Suppr超能文献

基于乔尔-科恩技术与横切口Pfannenstiel切口剖宫产安全性和有效性的比较:一项系统评价和荟萃分析

Comparison of the Joel-Cohen-based technique and the transverse Pfannenstiel for caesarean section for safety and effectiveness: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

作者信息

Olyaeemanesh Alireza, Bavandpour Elahe, Mobinizadeh Mohammadreza, Ashrafinia Mansoor, Bavandpour Maryam, Nouhi Mojtaba

机构信息

National Institute for Health Research, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

出版信息

Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2017 Sep 4;31:54. doi: 10.14196/mjiri.31.54. eCollection 2017.

Abstract

Caesarean section (C-section) is the most common surgery among women worldwide, and the global rate of this surgical procedure has been continuously rising. Hence, it is significantly crucial to develop and apply highly effective and safe caesarean section techniques. In this review study, we aimed at assessing the safety and effectiveness of the Joel-Cohen-based technique and comparing the results with the transverse Pfannenstiel incision for C-section. In this study, various reliable databases such as the PubMed Central, COCHRANE, DARE, and Ovid MEDLINE were targeted. Reviews, systematic reviews, and randomized clinical trial studies comparing the Joel-Cohen-based technique and the transverse Pfannenstiel incision were selected based on the inclusion criteria. Selected studies were checked by 2 independent reviewers based on the inclusion criteria, and the quality of these studies was assessed. Then, their data were extracted and analyzed. Five randomized clinical trial studies met the inclusion criteria. According to the exiting evidence, statistical results of the Joel-Cohen-based technique showed that this technique is more effective compared to the transverse Pfannenstiel incision. Metaanalysis results of the 3 outcomes were as follow: operation time (5 trials, 764 women; WMD -9.78; 95% CI:-14.49-5.07 minutes, p<0.001), blood loss (3 trials, 309 women; WMD -53.23ml; 95% -CI: 90.20-16.26 ml, p= 0.004), and post-operative hospital stay (3 trials, 453 women; WMD -.69 day; 95% CI: 1.4-0.03 day, p<0.001). Statistical results revealed a significant difference between the 2 techniques. According to the literature, despite having a number of side effects, the Joel-Cohen-based technique is generally more effective than the Pfannenstiel incision technique. In addition, it was recommended that the Joel-Cohen-based technique be used as a replacement for the Pfannenstiel incision technique according to the surgeons' preferences and the patients' conditions.

摘要

剖宫产是全球女性中最常见的手术,且这种手术方式的全球发生率一直在持续上升。因此,开发和应用高效且安全的剖宫产技术至关重要。在这项综述研究中,我们旨在评估基于乔尔 - 科恩(Joel-Cohen)技术的安全性和有效性,并将结果与剖宫产的横切口Pfannenstiel切口进行比较。在本研究中,我们选取了各种可靠的数据库,如美国国立医学图书馆(PubMed Central)、考克兰系统评价数据库(COCHRANE)、循证医学数据库(DARE)和Ovid MEDLINE。根据纳入标准,选择了比较基于乔尔 - 科恩技术和横切口Pfannenstiel切口的综述、系统评价和随机临床试验研究。入选的研究由2名独立评审员根据纳入标准进行检查,并对这些研究的质量进行评估。然后,提取并分析它们的数据。五项随机临床试验研究符合纳入标准。根据现有证据,基于乔尔 - 科恩技术的统计结果表明,该技术比横切口Pfannenstiel切口更有效。三项结果的荟萃分析结果如下:手术时间(5项试验,764名女性;加权均数差 -9.78;95%置信区间:-14.49 - 5.07分钟,p<0.001)、失血量(3项试验,309名女性;加权均数差 -53.23毫升;95%置信区间:-90.20 - 16.26毫升,p = 0.004)和术后住院时间(3项试验,453名女性;加权均数差 -0.69天;95%置信区间:-1.4 - 0.03天,p<0.001)。统计结果显示这两种技术之间存在显著差异。根据文献,尽管基于乔尔 - 科恩技术有一些副作用,但总体上比Pfannenstiel切口技术更有效。此外,建议根据外科医生的偏好和患者的情况,使用基于乔尔 - 科恩技术替代Pfannenstiel切口技术。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/641b/5804473/57bdeb3d457a/mjiri-31-54-g001.jpg

相似文献

2
Techniques for caesarean section.剖宫产技术。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008 Jan 23;2008(1):CD004662. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004662.pub2.
3
Abdominal surgical incisions for caesarean section.剖宫产的腹部手术切口。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Jan 24(1):CD004453. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004453.pub2.
5
Abdominal surgical incisions for caesarean section.剖宫产的腹部手术切口。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 May 31;2013(5):CD004453. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004453.pub3.
7
Modified Joel-Cohen technique for caesarean delivery.改良的乔尔-科恩剖宫产技术。
Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1999 Mar;106(3):221-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1999.tb08234.x.

本文引用的文献

3
Abdominal surgical incisions for caesarean section.剖宫产的腹部手术切口。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 May 31;2013(5):CD004453. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004453.pub3.
6
Techniques for caesarean section.剖宫产技术。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008 Jan 23;2008(1):CD004662. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004662.pub2.
7
Comparison of two transverse abdominal incisions for cesarean delivery.剖宫产两种腹部横切口的比较。
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2002 Jul;78(1):47-9. doi: 10.1016/s0020-7292(02)00061-9.
10
Evaluation of combinations of procedures in cesarean section.剖宫产手术联合操作的评估
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1995 Mar;48(3):273-6. doi: 10.1016/0020-7292(94)02306-j.

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