|
|
经脐单孔与传统多孔腹腔镜下全子宫切除术临床疗效随机对照研究的荟萃分析
|
Abstract:
目的：探索经脐单孔与传统多孔腹腔镜下全子宫切除术的临床疗效，评估经脐单孔腹腔镜下全子宫切除术是否优于传统多孔腹腔镜下全子宫切除术。资料和方法：检索PubMed、Pub Scholar、Cell Press、新英格兰医学期刊、中国知网和中华医学期刊网，检索时间从2010年至2024年7月。纳入比较经脐单孔与传统多孔腹腔镜下全子宫切除术在良性妇科疾病患者中应用的随机对照试验。使用科克伦偏倚风险评估工具进行研究评价。计算加权平均差、风险比和95%置信区间。研究观察主要结局是术后疼痛评分，术后肛门首次排气时间，次要结局是并发症发生率、转换率、手术时间、估计失血量、住院时间。所有统计分析和绘图均使用STATA 16.0和Microsoft 365MSO进行。结果：纳入符合研究主题的随机对照试验12项，共纳入1301例患者。经脐单孔腹腔镜下全子宫切除术在术后12小时和24小时疼痛评分更低、术后排气时间更短、手术时间更长，在术中术后并发症，手术转换率、估计失血量、术前术后血红蛋白水平、是否输血、住院时间方面与传统多孔腹腔镜下子宫切除术无显著差异。结论是经脐单孔腹腔镜下全子宫切除术对于减轻患者术后疼痛、加快排气时间方面有明显优势，关于评价手术切口美容效果、患者对手术切口满意度、镇痛药物的使用每个研究制定的评价标准不一致，所以无法将其纳入分析，也是该荟萃分析的不足之处，也意味着需要进一步的长期随访的大型前瞻性随机对照试验来明确经脐单孔腹腔镜下全子宫切除术的优势。
Objective: To explore the clinical efficacy of transumbilical single-port laparoscopic total hysterectomy compared with conventional multi-port laparoscopic total hysterectomy and assess whether transumbilical single-port laparoscopic total hysterectomy is superior to conventional multi-port laparoscopic total hysterectomy. Methods: We searched PubMed, PubScholar, Cell Press, The New England Journal of Medicine, CNKI, and China Medical Journal Network for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing transumbilical single-port laparoscopic total hysterectomy with conventional multi-port laparoscopic total hysterectomy in patients with benign gynecological diseases, with a search period from 2010 to July 2024. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was utilized to evaluate the included studies. Weighted mean differences, risk ratios, and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. The primary outcomes of interest were postoperative pain scores and the time to first postoperative flatus, while secondary outcomes included complication rates, conversion rates, operative time, estimated blood loss, and length of hospital stay. All statistical analyses and graphical representations were conducted using STATA 16.0 and Microsoft 365MSO. Results: Twelve RCTs, involving a total of 1301 patients, met the inclusion criteria. Transumbilical single-port laparoscopic total hysterectomy was found to result in lower pain scores at 12 and 24 hours postoperatively and a shorter time to first postoperative flatus, but with a longer operative time. There were no significant differences between transumbilical single-port laparoscopic total hysterectomy and conventional multi-port laparoscopic total hysterectomy in terms of intraoperative and postoperative complications, conversion rates, estimated blood loss, preoperative and postoperative hemoglobin levels, blood
| [1] | 张春花, 范晓东, 关小明. 妇科单孔腹腔镜手术的应用现状和未来的发展趋势[J]. 中国临床新医学, 2020, 13(8): 747-751. |
| [2] | 张春花, 关小明. 妇科经自然腔道单孔手术发展现状与未来方向[J]. 中国临床新医学, 2024, 17(6): 601-606. |
| [3] | Sandberg, E.M., Twijnstra, A.R.H., Driessen, S.R.C. and Jansen, F.W. (2017) Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy versus Vaginal Hysterectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, 24, 206-217.e22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2016.10.020 |
| [4] | Page, M.J., McKenzie, J.E., Bossuyt, P.M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T.C., Mulrow, C.D., et al. (2021) The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews. The BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71 |
| [5] | Shi, J., Luo, D., Wan, X., Liu, Y., Liu, J., Bian, Z., et al. (2023) Detecting the Skewness of Data from the Five-Number Summary and Its Application in Meta-Analysis. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 32, 1338-1360. https://doi.org/10.1177/09622802231172043 |
| [6] | Shi, J., Luo, D., Weng, H., Zeng, X., Lin, L., Chu, H., et al. (2020) Optimally Estimating the Sample Standard Deviation from the Five-Number Summary. Research Synthesis Methods, 11, 641-654. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1429 |
| [7] | Cordero, C.P. and Dans, A.L. (2021) Key Concepts in Clinical Epidemiology: Detecting and Dealing with Heterogeneity in Meta-Analyses. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 130, 149-151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.09.045 |
| [8] | Andrade, C. (2020) Understanding the Basics of Meta-Analysis and How to Read a Forest Plot. The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 81, 20f13698. https://doi.org/10.4088/jcp.20f13698 |
| [9] | Seidler, A.L., Hunter, K.E., Cheyne, S., Berlin, J.A., Ghersi, D. and Askie, L.M. (2020) Prospective Meta-Analyses and Cochrane’s Role in Embracing Next-Generation Methodologies. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, No. 10, ED000145. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.ed000145 |
| [10] | Kotz, D. and West, R. (2022) Key Concepts in Clinical Epidemiology: Addressing and Reporting Sources of Bias in Randomized Controlled Trials. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 143, 197-201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.09.029 |
| [11] | Brush, P.L., Sherman, M. and Lambrechts, M.J. (2023) Interpreting Meta-Analyses. Clinical Spine Surgery: A Spine Publication, 37, 40-42. https://doi.org/10.1097/bsd.0000000000001534 |
| [12] | Chen, Y., Wang, P., Ocampo, E.J., Twu, N., Yen, M. and Chao, K. (2011) Single-Port Compared with Conventional Laparoscopic-Assisted Vaginal Hysterectomy. A Randomized Controlled Trial. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 117, 906-912. https://doi.org/10.1097/aog.0b013e31820c666a |
| [13] | Jung, Y.W., Lee, M., Yim, G.W., Lee, S.H., Paek, J.H., Kwon, H.Y., et al. (2011) A Randomized Prospective Study of Single-Port and Four-Port Approaches for Hysterectomy in Terms of Postoperative Pain. Surgical Endoscopy, 25, 2462-2469. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-010-1567-z |
| [14] | Song, T., Cho, J., Kim, T., Kim, I., Hahm, T.S., Kim, B., et al. (2013) Cosmetic Outcomes of Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Hysterectomy Compared with Multi-Port Surgery: Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, 20, 460-467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2013.01.010 |
| [15] | Chung, J., Baek, J.M., Chung, K., Park, E.K., Jeung, I.C., Chang, H.T., et al. (2015) A Comparison of Postoperative Pain after Transumbilical Single-Port Access and Conventional Three-Port Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 94, 1290-1296. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.12767 |
| [16] | 黄晖媛, 赵仁峰, 李雪, 等. 单孔腹腔镜与传统腹腔镜行全子宫切除术的效果对比研究[J]. 中国临床新医学, 2015, 8(12): 1126-1129. |
| [17] | 许胜红. 经脐单孔腹腔镜全子宫切除术可行性的探讨[D]: [硕士学位论文]. 合肥: 安徽医科大学, 2019. |
| [18] | 孔悦. 经脐单孔腹腔镜在全子宫切除术中的疗效分析[D]: [硕士学位论文]. 长春: 吉林大学, 2020. |
| [19] | 莫金凤. 常规器械经脐单孔腹腔镜与多孔腹腔镜全子宫切除术治疗子宫病变的效果比较[J]. 中国现代药物应用, 2021, 15(6): 95-97. |
| [20] | 娜仁. 经脐单切口三通道腹腔镜全子宫切除术的临床应用研究[D]: [硕士学位论文]. 通辽: 内蒙古民族大学, 2020. |
| [21] | Li, M., Han, Y. and Feng, Y. (2012) Single-Port Laparoscopic Hysterectomy versus Conventional Laparoscopic Hysterectomy: A Prospective Randomized Trial. Journal of International Medical Research, 40, 701-708. https://doi.org/10.1177/147323001204000234 |
| [22] | Kim, T., Shin, S., Kim, T., Cho, C., Kwon, S., Sung, S., et al. (2015) Multi-Institution, Prospective, Randomized Trial to Compare the Success Rates of Single-Port versus Multiport Laparoscopic Hysterectomy for the Treatment of Uterine Myoma or Adenomyosis. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, 22, 785-791. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2015.02.022 |
| [23] | 祖力皮亚木·托合提. 单孔腹腔镜与传统腹腔镜治疗妇科良性疾病临床疗效随机对照试验[D]: [硕士学位论文]. 乌鲁木齐: 新疆医科大学, 2020. |
| [24] | Giannini, A., D’Oria, O., Bogani, G., Di Donato, V., Vizza, E., Chiantera, V., et al. (2022) Hysterectomy: Let’s Step Up the Ladder of Evidence to Look over the Horizon. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 11, Article 6940. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11236940 |
| [25] | Azadi, A., Masoud, A.T., Ulibarri, H., Arroyo, A., Coriell, C., Goetz, S., et al. (2023) Vaginal Hysterectomy Compared with Laparoscopic Hysterectomy in Benign Gynecologic Conditions. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 142, 1373-1394. https://doi.org/10.1097/aog.0000000000005434 |
| [26] | Capozzi, V.A., Armano, G., Rosati, A., Tropea, A. and Biondi, A. (2020) The Robotic Single-Port Platform for Gynecologic Surgery: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-Analysis. Updates in Surgery, 73, 1155-1167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-020-00812-8 |
| [27] | Pickett, C.M., Seeratan, D.D., Mol, B.W.J., Nieboer, T.E., Johnson, N., Bonestroo, T., et al. (2023) Surgical Approach to Hysterectomy for Benign Gynaecological Disease. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, No. 8, CD003677. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd003677.pub6 |
| [28] | Zhang, W., Deng, L., Yang, F., Liu, J., Chen, S., You, X., et al. (2024) Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of Three Surgical Approaches for Total Hysterectomy (TSATH): Protocol for a Multicentre, Single-Blind, Parallel-Group, Randomised Controlled Trial. BMJ Open, 14, e074478. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-074478 |
| [29] | O’Neill, A.M., Calpin, G.G., Norris, L. and Beirne, J.P. (2023) The Impact of Enhanced Recovery after Gynaecological Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Gynecologic Oncology, 168, 8-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2022.10.019 |
| [30] | Li, F., Zheng, Y., Yang, F. and Liu, J. (2024) Assessing the Learning Curve for Transumbilical Single-Site Laparoscopy for Endometrial Cancer. Frontiers in Oncology, 14, Article 1337719. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2024.1337719 |
| [31] | Gardella, B., Dominoni, M., Gritti, A., Mereu, L., Bogliolo, S., Torella, M., et al. (2023) Comparison between Robotic Single-Site and Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Hysterectomy: Multicentric Analysis of Surgical Outcomes. Medicina, 59, Article 122. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina59010122 |
| [32] | Housmans, S., Noori, N., Kapurubandara, S., Bosteels, J.J.A., Cattani, L., Alkatout, I., et al. (2020) Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Hysterectomy by Vaginal Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery (vNOTES) Compared to Laparoscopic Hysterectomy for Benign Indications. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 9, Article 3959. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9123959 |
| [33] | Yuan, W., Yang, F. and Zheng, Y. (2023) Perioperative Outcomes of Transvaginal Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery and Transumbilical Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Surgery in Hysterectomy: A Comparative Study. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, 165, 1151-1157. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.15323 |
| [34] | You, X., Wang, Y., Zheng, Y., Yang, F., Wang, Q., Min, L., et al. (2023) Efficacy of Transumbilical Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Surgery versus Multi-Port Laparoscopic Surgery for Endometrial Cancer: A Retrospective Comparison Study. Frontiers in Oncology, 13, Article 907548. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2023.1181235 |
| [35] | Mereu, L., Dalprà, F. and Tateo, S. (2021) Laparoendoscopic Single Site Hysterectomy: Literature Review and Procedure Description. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 10, Article 2073. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10102073 |
| [36] | Nelson, G., Fotopoulou, C., Taylor, J., Glaser, G., Bakkum-Gamez, J., Meyer, L.A., et al. (2023) Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS®) Society Guidelines for Gynecologic Oncology: Addressing Implementation Challenges—2023 Update. Gynecologic Oncology, 173, 58-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2023.04.009 |
| [37] | Xie, W., Cao, D., Yang, J., Yu, M., Shen, K. and Zhao, L. (2016) Single-Port vs Multiport Laparoscopic Hysterectomy: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, 23, 1049-1056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2016.08.826 |
| [38] | Bisch, S.P. and Nelson, G. (2022) Outcomes of Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) in Gynecologic Oncology: A Review. Current Oncology, 29, 631-640. https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol29020056 |
| [39] | 郑莹, 熊光武, 刘娟, 等. 经脐单孔腹腔镜手术脐部切口管理专家共识(2022年版) [J]. 实用妇产科杂志, 2022, 38(3): 192-197. |
| [40] | 王永军. 妇科良性疾病经脐单孔腹腔镜子宫切除术的优劣势评价[J]. 中国实用妇科与产科杂志, 2023, 39(5): 508-511. |
