摘要
Objective To review published literatures comparing the safety and effectiveness of retroperitoneal laparoscopic partial nephrectomy(RLPN) with transperitoneal laparoscopic partial nephrectomy(TLPN) and provide reference for clinical work. Methods The search strategy was performed to identify relevant papers from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, China Hospital Knowledge Database, Wangfang Chinese Periodical Database, and VIP Chinese Periodical Database. All papers comparing RLPN with TLPN were included from 2000 to 2015. Two to three reviewers independently screened, evaluated, and extracted the included papers. A Meta-analysis was executed by using Review Manager 5.3 software. The interesting outcomes were tumor size, operating time, estimated blood loss, warm ischaemia time, length of hospital stay, positive margin rate, open conversion rate, overall complication rate, and recurrence rate. Results The literature search obtained 378 papers, then 10 of them were ultimately met the inclusion criteria and included in the systematic review. Finally, 6 of the 10 papers were included in the Meta-analysis. RLPN had significantly less operating time [P = 0.01, mean difference(MD)=-33.68, 95% confidence interval(CI) within(-60.35,-7.01)] and shorter length of hospital stay [P < 0.0001, MD=-1.47, 95% CI within(-2.18,-0.76)] than TLPN. Significant differences were not found between RLPN and TLPN in other outcomes. Conclusions RLPN may be equally safe and be faster than TLPN. Each center can choose a modality according to your own operating habits and experience.
Objective To review published literatures comparing the safety and effectiveness of retroperitoneal laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (RLPN) with transperitoneal laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (TLPN) and provide reference for clinical work. Methods The search strategy was performed to identify relevant papers from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, China Hospital Knowledge Database, Wangfang Chinese Periodical Database, and VIP Chinese Periodical Database. All papers comparing RLPN with TLPN were included from 2000 to 2015.Two to three reviewers independently screened, evaluated, and extracted the included papers. A Meta-analysis was executed by using Review Manager 5.3 software. The interesting outcomes were tumor size, operating time, estimated blood loss, warm ischaemia time, length of hospital stay, positive margin rate, open conversion rate, overall complication rate, and recurrence rate. Results The literature search obtained 378 papers, then 10 of them were ultimately met the inclusion criteria and included in the systematic review. Finally, 6 of the 10 papers were included in the Meta-analysis. RLPN had significantly less operating time [P= 0.01, mean difference (MD)=-33.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) within (-60.35,-7.01)] and shorter length of hospital stay [P< 0.0001,MD=-1.47, 95%CI within (-2.18,-0.76)] than TLPN. Significant differences were not found between RLPN and TLPN in other outcomes. Conclusions RLPN may be equally safe and be faster than TLPN. Each center can choose a modality according to your own operating habits and experience.
基金
Supported by the Science and Technology Plans of Shaoxing Science and Technology Bureau,China(2010D10014)
