PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
Survival outcomes of robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) remain controversial. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate survival outcomes between RRH) and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) in patients with early-stage cervical cancer.
Studies comparing between RRH and LRH published up to November 2022 were systemically searched in the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar databases. Manual searches of related articles and relevant bibliographies of the published studies were also performed. Two researchers independently extracted data. Studies with information on recurrence and death after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy were also included. The extracted data were analyzed using the Stata MP software package version 17.0.
Twenty eligible clinical trials were included in the meta-analysis. When all studies were pooled, the odds ratios of RRH for recurrence and death were 1.19 (95% confidence interval [CI]=0.91-1.55; p=0.613; I²=0.0%) and 0.96 (95% CI=0.65-1.42; p=0.558; I²=0.0%), respectively. In a subgroup analysis, the quality of study methodology, study size, country where the study was conducted, and publication year were not associated with survival outcomes between RRH and LRH.
This meta-analysis demonstrates that the survival outcomes are comparable between RRH and LRH.
International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews Identifier: CRD42023387916.
Studies comparing between RRH and LRH published up to November 2022 were systemically searched in the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar databases. Manual searches of related articles and relevant bibliographies of the published studies were also performed. Two researchers independently extracted data. Studies with information on recurrence and death after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy were also included. The extracted data were analyzed using the Stata MP software package version 17.0.
Twenty eligible clinical trials were included in the meta-analysis. When all studies were pooled, the odds ratios of RRH for recurrence and death were 1.19 (95% confidence interval [CI]=0.91-1.55; p=0.613; I²=0.0%) and 0.96 (95% CI=0.65-1.42; p=0.558; I²=0.0%), respectively. In a subgroup analysis, the quality of study methodology, study size, country where the study was conducted, and publication year were not associated with survival outcomes between RRH and LRH.
This meta-analysis demonstrates that the survival outcomes are comparable between RRH and LRH.
International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews Identifier: CRD42023387916.
摘要：
目的：机器人根治性子宫切除术（RRH）的生存结果仍存在争议。因此,我们进行了一项荟萃分析,以评估早期宫颈癌患者RRH)和腹腔镜下根治性子宫切除术(LRH)之间的生存结局.
方法：在PubMed中系统搜索了截至2022年11月发布的RRH和LRH之间的比较研究，科克伦图书馆,WebofScience,ScienceDirect,和谷歌学者数据库。还进行了相关文章和已发表研究的相关参考书目的手动搜索。两名研究人员独立提取数据。还包括有关微创根治性子宫切除术后复发和死亡信息的研究。使用StataMP软件包17.0版分析提取的数据。
结果：20项符合条件的临床试验纳入荟萃分析。当所有研究都集中在一起时，复发和死亡的RRH比值比分别为1.19(95%置信区间[CI]=0.91-1.55;p=0.613;I²=0.0%)和0.96(95%CI=0.65-1.42;p=0.558;I²=0.0%),分别。在亚组分析中，研究方法的质量，研究规模，进行研究的国家，和发表年份与RRH和LRH之间的生存结局无关。
结论：本荟萃分析显示RRH和LRH的生存结局相当。
背景：国际系统评价前瞻性注册标识符：CRD42023387916。
方法：在PubMed中系统搜索了截至2022年11月发布的RRH和LRH之间的比较研究，科克伦图书馆,WebofScience,ScienceDirect,和谷歌学者数据库。还进行了相关文章和已发表研究的相关参考书目的手动搜索。两名研究人员独立提取数据。还包括有关微创根治性子宫切除术后复发和死亡信息的研究。使用StataMP软件包17.0版分析提取的数据。
结果：20项符合条件的临床试验纳入荟萃分析。当所有研究都集中在一起时，复发和死亡的RRH比值比分别为1.19(95%置信区间[CI]=0.91-1.55;p=0.613;I²=0.0%)和0.96(95%CI=0.65-1.42;p=0.558;I²=0.0%),分别。在亚组分析中，研究方法的质量，研究规模，进行研究的国家，和发表年份与RRH和LRH之间的生存结局无关。
结论：本荟萃分析显示RRH和LRH的生存结局相当。
背景：国际系统评价前瞻性注册标识符：CRD42023387916。
