绍友, 等. 应用达芬奇机器人手术系统治疗低位直肠癌[J].中华消化外科杂志, 2010, 9(2): 116-118.
[5]
Colombo PE, Bertrand MM, Alline M, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) for sphincter-saving surgery: is there any difference in the transanal TME rectal approach? : A single-center series of 120 consecutive patients[J]. Ann Surg Oncol, 2016, 23(5): 1594-1600.
[6]
Park SY, Choi GS, Park JS, et al. Short-term clinical outcome of robot-assisted intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: a retrospective comparison with conventional laparoscopy[J]. Surg Endosc, 2013, 27(1): 48-55.
[7]
Atasoy D, Aytac E, Ozben V, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic stapler use for rectal transection in robotic surgery for cancer[J]. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A, 2018, 28(5): 501-505.
[8]
Baik SH, Kwon HY, Kim JS, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic low anterior resection of rectal cancer: short-term outcome of a prospective comparative study[J]. Ann Surg Oncol, 2009, 16(6): 1480-1487.
[9]
Yoo BE, Cho JS, Shin JW, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: comparison of the operative, oncological, and functional outcomes[J]. Ann Surg Oncol, 2015, 22(4): 1219-1225.
[10]
Kamali D, Omar K, Imam SZ, et al. Patient quality of life and short-term surgical outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic anterior resection for adenocarcinoma of the rectum[J]. Tech Coloproctol, 2017, 21(5): 355-361.
[11]
Jayne D, Pigazzi A, Marshall H, et al. Effect of robotic-assisted vs conventional laparoscopic surgery on risk of conversion to open laparotomy among patients undergoing resection for rectal cancer: The ROLARR randomized clinical trial[J]. JAMA, 2017, 318(16): 1569-1580.
[12]
Kim MJ, Park SC, Park JW, et al. Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a phase II open label prospective randomized controlled trial [J]. Ann Surg, 2018, 267(2): 243-251.
[13]
Law WL, DCC F. Comparison of short-term and oncologic outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic resection for mid- and distal rectal cancer[J]. Surg Endosc, 2017, 31(7): 2798-2807.
[14]
Sutton AJ, Duval SJ, Tweedie RL, et al. Empirical assessment of effect of publication bias on meta-analyses[J]. BMJ, 2000, 320(7249): 1574-1577.
[15]
Patel TM, Shah SC, Pancholy SB. Long distance tele-robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention: a report of first-in-human experience[J]. E Clinical Medicine, 2019, 14: 53-58.
[1] 燕速, 霍博文. 腹腔镜食管胃结合部腺癌根治性切除术[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 13-13.
[2] 母德安, 李凯, 张志远, 张伟. 超微创器械辅助单孔腹腔镜下脾部分切除术[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 14-14.
[3] 李国新, 陈新华. 全腹腔镜下全胃切除术食管空肠吻合的临床研究进展[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 1-4.
[4] 李子禹, 卢信星, 李双喜, 陕飞. 食管胃结合部腺癌腹腔镜手术重建方式的选择[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 5-8.
[5] 李乐平, 张荣华, 商亮. 腹腔镜食管胃结合部腺癌根治淋巴结清扫策略[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 9-12.
[6] 陈方鹏, 杨大伟, 金从稳. 腹腔镜近端胃癌切除术联合改良食管胃吻合术重建His角对术后反流性食管炎的效果研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 15-18.
[7] 许杰, 李亚俊, 韩军伟. 两种入路下腹腔镜根治性全胃切除术治疗超重胃癌的效果比较[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 19-22.
[8] 李刘庆, 陈小翔, 吕成余. 全腹腔镜与腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌根治术治疗进展期胃癌的近中期随访比较[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 23-26.
[9] 任佳, 马胜辉, 王馨, 石秀霞, 蔡淑云. 腹腔镜全胃切除、间置空肠代胃术的临床观察[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 31-34.
[10] 赵丽霞, 王春霞, 陈一锋, 胡东平, 张维胜, 王涛, 张洪来. 内脏型肥胖对腹腔镜直肠癌根治术后早期并发症的影响[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 35-39.
[11] 吴晖, 佴永军, 施雪松, 魏晓为. 两种解剖入路下行直肠癌侧方淋巴结清扫的效果比较[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 40-43.
[12] 周世振, 朱兴亚, 袁庆港, 刘理想, 王凯, 缪骥, 丁超, 汪灏, 管文贤. 吲哚菁绿荧光成像技术在腹腔镜直肠癌侧方淋巴结清扫中的应用效果分析[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 44-47.
[13] 王庆亮, 党兮, 师凯, 刘波. 腹腔镜联合胆道子镜经胆囊管胆总管探查取石术[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(02): 313-313.
[14] 杨建辉, 段文斌, 马忠志, 卿宇豪. 腹腔镜下脾部分切除术[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(02): 314-314.
[15] 叶劲松, 刘驳强, 柳胜君, 吴浩然. 腹腔镜肝Ⅶ+Ⅷ段背侧段切除[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(02): 315-315.
阅读次数
全文


摘要

版权所有 中华医学会 中华医学电子音像出版社有限责任公司  京ICP备14006079号-1  网络出版服务许可证：(署)网出证(京)字第075号