Gianotti Luca, Beretta Simone, Luperto Margherita, Bernasconi Davide, Valsecchi Maria Grazia, Braga Marco
Department of Surgery and Translational Medicine, Milano-Bicocca University, San Gerardo Hospital, Monza, Italy,
Int J Colorectal Dis. 2014 Mar;29(3):329-41. doi: 10.1007/s00384-013-1802-x. Epub 2013 Dec 13.
The complexity of "fast track" (FT) surgery might decrease its applicability in daily practice and extensive diffusion. The aim of this study was to understand if the positive effect of FT on the outcome might be affected by the number, type, level of evidence of the components, or their possible combinations.
We performed a Medline, Embase, Pubmed, and Cochrane Library literature search of randomized and non-randomized trials comparing FT to conventional care (CC) in elective colorectal operations. By a meta-analytic approach, the effect of FT was estimated by the risk ratio (RR) with a 95 % confidence interval (CI) for the risk of post-operative complications.
The analysis included 53 studies (36 non-RCTs with and 17 RCTs), with 4,100 patients in the FT group and 4,424 patients in the CC group for a total of 8,524 patients. Fifty-six different item combinations were observed. The median rate of strategy implementation was 50 %. The positive effect of FT over CC was observed regardless the number (<10 vs. ≥10) of strategies used (RR = 0.80; 95 % CI 0.66-0.98 and RR = 0.75; 95 % CI 0.65-0.87, respectively), the application of items with strong vs. low level evidence (RR = 0.78; 95 % CI 0.67-0.90 and RR = 0.76; 95 % CI 0.63-0.92, respectively), or the frequency (≥80 vs. <80 %) of items implemented (RR = 0.80; 95 % CI 0.69-0.93 and RR = 0.73; 95 % CI 0.61-0.87, respectively).
The positive effects of FT seem to be achieved regardless the multiplicity and variance of item grouping.
“快速通道”(FT)手术的复杂性可能会降低其在日常实践中的适用性和广泛传播。本研究的目的是了解FT对结局的积极影响是否会受到其组成部分的数量、类型、证据水平或它们可能的组合的影响。
我们对Medline、Embase、Pubmed和Cochrane图书馆进行了文献检索,纳入了在择期结直肠手术中比较FT与传统护理(CC)的随机和非随机试验。通过荟萃分析方法,以风险比(RR)及术后并发症风险的95%置信区间(CI)来估计FT的效果。
分析纳入了53项研究(36项非随机对照试验和17项随机对照试验),FT组有4100例患者,CC组有4424例患者,共8524例患者。观察到56种不同的项目组合。策略实施的中位数率为50%。无论使用的策略数量(<10项与≥10项)(RR分别为0.80;95%CI 0.66 - 0.98和RR为0.75;95%CI 0.65 - 0.87)、具有高证据水平与低证据水平项目的应用(RR分别为0.78;95%CI 0.67 - 0.90和RR为0.76;95%CI 0.63 - 0.92),还是项目实施的频率(≥80%与<80%)(RR分别为0.80;95%CI 0.69 - 0.93和RR为0.73;95%CI 0.61 - 0.87),均观察到FT相对于CC的积极效果。
无论项目分组的多样性和差异如何,FT的积极效果似乎都能实现。