Objective To systematically evaluate the therapeutic effects of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) and robot-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) in treating mediastinal tumors. Methods A computer search was conducted on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Wanfang, CNKI, CBM, VIP databases for literature comparing the clinical efficacy of VATS and RATS in treating mediastinal tumors, with the search time from inception to March 31, 2024. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the quality of the included cohort studies, and Review Manager 5.4 software was used to perform a meta-analysis. Results A total of 32 articles were included, with 7868 patients. The NOS scores of the included cohort studies were all≥7 points. Meta-analysis results showed that compared with the VATS group, the RATS group had less intraoperative blood loss [MD=−16.71, 95%CI (−23.88, −9.54), P<0.001], lower conversion rate to open thoracotomy [OR=0.41, 95%CI (0.26, 0.67), P=0.003], lower overall postoperative complication rate [OR=0.66, 95%CI (0.48, 0.92), P=0.01], shorter postoperative drainage time [MD=−0.64, 95%CI (−0.92, −0.36), P<0.001], and shorter postoperative hospital stay [MD=−1.03, 95%CI (−1.28, −0.78), P<0.001]. There was no statistical difference between the two groups in terms of tumor size [MD=−0.06, 95%CI (−0.31, 0.19), P=0.64] or operation time [MD=5.52, 95%CI (−2.35, 13.40), P=0.17]. The RATS group had higher hospitalization costs than the VATS group [MD=1.69, 95%CI (1.26, 2.13), P<0.001]. Conclusion In mediastinal tumors resection, RATS is superior to VATS in terms of intraoperative blood loss, conversion rate to open thoracotomy, overall postoperative complication rate, postoperative drainage time, and postoperative hospital stay, but it increases hospitalization costs.

Objective    To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of jejunostomy tube versus nasojejunal tube for enteral nutrition after radical resection of esophageal cancer. Methods    PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP and CBM databases were searched to collect the clinical effects of jejunostomy tube versus nasojejunal nutrition tube after radical resection of esophageal cancer from inception to October 2021. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software. Results    Twenty-six articles were included, including 17 randomized controlled studies and 9 cohort studies, with a total of 35 808 patients. Meta-analysis results showed that: in the jejunostomy tube group, the postoperative exhaust time (MD=–4.27, 95%CI –5.87 to –2.66, P=0.001), the incidence of pulmonary infection (OR=1.39, 95%CI 1.06 to 1.82, P=0.02), incidence of tube removal (OR=0.11, 95%CI 0.04 to 0.30, P=0.001), incidence of tube blockage (OR=0.47, 95%CI 0.23 to 0.97, P=0.04), incidence of nasopharyngeal discomfort (OR=0.04, 95%CI 0.01 to 0.13, P=0.001), the incidence of nasopharyngeal mucosal damage (OR=0.13, 95%CI 0.04 to 0.42, P=0.008), the incidence of nausea and vomiting (OR=0.20, 95%CI 0.08 to 0.47, P=0.003) were significantly shorter or lower than those of the nasojejunal tube group. The postoperative serum albumin level (MD=5.75, 95%CI 5.34 to 6.16, P=0.001) was significantly better than that of the nasojejunal tube group. However, the intraoperative operation time of the jejunostomy tube group (MD=13.65, 95%CI 2.32 to 24.98, P=0.02) and the indent time of the postoperative nutrition tube (MD=17.81, 95%CI 12.71 to 22.91, P=0.001) were longer than those of the nasojejunal nutrition tube. At the same time, the incidence of postoperative intestinal obstruction (OR=6.08, 95%CI 2.55 to 14.50, P=0.001) was significantly higher than that of the nasojejunal tube group. There were no statistical differences in the length of postoperative hospital stay or the occurrence of anastomotic fistula between the two groups (P>0.05). Conclusion    In the process of enteral nutrition after radical resection of esophageal cancer, jejunostomy tube has better clinical treatment effect and is more comfortable during catheterization, but the incidence of intestinal obstruction is higher than that of traditional nasojejunal tube.