RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to determine the advantages and disadvantages of open (OPN), laparoscopic (LPN), and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) with particular attention to intraoperative, immediate postoperative, as well as longer-term functional and oncological outcomes. METHODS: A systematic review was performed as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-NMA guidelines. Binary data were compared using odds ratios (ORs). Mean differences (MDs) were used for continuous variables. ORs and MDs were extracted from the articles to compare the efficacy of the various surgical approaches. Statistical validity is guaranteed when the 95% credible interval does not include 1. RESULTS: In total, there were 31 studies included in the NMA with a combined 7869 patients. Of these, 33.7% (2651/7869) underwent OPN, 20.8% (1636/7869) LPN, and 45.5% (3582/7689) RAPN. There was no difference for either LPN or RAPN as compared to OPN in ischaemia time, intraoperative complications, positive surgical margins, operative time or trifecta rate. The estimated blood loss (EBL), postoperative complications and length of stay were all significantly reduced in RAPN when compared with OPN. The outcomes of RAPN and LPN were largely similar except the significantly reduced EBL in RAPN. CONCLUSION: This systematic review and NMA suggests that RAPN is the preferable operative approach for patients undergoing surgery for lower-staged RCC.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias Renales , Laparoscopía , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Robotizados , Robótica , Humanos , Neoplasias Renales/cirugía , Neoplasias Renales/complicaciones , Metaanálisis en Red , Resultado del Tratamiento , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Robotizados/efectos adversos , Nefrectomía/efectos adversos , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/etiología , Laparoscopía/efectos adversos , Estudios RetrospectivosRESUMEN
PURPOSE: 15-20% of patients present with near obstructing left-sided colorectal cancer. CT colonography (CTC) or PET-CT has been used to detect synchronous lesions, which may alter preoperative planning of colonic resection. We aim to synthesize the usefulness of CT colonography and/or PET-CT in detecting synchronous proximal colon carcinomas in patients who have undergone an incomplete colonoscopy due to a stenosing or obstructing distal colorectal cancer. METHODOLOGY: A systematic review was performed by searching the databases up to December 2021. Data collected included demographics of the study population, rate of detection of synchronous carcinomas and impact on management of detection of synchronous carcinomas. RESULTS: A total of 22 studies were included: 17 studies focused on CTC, 3 on PET-CT, and 2 integrated PET-CT with CTC; 2855 patients were included; 53% of patients were male, and 47% were female. All studies reported detection of synchronous proximal colorectal carcinomas using CTC, PET-CT or CTC, and PET-CT combined. CTC detected synchronous carcinomas in 0.2-12.2% of patients. PET-CT was useful in detecting synchronous carcinomas in 4.05-23% of patients. Integrated PET-CT and CTC detected synchronous carcinomas in 2-15% of patients. The surgical plan was changed in 2.4-14.3% of patients after the use of CTC. One PET-CT study reported a change in management in 13.5%. No complication was reported by the use of CTC. CONCLUSION: CTC is an effective and useful adjunct to colonoscopy in assessing the proximal colon when colonoscopy fails to do so. However, more evidence is needed with the use of PET-CT for this patient population.