1. |
|
|
2. |
- Glasbey, JC, et al.
(författare)
-
- 2021
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
3. |
|
|
4. |
- Bravo, L, et al.
(författare)
-
- 2021
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
5. |
- Tabiri, S, et al.
(författare)
-
- 2021
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
6. |
|
|
7. |
|
|
8. |
|
|
9. |
|
|
10. |
|
|
11. |
|
|
12. |
|
|
13. |
|
|
14. |
|
|
15. |
|
|
16. |
|
|
17. |
|
|
18. |
|
|
19. |
|
|
20. |
|
|
21. |
|
|
22. |
- Esagian, SM, et al.
(författare)
-
Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy versus Open Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Cancers. - : MDPI AG. - 2072-6694. ; 14:13
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) was introduced as a further development of the conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy, aiming to further improve the high morbidity and mortality associated with open esophagectomy. We aimed to compare the outcomes between RAMIE and open esophagectomy, which remains a popular approach for resectable esophageal cancer. Ten studies meeting our inclusion criteria were identified, including five retrospective cohort, four prospective cohort, and one randomized controlled trial. RAMIE was associated with significantly lower rates of overall pulmonary complications (odds ratio (OR): 0.38, 95% confidence interval (CI): [0.26, 0.56]), pneumonia (OR: 0.39, 95% CI: [0.26, 0.57]), atrial fibrillation (OR: 0.53, 95% CI: [0.29, 0.98]), and wound infections (OR: 0.20, 95% CI: [0.07, 0.57]) and resulted in less blood loss (weighted mean difference (WMD): −187.08 mL, 95% CI: [−283.81, −90.35]) and shorter hospital stays (WMD: −9.22 days, 95% CI: [−14.39, −4.06]) but longer operative times (WMD: 69.45 min, 95% CI: [34.39, 104.42]). No other statistically significant difference was observed regarding surgical and short-term oncological outcomes. Similar findings were observed when comparing totally robotic procedures only to OE. RAMIE is a safe and feasible procedure, resulting in decreased cardiopulmonary morbidity, wound infections, blood loss, and shorter hospital stays compared to open esophagectomy.
|
|
23. |
|
|
24. |
|
|
25. |
- Schizas, D, et al.
(författare)
-
Pseudoachalasia: a systematic review of the literature
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1612-9067. ; 17:3, s. 216-222
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)
|
|
26. |
|
|
27. |
|
|
28. |
|
|
29. |
|
|
30. |
- Schizas, D, et al.
(författare)
-
Minimally invasive oesophagectomy in the prone versus lateral decubitus position: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 1442-2050. ; 35:4
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The thoracic phase of minimally invasive esophagectomy was initially performed in the lateral decubitus position (LDP); however, many experts have gradually transitioned to a prone position (PP) approach. The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis is to quantitatively compare the two approaches. A systematic literature search of the MEDLINE, Embase, Google Scholar, Web of Knowledge, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and ClinicalTrials.gov databases was undertaken for studies comparing outcomes between patients undergoing minimally invasive esophageal surgery in the PP versus the LDP. In total, 15 studies with 1454 patients (PP; n = 710 vs. LDP; n = 744) were included. Minimally invasive esophagectomy in the PP provides statistically significant reduction in postoperative respiratory complications (Risk ratios 0.5, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.34–0.76, P < 0.001), blood loss (weighted mean differences [WMD] –108.97, 95% CI –166.35 to −51.59 mL, P < 0.001), ICU stay (WMD –0.96, 95% CI –1.7 to −0.21 days, P = 0.01) and total hospital stay (WMD –2.96, 95% CI –5.14 to −0.78 days, P = 0.008). In addition, prone positioning increases the overall yield of chest lymph node dissection (WMD 2.94, 95% CI 1.54–4.34 lymph nodes, P < 0.001). No statistically significant difference in regards to anastomotic leak rate, mortality and 5-year overall survival was encountered. Subgroup analysis revealed that the protective effect of prone positioning against pulmonary complications was more pronounced for patients undergoing single-lumen tracheal intubation. A head to head comparison of minimally invasive esophagectomy in the prone versus the LDP reveals superiority of the former method, with emphasis on the reduction of postoperative respiratory complications and reduced length of hospitalization. Long-term oncologic outcomes appear equivalent, although validation through prospective studies and randomized controlled trials is still necessary.
|
|