Journal of robotic surgery · 2026
Robotic-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial gastrointestinal neoplasms: a bayesian meta-analysis & systematic review.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Das Ashesh, Yathindra Meenakshi Reddy, Moazzam Mujtaba, Paul Swaraj, Sageer Noorin Riya Tharupeedikayil, Roy Ritwik, Ganguly Subhadip, Sivakumar Dinesh Babu, Bakhsh Aman, Patel Riyakumari, Khalid Faiza
Аннотация
Superficial gastrointestinal (GI) neoplasms pose a significant global health burden, with endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) as the gold standard for curative resection. However, conventional ESD (C-ESD) is technically challenging, with prolonged procedure times and higher complication risks. Robotic-assisted ESD (R-ESD) offers enhanced precision and safety, but evidence is limited. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of R-ESD using a Bayesian single-arm Meta-analysis. Systematic review and Bayesian single-arm meta-analysis. Following PRISMA guidelines and PROSPERO registration (CRD420251273787), we conducted a systematic review and Bayesian single-arm meta-analysis of randomized/nonrandomized comparative and single-arm studies on R-ESD for superficial GI neoplasms. Searches spanned MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and others through December 2025. Primary outcomes: en-bloc and R0 resection rates. Secondary outcomes: procedure time, perforation, bleeding. Bayesian random-effects models used non-informative priors; analyses in R with the brms package. Risk of bias was assessed via RoB 2 and NOS; certainty via GRADE. Five studies (183 lesions) were included. Frequentist pooled en-bloc resection rate: 98.2% (95% CI: 0.916-0.996, I2 = 0%); R0: 96.8% (95% CI: 0.759-0.997, I2 = 47.8%). Bayesian medians: en-bloc 93.4% (95% CrI: 0.856-0.971); R0 90.0% (95% CrI: 0.798-0.957). 77.6 min (95% CI: 45.0-110.3, I2 = 99%); perforation: 1.2% (95% CI: 0.002-0.077, I2 = 0%); bleeding: 10.6% (95% CI: 0.019-0.416, I2 = 30.8%). Evidence certainty:low. R-ESD demonstrates promising efficacy and safety, but current evidence is limited to small, mostly non-comparative studies. Larger comparative trials are required before definitive conclusions can be made.