摘要
一位新闻记者兼机器人与机器学习的新闻编辑每日新闻-流行病学的新研究-无疾病生存是一篇报道的主题。根据NewsRx编辑在中华人民共和国广西的新闻报道，研究表明：“机器人根治性子宫切除术(RRH)是一种新开发的微创手术，被建议替代腹腔镜根治性子宫切除术(LRH)。本荟萃分析旨在评估机器人辅助根治性子宫切除术(RRH)治疗宫颈癌的临床疗效和安全性。”我们的新闻记者从广西科技大学的研究中获得一句话：“在Medline、Embase、Web of Science和CENTRAL四个数据库（Medline、Web of Science、CENTRAL）中，系统地检索了RH和LRH在宫颈癌治疗中的应用情况，检索自数据库建立到2007年7月18日为止发表的文章。”2023.我们进行了荟萃分析，以评估几种手术结果，包括手术时间、估计失血量、住院时间、盆腔淋巴结、手术切缘阳性、总并发症、一年复发率、一年死亡率和一年无病生存率。纳入了6项研究或荟萃分析。总共234名患者在RH组，174名患者在LRH组。RH的手术时间明显延长(MD=14.23,95%)CI:5.27 23.20,P=0.002),shorter住院时间(MD=-1.10,95%CI:-1 .430.76,P<0.00001),more盆腔淋巴结切除(MD=0.89,95%CI:0.181.60,P=0.01)和较低的失血量(WMD=-27.78,95%CI:-58.69-3.14,P=0.08,I 80%)。两组在手术切缘阳性(OR=0.68,OR=0.一年复发率(OR=0.19,95%CI 0.03-1.15,P=0.13),一年死亡率(OR=0.19,9.5%CI 0.03-1.15,P=0.07)和一年无病生存率(OR=1.92,95%CI 0.32-11.50,P=0.48)。RH是一种日益流行的外科方法,以其高安全性和高效率而闻名。与LRH相比,它具有更大的好处,如减少盆腔淋巴结解剖量较高，住院时间较短。
Abstract
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.”
NETL
NSTL