期刊文献+

根治性顺行模块化胰脾切除术治疗胰体尾癌安全性与有效性的Meta分析 被引量:6

Safety and oncological outcomes of radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy for left-sided pancreatic cancer:a meta-analysis
下载PDF
导出
摘要 目的:应用Meta分析系统评价根治性顺行模块化胰脾切除术(RAMPS)治疗胰体尾癌的安全性与有效性。方法:全面检索PubMed、Embase、MEDLINE、Web of Science、万方、中国知网、The Cochrane Library(Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews)、Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials(CENTRAL)等数据库在2019年7月19日前发表的中、英文文献,筛选高质量文章,然后通过RevMan软件完成Meta分析,评价RAMPS手术及标准逆行性胰体尾脾切除术(SRPS)治疗胰体尾癌的安全性与有效性。结果:本Meta分析共纳入10项临床研究,入组601例胰体尾癌患者(RAMPS组229例,SRPS组372例)。Meta分析结果显示,与SRPS组相比,RAMPS组具有较好的安全性,两组手术时间、术中出血量、总并发症发生率、术后胰瘘发生率及术后住院时间差异均无统计学意义,亚组分析中,将纳入回顾性研究以固定效应模型进行分析时,结果显示RAMPS组具有更少的术中出血量(95%CI:-144.78^-99.94;I 2=95%,P<0.001)。有效性评价结果显示,与SRPS手术相比,RAMPS可显著提高胰体尾癌的R0切除率(95%CI:1.67~4.82,I 2=0,P<0.001)、淋巴结清扫数量(95%CI:2.85~6.08,I 2=51%,P<0.001),并显著降低术后复发转移率(95%CI:0.37~0.84,I 2=0,P=0.005),提高总生存期(HR=0.71,95%CI:0.53~0.96,I 2=0,P=0.02),但两组患者术后无病生存期差异无统计学意义。结论:RAMPS具备较好的安全性与可行性,并未增加手术风险,对于胰体尾癌患者,RAMPS能提高肿瘤根治程度并降低术后复发转移率,最终提高患者总生存期,具有较好的临床应用价值。 Objective:To evaluate the safety and oncological outcomes of radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy(RAMPS)for treatment of left-sided pancreatic cancer systematically by meta-analysis.Methods:A comprehensive literature review of studies,which published on PubMed,Embase,MEDLINE,Web of Science,WanFang,CNKI,the Cochrane Library(Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews),and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials(CENTRAL)before July 19,2019,was performed to identify all the well-designed clinical trials on the comparison of the feasibility and oncological outcome of RAMPS and standard retrograde pancreatosplenectomy(SRPS)for treatment of left-sided pancreatic cancer.Revman 5.3 was used to perform the meta-analysis.Results:Ten studies containing 601 patients(229 RAMPS and 372 SRPS)with left-sided pancreatic cancer were included for the analysis.Meta-analysis revealed that RAMPS was safe and feasible for left-sided pancreatic cancer patients,with no significant difference of operation time,intraoperative blood loss,overall postoperative complications and pancreatic fistula rate,and hospital stay after operation,when compared with SRPS group.Moreover,subgroup analysis used fixed effect model for all the retrospective studies,the results showed that RAMPS was associated with significantly less blood loss(95%CI:-144.78^-99.94;I 2=95%,P<0.001).For comparison of the oncological outcomes,meta-analysis showed that RAMPS procedure was correlated with significantly higher R0 rate(95%CI:1.67~4.82,I 2=0,P<0.001),more harvested lymph node(95%CI:2.85~6.08,I 2=51%,P<0.001),lower recurrence rate(95%CI:0.37~0.84,I 2=0,P=0.005)and better overall survival(HR=0.71,95%CI:0.53~0.96,I 2=0,P=0.02).However,no statistically significant difference was found between the procedures with respect to disease free survival.Conclusions:RAMPS is a safe and feasible procedure without additional perioperative risks when compared with traditional SRPS.For patients with left-sided pancreatic cancer,RAMPS improves the oncological outcomes with higher R0 rate,more harvested lymph nodes,and lower recurrence rate,as well as a better overall survival.
作者 陈凯 王琦 高红桥 杨尹默 田孝东 CHEN Kai;WANG Qi;GAO Hong-qiao(Department of General Surgery,Peking University First Hospital,Beijing 100034,China)
出处 《腹腔镜外科杂志》 2019年第9期665-671,共7页 Journal of Laparoscopic Surgery
基金 国家自然科学基金面上项目(81572339) 国家自然科学基金面上项目(81672353) 国家自然科学基金面上项目(81871954)
关键词 胰体尾肿瘤 根治性顺行模块化胰脾切除术 META分析 预后 Left-side pancreatic cancer Radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy Meta-analysis Prognosis
  • 相关文献

参考文献7

二级参考文献30

  • 1刘骞,赵平,王成峰,蔡建强,邵永孚,白晓枫.胰体尾癌外科治疗117例临床分析[J].中华外科杂志,2006,44(5):333-335. 被引量:24
  • 2Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2016[J]. CA Cancer J Clin, 2016, 66(1):7-30.
  • 3Varadhachary GR, Tamm EP, Abbruzzese JL, et al. Borderline respectable pancreatic cancer: Definitions, management, and role of preoperative therapy[J]. Ann Surg Oncol, 2006, 13(8):1035-1046.
  • 4National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma[S]. Version1.2016. Available from:http://www.nccn, org/professionals/ physician gls/f guidelines.asp.
  • 5Valsangkar NP, Bush DM, Michaelson JS, et al. N0/NI, PNL, or LNR? The effect of lymph node number on accurate survival prediction in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma[J]. J Gastrointest Surg, 2013, 17(2):257-266.
  • 6Pancreatic Surgery Group, Surgery Branch of Chinese Medical Association. Guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic cancer (2014 edition)[J].Chinese Journal of Surgery, 2014, 52(12):881-887.
  • 7Strobel O, Hinz U, Gluth A, et al. Pancreatic adenocarcinoma: number of positive nodes allows to distinguish several N categories[J]. Ann Surg, 2015, 261 (5):961-969.
  • 8Allen P J, Kuk D, Castillo CF, et al. Multi-institutional Validation Study of the American Joint Commission on Cancer (8th Edition) Changes for T and N Staging in Patients with Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma[J]. Ann Surg, 2016. [Epub ahead of print].
  • 9Bassi C, Dervenis C, Butturini G, et al. Postoperative pancreatic fistula: an international study group (ISGPF) definition[J]. Surgery, 2005, 138(1):8-13.
  • 10Pancreatic Surgery Group, Surgery Branch of Chinese Medical Association, Editorial Board of Chinese Journal of Surgery. Expert consensus on prevention and management of common complications after pancreatic surgery (2010)[J]. Chinese Journal of Surgery, 2014, 52(12):881-887.

共引文献84

同被引文献24

引证文献6

二级引证文献159

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部