Efficacy and Safety of Transurethral Laser Surgery Versus Transurethral Resection for Non-Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review
原文： 2020 年 发布于
Eur Urol Oncol
204 卷 第 7 期 22+24
浏览量：249次
作者：
Xu J.
Wang C.
Ouyang J.
Sun J.
Hu C.
作者单位：
Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
Division of Urology, Department of Special Surgery, Jordan University Hospital, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan. Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. Institute of Urology, University of Southern California/ Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA. Department of Surgical Oncology, Division of Urology, Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Department of Urology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. Department of General Thoracic Surgery, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan. Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, University of Toronto, Mount Sinai Hospital and University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada. Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
Karl Landsteiner Institute of Urology and Andrology, Vienna, Austria
Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA
Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: sfshariat@gmail.com.
归属分类：
膀胱肿瘤治疗及预后证据
DOI：
10.1016/j.jpurol.2019.06.013
关键词：
Anesthetics
Local/*therapeutic use
*Cystoscopy
Humans
Lidocaine/*therapeutic use
Male
Pain Management/*methods
Pain Measurement
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Urinary Bladder Neoplasms/diagnosis/therapy
administration
cystoscopy
intravesical
lidocaine
pain
procedural
urinary bladder neoplasms
OBJECTIVE: This article explores the differences in the effectiveness and safety of the treatment of bladder cancer (BC) by robotic-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) and laparoscopic radical cystectomy (LRC). METHODS: A systematic search was performed using databases including Medline, PubMed and Web of Science within a limited period from January 1, 2000, to September 1, 2019. RevMan 5.3 was used for calculation and statistical analyses. RESULTS: We performed meta-analysis on operation time, estimated blood loss, intraoperative blood transfusion, positive surgical margin, oral intake time, length of hospital stay, complication and other indicators, and found that there were no statistically significant differences between LRC and RARC. CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis results show that LRC and RARC have similar results on the effectiveness and safety of BC. For those medical institutions that cannot perform robot-assisted surgery but are seeking minimally invasive and faster postoperative recovery, LRC is worth considering. However, a larger sample size, more rigorous design and longer follow-up randomized controlled trials are still needed to support our conclusions.