Efficacy comparison between robot-assisted and conventional mitral valve surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis
- VernacularTitle:机器人辅助与传统二尖瓣手术疗效对比的系统评价与 Meta 分析
- Author:
Chong CHEN
1
;
Yudong ZHANG
1
;
Yi HE
1
;
Fei TENG
1
Author Information
1. Basic Surgery Teaching Experimental Center, The First Clinical Medical College of Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, 221004, Jiangsu, P.R.China
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Robot-assisted surgery;
conventional mitral valve surgery;
systematic review/meta-analysis
- From:
Chinese Journal of Clinical Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
2020;27(11):1326-1331
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective Through comparing the therapeutic efficacy of robot-assisted surgery (RS) and conventional surgery (CS) for mitral valve disease by meta-analysis to guide the choice of clinical operation. Methods Databases including The Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMbase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Biology Medicine disc (CBMdisc) and Wanfang Database were searched by computer from inception to June 2020. The literature of efficacy comparison between RS and CS was collected. Two reviewers independently screened the literature according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted the data, and evaluated the quality of the literature. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software. Results We identified 11 studies of RS versus CS with 4 330 patients. Among them, 2 212 patients underwent RS and 2 118 underwent CS. Meta-analysis demonstrated that compared with the CS, RS had longer cross-clamp time (MD=25.00, 95%CI 15.04 to 34.95, P<0.000 01), cardiopulmonary bypass time (MD=44.11, 95%CI 29.26 to 58.96, P<0.000 01) and operation time (MD=46.40, 95%CI 31.55 to 61.26, P<0.000 01). However, ICU stay (MD=–22.13, 95%CI –31.88 to –12.38, P<0.000 01) and hospital stay (MD=–1.81, 95%CI –2.69 to –0.92, P<0.000 01) were significantly shorter in the RS group; and the incidences of blood transfusion (OR=0.38, 95%CI 0.16 to 0.89, P=0.03) and complications (OR=0.73, 95%CI 0.57 to 0.94, P=0.01) were significantly lower in the RS group. Conclusion Although RS has a longer operation time than CS, it has less damage, less bleeding, faster recovery and better curative efficacy.
