METHODS: A systematic search of the following databases was conducted: PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science. A meta-analysis was performed for the outcomes of length of stay (LOS), recurrence, operative time, intraoperative complications, wound complications, 30-day readmission, 30-day reoperation, mortality and costs.
RESULTS: A total of 39 studies met inclusion criteria. Overall, RVHR reduced LOS, intra-operative complications, wound complications and readmission compared to OVHR. Compared to LVHR, RVHR was associated with increased operative time and costs, with comparable clinical outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: There is currently a lack of robust evidence to support the robotic approach in VHR. It does not demonstrate major benefits in comparison to LVHR, which is more affordable and accessible. Strong quality, long-term data is required to help with establishing a gold standard approach in VHR.
方法:对以下数据库进行了系统搜索:PubMed,Embase,Scopus和WebofScience对住院时间(LOS)的结果进行了荟萃分析,复发,手术时间,术中并发症,伤口并发症,重新接纳30天,30天再次手术,死亡率和成本。
结果:共有39项研究符合纳入标准。总的来说,RVHR降低了LOS,术中并发症,与OVHR相比,伤口并发症和再入院。与LVHR相比,RVHR与手术时间和成本的增加有关,具有可比的临床结果。
结论:目前缺乏有力的证据来支持VHR中的机器人方法。与LVHR相比,它没有显示出主要的好处,更实惠,更容易获得。质量强,需要长期数据来帮助建立VHR的黄金标准方法。