Suppr超能文献

不同方法在腹腔镜右半结肠切除术的应用比较:系统评价和网络荟萃分析。

Comparison between different approaches applied in laparoscopic right hemi-colectomy: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

机构信息

Department of General Surgery, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China.

Department of General Surgery, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China.

出版信息

Int J Surg. 2017 Dec;48:74-82. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.10.029. Epub 2017 Oct 12.

Abstract

AIM

Several different operative approaches have been applied nowadays in laparoscopic right hemi-colectomy. This study aims to evaluate the potential benefits of different approaches by conducting a network meta-analysis (NMA).

METHOD

A comprehensive literature research of the PubMed, Embase, Medline, the Cochrane Central Library, Wan Fang and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases was performed. Original articles comparing two of three different approaches including medial to lateral (MtL) approach, lateral to medial (LtM) approach and cranial to caudal (CtC) approach of laparoscopic right colon resection for patients with both neoplastic and benign diseases were included.

RESULTS

3 RCTs and 3 NRCTs with a total of 571 patients were included in this NMA. The result revealed that LtM approach needs shorter postoperative flatus recovery time than both MtL approach with a WMD of 1.40 (95% CI: 0.13 to 2.67, P < 0.05) and CtC approach (WMD = -1.25, 95% CI: -1.90 to -0.61, P < 0.05). The length of hospital stay of LtM approach is shorter than that of MtL approach (WMD = 0.29, 95% CI: 0.08 to 0.50, P < 0.05). CtC approach can achieve less postoperative complications (OR = 3.37, 95% CI: 1.06 to 10.70, P < 0.05) compared with MtL approach.

CONCLUSION

All three approaches are safe and acceptable in laparoscopic right hemi-colectomy since the pooled evidence revealed that most aspects of different approaches are comparable in general. The postoperative flatus recovery time and hospitalization time of LtM approach is shorter compared with MtL approach. And CtC approach may have slight superiority in postoperative complications compared with MtL approach.

摘要

目的

目前腹腔镜右半结肠切除术有几种不同的手术入路。本研究旨在通过网络荟萃分析(NMA)评估不同方法的潜在益处。

方法

对 PubMed、Embase、Medline、Cochrane 中央图书馆、万方和中国国家知识基础设施(CNKI)数据库进行全面文献检索。纳入比较三种不同入路中的两种(内侧至外侧(MtL)入路、外侧至内侧(LtM)入路和从头至尾(CtC)入路)腹腔镜右半结肠切除术治疗良恶性疾病患者的原始文章。

结果

这项 NMA 纳入了 3 项 RCT 和 3 项非随机对照试验,共 571 名患者。结果显示 LtM 入路的术后肛门排气恢复时间短于 MtL 入路(WMD 为 1.40,95%CI:0.13 至 2.67,P<0.05)和 CtC 入路(WMD=-1.25,95%CI:-1.90 至-0.61,P<0.05)。LtM 入路的住院时间短于 MtL 入路(WMD=0.29,95%CI:0.08 至 0.50,P<0.05)。与 MtL 入路相比,CtC 入路术后并发症更少(OR=3.37,95%CI:1.06 至 10.70,P<0.05)。

结论

在腹腔镜右半结肠切除术中,三种方法都是安全且可接受的,因为汇总证据表明,大多数方法在大多数方面是相当的。与 MtL 入路相比,LtM 入路的术后肛门排气恢复时间和住院时间更短。与 MtL 入路相比,CtC 入路在术后并发症方面可能有轻微优势。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验