Li Lun, Tian Jinhui, Tian Hongliang, Sun Rao, Wang Quan, Yang Kehu
The First Clinical College, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China ; Evidence Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Evidence Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
PLoS One. 2014 Feb 28;9(2):e90313. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0090313. eCollection 2014.
We conducted a network meta analysis (NMA) to compare different kinds of laparoscopic cholecystectomy [LC] (single port [SPLC], two ports [2PLC], three ports [3PLC], and four ports laparoscopic cholecystectomy [4PLC], and four ports mini-laparoscopic cholecystectomy [mini-4PLC]).
PubMed, the Cochrane library, EMBASE, and ISI Web of Knowledge were searched to find randomized controlled trials [RCTs]. Direct pair-wise meta analysis (DMA), indirect treatment comparison meta analysis (ITC) and NMA were conducted to compare different kinds of LC.
We included 43 RCTs. The risk of bias of included studies was high. DMA showed that SPLC was associated with more postoperative complications, longer operative time, and higher cosmetic score than 4PLC, longer operative time and higher cosmetic score than 3PLC, more postoperative complications than mini-4PLC. Mini-4PLC was associated with longer operative time than 4PLC. ITC showed that 3PLC was associated with shorter operative time than mini-4PLC, and lower postoperative pain level than 2PLC. 2PLC was associated with fewer postoperative complications and longer hospital stay than SPLC. NMA showed that SPLC was associated with more postoperative complications than mini-4PLC, and longer operative time than 4PLC.
The rank probability plot suggested 4PLC might be the worst due to the highest level of postoperative pain, longest hospital stay, and lowest level of cosmetic score. The best one might be mini-4PLC because of highest level of cosmetic score, and fewest postoperative complications, or SPLC because of lowest level of postoperative pain and shortest hospital stay. But more studies are needed to determine which will be better between mini-4PLC and SPLC.
我们进行了一项网状Meta分析(NMA),以比较不同类型的腹腔镜胆囊切除术[LC](单孔[SPLC]、两孔[2PLC]、三孔[3PLC]、四孔腹腔镜胆囊切除术[4PLC]以及四孔迷你腹腔镜胆囊切除术[迷你4PLC])。
检索了PubMed、Cochrane图书馆、EMBASE和ISI Web of Knowledge以查找随机对照试验[RCT]。进行直接成对Meta分析(DMA)、间接治疗比较Meta分析(ITC)和NMA以比较不同类型的LC。
我们纳入了43项RCT。纳入研究的偏倚风险较高。DMA显示,与4PLC相比,SPLC术后并发症更多、手术时间更长且美容评分更高;与3PLC相比,手术时间更长且美容评分更高;与迷你4PLC相比,术后并发症更多。迷你4PLC与4PLC相比手术时间更长。ITC显示,3PLC与迷你4PLC相比手术时间更短,与2PLC相比术后疼痛程度更低。2PLC与SPLC相比术后并发症更少且住院时间更长。NMA显示,与迷你4PLC相比,SPLC术后并发症更多,与4PLC相比手术时间更长。
排序概率图表明,4PLC可能是最差的,因为其术后疼痛程度最高、住院时间最长且美容评分最低。最好的可能是迷你4PLC,因为其美容评分最高且术后并发症最少,或者是SPLC,因为其术后疼痛程度最低且住院时间最短。但需要更多研究来确定迷你4PLC和SPLC之间哪种更好。