Comparison of short-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery, robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery, and open surgery for lateral lymph-node dissection for rectal cancer: a network meta-analysis

This study attempted to compare short-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery (LS), robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RS), and open surgery (OS) for lateral lymph-node dissection (LLND) in treatment of rectal cancer through network meta-analysis. Embase, Web of Science, PubMed, and The Cochrane Lib...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Updates in surgery 2024-08, Vol.76 (4), p.1151-1160
Hauptverfasser: Shen, Zhan, Zhu, Xiaoyi, Ruan, Hang, Shen, Jinmin, Zhu, Mengting, Huang, Sha
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1160
container_issue 4
container_start_page 1151
container_title Updates in surgery
container_volume 76
creator Shen, Zhan
Zhu, Xiaoyi
Ruan, Hang
Shen, Jinmin
Zhu, Mengting
Huang, Sha
description This study attempted to compare short-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery (LS), robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RS), and open surgery (OS) for lateral lymph-node dissection (LLND) in treatment of rectal cancer through network meta-analysis. Embase, Web of Science, PubMed, and The Cochrane Library databases were searched to collect cohort studies on outcomes of LS, RS, and OS for LLND for rectal cancer. Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) was utilized to evaluate the quality of cohort studies. Primary outcomes should at least include one of the following clinical outcome measures: operative time, blood loss, total lymph-node harvest, positive resection margin rate, postoperative complications, and postoperative hospital stay. A network meta-analysis was conducted using STATA software. Fourteen cohort studies including 8612 patients were eligible for inclusion. The network meta-analysis results showed that, in terms of intraoperative outcomes, the RS group had the longest operative time, while the OS group had the shortest; the LS and RS groups had significantly less blood loss than the OS group. In terms of histological outcomes, there were no significant differences in the total number of lymph nodes harvested and the positive margin rate among the LS, RS, and OS groups ( P  > 0.05). Regarding postoperative outcomes, the OS group had the highest probability of postoperative complications and the longest hospital stay, followed by the LS group, with the RS group being the lowest. RS was the best method in blood loss, postoperative complication rate, and postoperative hospital stay, followed by LS. OS had the shortest operative time and the highest blood loss.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s13304-024-01871-x
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_3055453253</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3055453253</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c298t-ecd638586299c4abfdb4455a71eca29a6e997267efd910725357dd0e3a118b473</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kc9u1DAQxi0EolXpC3BAPnLAxX-S2OGGVkCRKnEBiZvl2BOaktjB44juw_FueNktN7BkezT-fTPWfIQ8F_xKcK5fo1CKN4zLuoXRgt0_IueSK8OUEvLxKRZKfD0jl4h3vC7VH86n5EwZ3RhlunPya5eW1eUJU6RppHibcmEF8kLTVnxaAA_p2VUmoU_r5Clu-Rvk_Sua05AKc4gTFgj_gFwMNK0QHzJ0TLmitYWb6bxf1lsWUwAaJkTwZar_OBC5xhXwLnrIb6ijEcrPlL_TBYpjLrp5X9s-I09GNyNcnu4L8uX9u8-7a3bz6cPH3dsb5mVvCgMfOmVa08m-940bxjA0Tds6LcA72bsO-l7LTsMYesG1bFWrQ-CgnBBmaLS6IC-PddecfmyAxS4TephnFyFtaBVv26ZVVVhReUR9nQVmGO2ap8XlvRXcHpyzR-dsdc7-cc7eV9GLU_1tWCD8lTz4VAF1BLA-xTpHe5e2XKeA_yv7G1tIqdQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3055453253</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of short-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery, robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery, and open surgery for lateral lymph-node dissection for rectal cancer: a network meta-analysis</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Shen, Zhan ; Zhu, Xiaoyi ; Ruan, Hang ; Shen, Jinmin ; Zhu, Mengting ; Huang, Sha</creator><creatorcontrib>Shen, Zhan ; Zhu, Xiaoyi ; Ruan, Hang ; Shen, Jinmin ; Zhu, Mengting ; Huang, Sha</creatorcontrib><description>This study attempted to compare short-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery (LS), robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RS), and open surgery (OS) for lateral lymph-node dissection (LLND) in treatment of rectal cancer through network meta-analysis. Embase, Web of Science, PubMed, and The Cochrane Library databases were searched to collect cohort studies on outcomes of LS, RS, and OS for LLND for rectal cancer. Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) was utilized to evaluate the quality of cohort studies. Primary outcomes should at least include one of the following clinical outcome measures: operative time, blood loss, total lymph-node harvest, positive resection margin rate, postoperative complications, and postoperative hospital stay. A network meta-analysis was conducted using STATA software. Fourteen cohort studies including 8612 patients were eligible for inclusion. The network meta-analysis results showed that, in terms of intraoperative outcomes, the RS group had the longest operative time, while the OS group had the shortest; the LS and RS groups had significantly less blood loss than the OS group. In terms of histological outcomes, there were no significant differences in the total number of lymph nodes harvested and the positive margin rate among the LS, RS, and OS groups ( P  &gt; 0.05). Regarding postoperative outcomes, the OS group had the highest probability of postoperative complications and the longest hospital stay, followed by the LS group, with the RS group being the lowest. RS was the best method in blood loss, postoperative complication rate, and postoperative hospital stay, followed by LS. OS had the shortest operative time and the highest blood loss.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2038-131X</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 2038-3312</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2038-3312</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s13304-024-01871-x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 38748386</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cham: Springer International Publishing</publisher><subject>Blood Loss, Surgical - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Humans ; Laparoscopy - methods ; Length of Stay - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Lymph Node Excision - methods ; Medicine ; Medicine &amp; Public Health ; Network Meta-Analysis ; Operative Time ; Original Article ; Postoperative Complications - epidemiology ; Rectal Neoplasms - surgery ; Robotic Surgical Procedures - methods ; Surgery ; Time Factors ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>Updates in surgery, 2024-08, Vol.76 (4), p.1151-1160</ispartof><rights>Italian Society of Surgery (SIC) 2024. Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</rights><rights>2024. Italian Society of Surgery (SIC).</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c298t-ecd638586299c4abfdb4455a71eca29a6e997267efd910725357dd0e3a118b473</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s13304-024-01871-x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13304-024-01871-x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904,41467,42536,51297</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38748386$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Shen, Zhan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhu, Xiaoyi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ruan, Hang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shen, Jinmin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhu, Mengting</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Huang, Sha</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of short-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery, robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery, and open surgery for lateral lymph-node dissection for rectal cancer: a network meta-analysis</title><title>Updates in surgery</title><addtitle>Updates Surg</addtitle><addtitle>Updates Surg</addtitle><description>This study attempted to compare short-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery (LS), robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RS), and open surgery (OS) for lateral lymph-node dissection (LLND) in treatment of rectal cancer through network meta-analysis. Embase, Web of Science, PubMed, and The Cochrane Library databases were searched to collect cohort studies on outcomes of LS, RS, and OS for LLND for rectal cancer. Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) was utilized to evaluate the quality of cohort studies. Primary outcomes should at least include one of the following clinical outcome measures: operative time, blood loss, total lymph-node harvest, positive resection margin rate, postoperative complications, and postoperative hospital stay. A network meta-analysis was conducted using STATA software. Fourteen cohort studies including 8612 patients were eligible for inclusion. The network meta-analysis results showed that, in terms of intraoperative outcomes, the RS group had the longest operative time, while the OS group had the shortest; the LS and RS groups had significantly less blood loss than the OS group. In terms of histological outcomes, there were no significant differences in the total number of lymph nodes harvested and the positive margin rate among the LS, RS, and OS groups ( P  &gt; 0.05). Regarding postoperative outcomes, the OS group had the highest probability of postoperative complications and the longest hospital stay, followed by the LS group, with the RS group being the lowest. RS was the best method in blood loss, postoperative complication rate, and postoperative hospital stay, followed by LS. OS had the shortest operative time and the highest blood loss.</description><subject>Blood Loss, Surgical - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Laparoscopy - methods</subject><subject>Length of Stay - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Lymph Node Excision - methods</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine &amp; Public Health</subject><subject>Network Meta-Analysis</subject><subject>Operative Time</subject><subject>Original Article</subject><subject>Postoperative Complications - epidemiology</subject><subject>Rectal Neoplasms - surgery</subject><subject>Robotic Surgical Procedures - methods</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Time Factors</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>2038-131X</issn><issn>2038-3312</issn><issn>2038-3312</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kc9u1DAQxi0EolXpC3BAPnLAxX-S2OGGVkCRKnEBiZvl2BOaktjB44juw_FueNktN7BkezT-fTPWfIQ8F_xKcK5fo1CKN4zLuoXRgt0_IueSK8OUEvLxKRZKfD0jl4h3vC7VH86n5EwZ3RhlunPya5eW1eUJU6RppHibcmEF8kLTVnxaAA_p2VUmoU_r5Clu-Rvk_Sua05AKc4gTFgj_gFwMNK0QHzJ0TLmitYWb6bxf1lsWUwAaJkTwZar_OBC5xhXwLnrIb6ijEcrPlL_TBYpjLrp5X9s-I09GNyNcnu4L8uX9u8-7a3bz6cPH3dsb5mVvCgMfOmVa08m-940bxjA0Tds6LcA72bsO-l7LTsMYesG1bFWrQ-CgnBBmaLS6IC-PddecfmyAxS4TephnFyFtaBVv26ZVVVhReUR9nQVmGO2ap8XlvRXcHpyzR-dsdc7-cc7eV9GLU_1tWCD8lTz4VAF1BLA-xTpHe5e2XKeA_yv7G1tIqdQ</recordid><startdate>20240801</startdate><enddate>20240801</enddate><creator>Shen, Zhan</creator><creator>Zhu, Xiaoyi</creator><creator>Ruan, Hang</creator><creator>Shen, Jinmin</creator><creator>Zhu, Mengting</creator><creator>Huang, Sha</creator><general>Springer International Publishing</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20240801</creationdate><title>Comparison of short-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery, robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery, and open surgery for lateral lymph-node dissection for rectal cancer: a network meta-analysis</title><author>Shen, Zhan ; Zhu, Xiaoyi ; Ruan, Hang ; Shen, Jinmin ; Zhu, Mengting ; Huang, Sha</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c298t-ecd638586299c4abfdb4455a71eca29a6e997267efd910725357dd0e3a118b473</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Blood Loss, Surgical - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Laparoscopy - methods</topic><topic>Length of Stay - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Lymph Node Excision - methods</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine &amp; Public Health</topic><topic>Network Meta-Analysis</topic><topic>Operative Time</topic><topic>Original Article</topic><topic>Postoperative Complications - epidemiology</topic><topic>Rectal Neoplasms - surgery</topic><topic>Robotic Surgical Procedures - methods</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Time Factors</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Shen, Zhan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhu, Xiaoyi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ruan, Hang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shen, Jinmin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhu, Mengting</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Huang, Sha</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Updates in surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Shen, Zhan</au><au>Zhu, Xiaoyi</au><au>Ruan, Hang</au><au>Shen, Jinmin</au><au>Zhu, Mengting</au><au>Huang, Sha</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of short-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery, robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery, and open surgery for lateral lymph-node dissection for rectal cancer: a network meta-analysis</atitle><jtitle>Updates in surgery</jtitle><stitle>Updates Surg</stitle><addtitle>Updates Surg</addtitle><date>2024-08-01</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>76</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>1151</spage><epage>1160</epage><pages>1151-1160</pages><issn>2038-131X</issn><issn>2038-3312</issn><eissn>2038-3312</eissn><abstract>This study attempted to compare short-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery (LS), robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RS), and open surgery (OS) for lateral lymph-node dissection (LLND) in treatment of rectal cancer through network meta-analysis. Embase, Web of Science, PubMed, and The Cochrane Library databases were searched to collect cohort studies on outcomes of LS, RS, and OS for LLND for rectal cancer. Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) was utilized to evaluate the quality of cohort studies. Primary outcomes should at least include one of the following clinical outcome measures: operative time, blood loss, total lymph-node harvest, positive resection margin rate, postoperative complications, and postoperative hospital stay. A network meta-analysis was conducted using STATA software. Fourteen cohort studies including 8612 patients were eligible for inclusion. The network meta-analysis results showed that, in terms of intraoperative outcomes, the RS group had the longest operative time, while the OS group had the shortest; the LS and RS groups had significantly less blood loss than the OS group. In terms of histological outcomes, there were no significant differences in the total number of lymph nodes harvested and the positive margin rate among the LS, RS, and OS groups ( P  &gt; 0.05). Regarding postoperative outcomes, the OS group had the highest probability of postoperative complications and the longest hospital stay, followed by the LS group, with the RS group being the lowest. RS was the best method in blood loss, postoperative complication rate, and postoperative hospital stay, followed by LS. OS had the shortest operative time and the highest blood loss.</abstract><cop>Cham</cop><pub>Springer International Publishing</pub><pmid>38748386</pmid><doi>10.1007/s13304-024-01871-x</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2038-131X
ispartof Updates in surgery, 2024-08, Vol.76 (4), p.1151-1160
issn 2038-131X
2038-3312
2038-3312
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_3055453253
source MEDLINE; SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings
subjects Blood Loss, Surgical - statistics & numerical data
Humans
Laparoscopy - methods
Length of Stay - statistics & numerical data
Lymph Node Excision - methods
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Network Meta-Analysis
Operative Time
Original Article
Postoperative Complications - epidemiology
Rectal Neoplasms - surgery
Robotic Surgical Procedures - methods
Surgery
Time Factors
Treatment Outcome
title Comparison of short-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery, robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery, and open surgery for lateral lymph-node dissection for rectal cancer: a network meta-analysis
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-28T03%3A59%3A56IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20short-term%20outcomes%20of%20laparoscopic%20surgery,%20robot-assisted%20laparoscopic%20surgery,%20and%20open%20surgery%20for%20lateral%20lymph-node%20dissection%20for%20rectal%20cancer:%20a%20network%20meta-analysis&rft.jtitle=Updates%20in%20surgery&rft.au=Shen,%20Zhan&rft.date=2024-08-01&rft.volume=76&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=1151&rft.epage=1160&rft.pages=1151-1160&rft.issn=2038-131X&rft.eissn=2038-3312&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s13304-024-01871-x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3055453253%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3055453253&rft_id=info:pmid/38748386&rfr_iscdi=true