ObjectiveTo compare the short-term efficacy of laparoscopic transanal pull through surgery and conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer.MethodsRelevant literatures were retrieved from databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library databases, Embase, CNKI, CBM, Wan-fang database, and VIP databases from Jan. 2009 to Jul. 2019, all the relevant trial documents ［included randomized controlled trial and non randomized controlled trial］ were collected for comparison of laparoscopic transanal pull through surgery and conventional laparoscopic surgery on the clinical efficacy of rectal cancer patients, the qualified literatures were screened in strict accordance with inclusion and exclusion criteria, and Stata12.0 software was used for statistical analysis.ResultsA total of 19 articles were included in the literature with 2 683 patients were included among them. Meta analysis results showed that, compared with the conventional laparoscopic surgery group, in laparoscopic transanal pull through surgery group, operation time [WMD=–6.78, 95% CI was (–11.96, –1.60), P<0.01], intraoperative blood loss [WMD=–14.94, 95% CI was (–23.48, –6.40),P<0.01], postoperative exhaust time [WMD=–13.55, 95% CI was (–18.24, –8.85), P<0.01], postoperative hospitalization time [WMD=–1.60, 95% CI was (–2.00, –1.21), P<0.01], incidence of postoperative overall complication [OR=0.50, 95% CI was (0.38, 0.67), P<0.01], and incidence of incision infection [OR=0.19, 95% CI was (0.08, 0.45), P<0.01] reduced. Those differences were not significant, such as intraoperative lymph node resection [WMD=–0.02, 95% CI was (–0.44, 0.40), P=0.92], incision margin distance of tumor [WMD=0.13, 95% CI was (–0.30, 0.55), P=0.56], and incidence of anastomotic fistula [OR=0.97, 95% CI was (0.62, 1.50), P=0.87].ConclusionsLaparoscopic transanal pull through surgery has more safe, effective, and reliable effects than conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. It has further research value, but there may be inevitable bias and other effects in the included literatures, so more randomized controlled clinical trials are needed in the future.
ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RAS) and conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) in hiatus hernia repair. MethodsPubMed, The Cochrane Library, CNKI, Web of Science, VIP, and Wanfang databases were searched to collect literature comparing the efficacy and safety of RAS and CLS for hiatus hernia repair published from their inception to November 7, 2023. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies, and RevMan 5.4.1 software was used for meta-analysis. ResultsA total of 15 retrospective cohort studies with 18239 patients were finally included. The NOS scores of the included literature were all≥7 points. Meta-analysis results showed that RAS was superior to CLS in terms of postoperative complications as the primary outcome [OR=0.56, 95%CI (0.42, 0.77), P<0.01]. There was no statistical difference between the two methods in terms of average operation time [MD=−0.74, 95%CI (−12.99, 11.51), P=0.91], average intraoperative blood loss [MD=−24.47, 95%CI (−54.80, 5.87), P=0.11], intraoperative complications [OR=0.76, 95%CI (0.29, 2.01), P=0.58], average postoperative hospital stay [MD=−0.24, 95%CI (−0.75, 0.27), P=0.36], postoperative GERD score [MD=−0.04, 95%CI (−0.41, 0.33), P=0.81], and 30-day readmission rate [OR=0.60, 95%CI (0.30, 1.20), P=0.15]. The cost of CLS surgery was less than that of RAS [SMD=1.59, 95%CI (1.16, 2.01), P<0.01]. ConclusionRAS has comparable efficacy and safety to CLS in hiatus hernia repair.