Macario Alex, Dexter Franklin, Sypal Jennifer, Cosgriff Ned, Heniford B Todd
Department of Anesthesia, Stanford University School of Medicine, California 94305-5640, USA.
Surg Innov. 2008 Dec;15(4):284-91. doi: 10.1177/1553350608324933. Epub 2008 Oct 22.
A meta-analysis was performed of 29 prospective, randomized trials (published January 1, 2000, to August 14, 2007) comparing an electrothermal bipolar vessel sealing system (EBVS-LigaSure, Covidien) (total n = 1107 patients) with either clamping with suture ligation/ electrocauterization (n = 1079 patients) or ultrasonic energy (eg, Harmonic Scalpel, Johnson & Johnson). Hemorrhoidectomy (12 articles), hysterectomy (4 articles), and thyroidectomy (3 articles) were the most common procedures. For 15 of 26 studies reporting standard deviations, the normalized mean operative time reduction for EBVS equaled 28% (95% confidence interval [CI] 18%-39%, P < .0001) compared with conventional surgical hemostasis. Operative time was reduced with EBVS in 24 of 26 studies (P < .0001). EBVS was associated with 43 mL (95% CI 14-73 mL, P = .0021) less blood loss, fewer complications (odds ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.47-0.92, P = .02), and mean reduction in postoperative pain of 2.8 units (95% CI 1.5-4.1, P < .0001). Five studies used ultrasonic energy as the comparator, but none reported standard deviation so data could not be pooled.
对29项前瞻性随机试验(发表于2000年1月1日至2007年8月14日)进行了荟萃分析,这些试验比较了一种电热双极血管闭合系统(EBVS-LigaSure,柯惠医疗)(共1107例患者)与缝线结扎/电灼钳夹法(1079例患者)或超声能量(如强生公司的超声刀)。痔切除术(12篇文章)、子宫切除术(4篇文章)和甲状腺切除术(3篇文章)是最常见的手术。在报告标准差的26项研究中的15项中,与传统手术止血相比,EBVS的标准化平均手术时间缩短了28%(95%置信区间[CI]18%-39%,P<.0001)。在26项研究中的24项中,EBVS缩短了手术时间(P<.0001)。EBVS与失血量减少43 mL(95%CI 14-73 mL,P=.0021)、并发症减少(优势比0.66,95%CI(0.47-0.92,P=.02)以及术后疼痛平均减轻2.8个单位(95%CI 1.5-4.1,P<.0001)相关。5项研究使用超声能量作为对照,但均未报告标准差,因此无法汇总数据。