Suppr超能文献

腹腔镜手术还是剖腹手术用于远端输卵管手术?一项荟萃分析。

Laparoscopy or laparotomy for distal tubal surgery? A meta-analysis.

作者信息

Ahmad G, Watson A J S, Metwally M

机构信息

Obstetrics and Gynaecology Department, South Manchester University Hospital, Wythenshawe, UK.

出版信息

Hum Fertil (Camb). 2007 Mar;10(1):43-7. doi: 10.1080/14647270600977820.

Abstract

Of couples with subfertility, 25% have complete or partial blockage of the fallopian tube. Since the advent of in vitro fertilization (IVF), the role of tubal surgery has diminished. However, this type of surgery continues to be undertaken on selected patients with mild tubal disease, and in those with severe tubal disease, in centres where IVF is not available. This systematic review was undertaken to compare pregnancy outcomes after laparoscopic surgery with that of open microsurgical technique. Studies comparing laparoscopic techniques with conventional microsurgery requiring laparotomy for treatment of distal tubal disease were included. The relevant trials were identified from Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Groups of Specialised Register of Controlled Trials (searched up to July 2005). The following strategies were adapted using the OVID platform, MEDLINE (1966 to July 2005), Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials, CENTRAL, and EMBASE (1980 to July 2005). Outcomes analysed were: 'take home baby' rate, intrauterine pregnancy rate and ectopic pregnancy rate per pregnancy. Subgroup analysis was carried out to compare intrauterine pregnancy rate in the laparoscopy and conventional microsurgery groups according to the extent of tubal damage. Six relevant studies were identified. Overall, no significant difference was observed in the intrauterine pregnancy rate between the two groups, combined OR 1.32 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58 - 3.02). For patients with mild tubal disease, there was no significant difference in the intrauterine pregnancy rate between treatment and control group, OR 1.06 (95% CI, 0.42 - 2.70). For patients with severe tubal disease, there was a significantly increased intrauterine pregnancy rate in the laparotomy group, OR 0.34 (95% CI, 0.14 - 0.86). Appropriate patient selection is the main factor affecting outcome in terms of fertility. These data do not indicate a significant difference in pregnancy rates between open and laparoscopic techniques for lesser degrees of tubal damage. Other factors, such as costs and hospital stay, will come into the decision making, and are likely to favour laparoscopic techniques. If a decision is made to open the badly damaged tubes of a patient, then an open microsurgical technique should be employed.

摘要

在患有不孕症的夫妇中,25%存在输卵管完全或部分堵塞。自体外受精(IVF)出现以来,输卵管手术的作用已有所减弱。然而,对于部分患有轻度输卵管疾病的患者,以及在无法开展IVF的中心,针对患有严重输卵管疾病的患者,此类手术仍在进行。本系统评价旨在比较腹腔镜手术与开放式显微手术技术后的妊娠结局。纳入了比较腹腔镜技术与需要剖腹手术治疗远端输卵管疾病的传统显微手术的研究。相关试验从Cochrane月经失调与不孕症专业对照试验注册库(检索至2005年7月)中识别出来。使用OVID平台、MEDLINE(1966年至2005年7月)、Cochrane对照试验中心注册库CENTRAL以及EMBASE(1980年至2005年7月)采用了以下检索策略。分析的结局指标为:每次妊娠的“抱婴回家”率、宫内妊娠率和异位妊娠率。进行亚组分析以比较腹腔镜手术组和传统显微手术组根据输卵管损伤程度的宫内妊娠率。共识别出6项相关研究。总体而言,两组之间的宫内妊娠率未观察到显著差异,合并比值比为1.32(95%置信区间[CI],0.58 - 3.02)。对于轻度输卵管疾病患者,治疗组和对照组之间的宫内妊娠率无显著差异,比值比为1.06(95%CI,0.42 - 2.70)。对于重度输卵管疾病患者,剖腹手术组的宫内妊娠率显著升高,比值比为0.34(95%CI,0.14 - 0.86)。合适的患者选择是影响生育结局的主要因素。这些数据并未表明在输卵管损伤程度较轻时,开放式手术和腹腔镜手术技术在妊娠率上存在显著差异。其他因素,如成本和住院时间,将影响决策,并且可能更倾向于腹腔镜技术。如果决定对患者严重受损的输卵管进行手术,那么应采用开放式显微手术技术。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验