Suppr超能文献

经比较腹腔镜切口疝和腹疝修补术中使用钉钉网片固定与缝线网片固定的荟萃分析。

A meta-analysis comparing tacker mesh fixation with suture mesh fixation in laparoscopic incisional and ventral hernia repair.

机构信息

Department of General and Colorectal Surgery, Worthing Hospital, Washington Suite, North Wing, Worthing, West Sussex, BN11 2DH, UK.

出版信息

Hernia. 2013 Apr;17(2):159-66. doi: 10.1007/s10029-012-1017-z. Epub 2012 Nov 9.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To systematically compare the tacker mesh fixation (TMF) with the suture mesh fixation (SMF) in laparoscopic incisional and ventral hernia (LIVH) repair.

METHODS

Trials evaluating the TMF with the SMF in LIVH repair were analysed using the statistical tool RevMan(®). Combined dichotomous and continuous data were expressed as odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD), respectively.

RESULTS

Four trials (2 randomised and 2 non-randomised) encompassing 207 patients undergoing LIVH repair with TMF versus SMF were retrieved from the standard electronic databases and analysed systematically. Ninety-nine patients underwent TMF and 108 patients underwent SMF in LIVH repair. There was no statistically significant heterogeneity (p = 0.27)] among trials. In the fixed-effects model, LIVH repair with TMF was associated with shorter operation time (MD, -23.65; 95 % CI, -31.06, -16.25; z = 6.26; p < 0.00001). Four- to six-week postoperative pain score was significantly lower (MD, -0.69; 95 % CI, -1.16, -0.23; z = 2.92; p < 0.004) following TMF. Peri-operative complications (p = 0.65), length of hospital stay (p = 1) and risk of hernia recurrence (OR, 1.54; 95 % CI, 0.38, 6.27; z = 0.61; p = 0.54) following TMF and SMF were statistically not different.

CONCLUSION

TMF in LIVH repair is associated with shorter operative time and lesser postoperative pain. TMF is comparable with SMF in terms of peri-operative complications, length of hospital stay and hernia recurrence. Therefore, TMF may be used in LIVH repair. However, further randomised trials recruiting higher number of patients are required to validate these findings.

摘要

目的

系统比较经皮穿刺固定(TMF)与缝线固定(SMF)在腹腔镜切口疝和腹疝(LIVH)修补术中的应用。

方法

使用统计工具 RevMan(®)分析比较 TMF 与 SMF 在 LIVH 修复中的随机对照试验和非随机对照试验。联合二项分类和连续数据分别表示为比值比(OR)和均数差(MD)。

结果

从标准电子数据库中检索到 4 项比较 TMF 与 SMF 在 LIVH 修复中的随机对照试验和非随机对照试验,共 207 例患者接受 LIVH 修复术。99 例患者接受 TMF,108 例患者接受 SMF。各试验之间无统计学异质性(p=0.27)。在固定效应模型中,TMF 用于 LIVH 修复术与手术时间更短相关(MD,-23.65;95%CI,-31.06,-16.25;z=6.26;p<0.00001)。TMF 术后 4 至 6 周的术后疼痛评分明显更低(MD,-0.69;95%CI,-1.16,-0.23;z=2.92;p<0.004)。TMF 和 SMF 术后围手术期并发症(p=0.65)、住院时间(p=1)和疝复发风险(OR,1.54;95%CI,0.38,6.27;z=0.61;p=0.54)无统计学差异。

结论

TMF 用于 LIVH 修复术与手术时间更短和术后疼痛更少有关。TMF 与 SMF 在围手术期并发症、住院时间和疝复发方面相似。因此,TMF 可用于 LIVH 修复术。然而,需要进一步开展纳入更多患者的随机对照试验来验证这些发现。

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