首页|Guangxi University of Science and Technology Reports Findings in Disease-Free Su rvival (Efficacy and safety of robotic radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer c ompared with laparoscopic radical hysterectomy: a meta-analysis)
Guangxi University of Science and Technology Reports Findings in Disease-Free Su rvival (Efficacy and safety of robotic radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer c ompared with laparoscopic radical hysterectomy: a meta-analysis)
扫码查看
点击上方二维码区域，可以放大扫码查看
原文链接
NETL
NSTL
By a News Reporter-Staff News Editor at Robotics & Machine Learning Daily News Daily News – New research on Epidemiology - Disease -Free Survival is the subject of a report. According to news reporting out of Gu angxi, People’s Republic of China, by NewsRx editors, research stated, “Robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) is a newly developed minimally invasive surgery that has been suggested as a substitute for laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH). This meta-analysis aims to assess the clinical efficacy and safety of robot-assi sted radical hysterectomy (RRH) for cervical cancer.” Our news journalists obtained a quote from the research from the Guangxi Univers ity of Science and Technology, “A systematic search was conducted in four databa ses (Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and CENTRAL) for studies comparing the uti lization of RRH and LRH in the treatment of cervical cancer. The search included articles published from the inception of the databases up until July 18, 2023. Meta-analyses were conducted to assess several surgical outcomes, including oper ation time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, pelvic lymph nodes, p ositive surgical margin, total complications, one-year recurrence rate, one-year mortality, and one-year disease-free survival rate. Six studies were included f or meta-analysis. In total, 234 patients were in the RRH group and 174 patients were in the LRH group. RRH had significantly longer operative time (MD=14.23,95% CI:5.27 23.20, P=0.002),shorter hospital stay (MD= -1.10,95% CI:-1 .43 0.76, P<0.00001),more dissected pelvic lymph nodes(MD=0 .89,95%CI:0.18 1.60, P =0.01) and less blood loss(WMD = -27.78,95% CI:-58.69 -3.14, P=0.08, I 80%) compared with LRH. No significant difference was observed between two groups regarding positive surgical margin ( OR = 0.59, 95% CI 0.18 2.76, P=0.61), over complications (OR = 0.7 7, 95% CI, 0.46-1.28, P=0.31), one-year recurrence rate (OR = 0.19 , 95% CI 0.03-1.15, P=0.13), one-year mortality rate (OR = 0.19, 9 5% CI 0.03-1.15, P=0.07) and disease-free survival at one year (OR = 1.92, 95% CI 0.32-11.50, P=0.48). RRH is an increasingly popula r surgical method known for its high level of security and efficiency. It has ma ny benefits in comparison to LRH, such as decreased blood loss, a higher quantit y of dissected pelvic lymph nodes, and a shorter duration of hospitalization.”
GuangxiPeople’s Republic of ChinaAsi aCancerCervical CancerDisease-Free SurvivalEmerging TechnologiesEnviro nment and Public HealthEpidemiologyGynecologic Surgical ProceduresHealth a nd MedicineHemic and Immune SystemsHospitalsHysterectomyImmunologyLymp h NodesLymphoid TissueMachine LearningOncologyRadical HysterectomyRobo ticsRobotsStatistics as TopicSurgerySurvival AnalysisWomen’s Health
NETL
NSTL
