Full metadata record
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | 김정목 | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2019-12-04T01:24:04Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2019-12-04T01:24:04Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2018-01 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | PLOS ONE, v. 13, no. 1, Article no. e0191628 | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 1932-6203 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0191628 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | https://repository.hanyang.ac.kr/handle/20.500.11754/116991 | - |
dc.description.abstract | ImportanceThis review provides a comprehensive comparison of treatment outcomes between robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RLS) and conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) based on randomly-controlled trials (RCTs).ObjectivesWe employed RCTs to provide a systematic review that will enable the relevant community to weigh the effectiveness and efficacy of surgical robotics in controversial fields on surgical procedures both overall and on each individual surgical procedure.Evidence reviewA search was conducted for RCTs in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases from 1981 to 2016. Among a total of 1,517 articles, 27 clinical reports with a mean sample size of 65 patients per report (32.7 patients who underwent RLS and 32.5 who underwent CLS), met the inclusion criteria.FindingsCLS shows significant advantages in total operative time, net operative time, total complication rate, and operative cost (p < 0.05 in all cases), whereas the estimated blood loss was less in RLS (p < 0.05). As subgroup analyses, conversion rate on colectomy and length of hospital stay on hysterectomy statistically favors RLS (p < 0.05).ConclusionsDespite higher operative cost, RLS does not result in statistically better treatment outcomes, with the exception of lower estimated blood loss. Operative time and total complication rate are significantly more favorable with CLS. | en_US |
dc.description.sponsorship | We state that the funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Please note that this research was supported by the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MEST) (NRF-2015R1D1A1A01058565), Republic of Korea. The role of the National Research Foundation (http://www.nrf.re.kr/eng/main) is to promote an independent research to benefit basic science research. In this regard, we state that any individual, other than the three authors, and the funder had no role in study design, data collection, and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. | en_US |
dc.language.iso | en_US | en_US |
dc.publisher | PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE | en_US |
dc.subject | GASTROESOPHAGEAL-REFLUX DISEASE | en_US |
dc.subject | PELVIC ORGAN PROLAPSE | en_US |
dc.subject | SHORT-TERM OUTCOMES | en_US |
dc.subject | RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY | en_US |
dc.subject | NISSEN FUNDOPLICATION | en_US |
dc.subject | CLINICAL-TRIAL | en_US |
dc.subject | RECTAL-CANCER | en_US |
dc.subject | GASTRIC-CANCER | en_US |
dc.subject | HYSTERECTOMY | en_US |
dc.subject | SACROCOLPOPEXY | en_US |
dc.title | Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery in randomized controlled trials: A systematic review and meta-analysis | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
dc.relation.no | 1 | - |
dc.relation.volume | 13 | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1371/journal.pone.0191628 | - |
dc.relation.page | 1-12 | - |
dc.relation.journal | PLOS ONE | - |
dc.contributor.googleauthor | Roh, Hyunsuk Frank | - |
dc.contributor.googleauthor | Nam, Seung Hyuk | - |
dc.contributor.googleauthor | Kim, Jung Mogg | - |
dc.relation.code | 2018006288 | - |
dc.sector.campus | S | - |
dc.sector.daehak | COLLEGE OF MEDICINE[S] | - |
dc.sector.department | DEPARTMENT OF MEDICINE | - |
dc.identifier.pid | jungmogg | - |
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.