Robotic surgery versus open surgery for thyroid neoplasms: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 146 (12) ◽  
pp. 3297-3312
Author(s):  
Hanghang Liu ◽  
Yue Wang ◽  
Chenzhou Wu ◽  
Wei Fei ◽  
En Luo
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (7) ◽  
pp. 640
Author(s):  
Michele Manigrasso ◽  
Sara Vertaldi ◽  
Alessandra Marello ◽  
Stavros Athanasios Antoniou ◽  
Nader Kamal Francis ◽  
...  

Background: Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy is demonstrated to be related with a facilitation in thoracoscopic procedure. To give an update on the state of art of robotic esophagectomy for cancr a systematic review with meta-analysis has been performed. Methods: a search of the studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic or open esophagectomy was performed trough the medical libraries, with the search string “robotic and (oesophagus OR esophagus OR esophagectomy OR oesophagectomy)”. Outcomes were: postoperative complications rate (anastomotic leakage, bleeding, wound infection, pneumonia, recurrent laryngeal nerves paralysis, chylotorax, mortality), intraoperative outcomes (mean blood loss, operative time and conversion), oncologic outcomes (harvested nodes, R0 resection, recurrence) and recovery outcomes (length of hospital stay). Results: Robotic approach is superior to open surgery in terms of blood loss p = 0.001, wound infection rate, p = 0.002, pneumonia rate, p = 0.030 and mean number of harvested nodes, p < 0.0001 and R0 resection rate, p = 0.043. Similarly, robotic approach is superior to conventional laparoscopy in terms of mean number of harvested nodes, p = 0.001 pneumonia rate, p = 0.003. Conclusions: robotic surgery could be considered superior to both open surgery and conventional laparoscopy. These encouraging results should promote the diffusion of the robotic surgery, with the creation of randomized trials to overcome selection bias.


Author(s):  
Seihee Kim ◽  
Jinseub Hwang ◽  
Min Jee Kim ◽  
Jae-Young Lim ◽  
Woo Hyung Lee ◽  
...  

Objectives:Rotator cuff tear is the leading cause of the decline in quality of life for older adults, but comparative evidence on treatment effectiveness is lacking. This study systematically reviewed the effects of various rotator cuff tear treatments through a Bayesian meta-analysis of the related randomized clinical trials (RCTs).Methods:We searched nine electronic databases for RCTs evaluating rotator cuff tear treatments from their inception through June 2017. A systematic review was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence-Decision Support Unit guidelines (Supplementary Table 1). Outcomes included functional improvement, pain one year after surgical treatment, and tendon structural integrity. The Bayesian network meta-analysis was applied for functional improvement and pain, based on an assumption of consistency and similarity. Tendon integrity was reported descriptively.Results:Fifteen RCTs were selected. Patients undergoing physiotherapy after open surgery showed statistically significant functional improvements compared with those undergoing physiotherapy only (mean differences, 9.1 [credible interval, 0.9–17.4]). Open surgery with physiotherapy was associated with a decrease in pain 1 year after treatment compared with when physiotherapy was combined with arthroscopic rotator cuff surgery, mini open surgery, platelet-rich plasma therapy, or physiotherapy alone (absolute value of mean difference 1.2 to 1.4). The tendon integrity results were inconsistent.Conclusions:Some surgical treatments were associated with significant improvement in function and pain, but evidence regarding their comparative effectiveness is still lacking. A well-designed RCT discussing functional and structural treatment outcomes is needed in future.


2016 ◽  
Vol 274 (2) ◽  
pp. 647-653 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giuseppe Meccariello ◽  
Giovanni Cammaroto ◽  
Filippo Montevecchi ◽  
Paut T. Hoff ◽  
Matthew E. Spector ◽  
...  

CMAJ Open ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. E295-E305 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. Evaniew ◽  
M. Khan ◽  
B. Drew ◽  
D. Kwok ◽  
M. Bhandari ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document