Suppr超能文献

甲状腺全切除术后超声刀与传统止血方法比较并发症及经济性的随机临床试验(FOThyr)

Randomized clinical trial of ultrasonic scissors versus conventional haemostasis to compare complications and economics after total thyroidectomy (FOThyr).

作者信息

Blanchard C, Pattou F, Brunaud L, Hamy A, Dahan M, Mathonnet M, Volteau C, Caillard C, Durand-Zaleski I, Mirallié E

机构信息

Clinique de Chirurgie Digestive et Endocrinienne Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (CHU) de Nantes Nantes France.

Chirurgie Générale et Endocrinienne, CHU Lille Université de Lille Lille France.

出版信息

BJS Open. 2017 May 9;1(1):2-10. doi: 10.1002/bjs5.2. eCollection 2017 Feb.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The benefits of single-use ultrasonic scissors in thyroid surgery are still debated. Although this device has been shown to reduce operating time compared with conventional haemostasis, its cost-effectiveness has never been demonstrated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy, cost-effectiveness and safety of ultrasonic scissors for total thyroidectomy.

METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized, multicentre trial conducted at 13 hospital sites. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients with hypocalcaemia (serum calcium level below 2 mmol/l) on day 2. Secondary endpoints included postoperative complications and costs, with calculation of incremental cost differences and cost-effectiveness ratios.

RESULTS

In total, 1329 patients who underwent total thyroidectomy were included in the analysis: 670 were randomized to treatment with ultrasonic scissors and 659 to conventional haemostasis. There was no difference between groups in the rate of complications, including hypocalcaemia on day 2 (197 per cent in ultrasonic scissors group versus 203 per cent in conventional haemostasis group; P = 0·743). Median operating times were significantly shorter with ultrasonic scissors (90 versus 100 min with conventional haemostasis; P < 0·001). Total mean(s.d.) direct costs at 6 months were €4311(1547) and €4011(1596) respectively (P < 0·001).

CONCLUSION

Ultrasonic scissors were no more clinically effective than conventional haemostasis, but use of these devices was more costly. Registration number: NCT01551914 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

摘要

背景

一次性使用超声刀在甲状腺手术中的益处仍存在争议。尽管与传统止血方法相比,该器械已被证明可缩短手术时间,但其成本效益从未得到证实。本研究的目的是评估超声刀在全甲状腺切除术中的有效性、成本效益和安全性。

方法

这是一项在13个医院开展的前瞻性、随机、多中心试验。主要终点是术后第2天出现低钙血症(血清钙水平低于2 mmol/L)的患者百分比。次要终点包括术后并发症和成本,并计算增量成本差异和成本效益比。

结果

共有1329例行全甲状腺切除术的患者纳入分析:670例随机接受超声刀治疗,659例接受传统止血治疗。两组并发症发生率无差异,包括术后第2天的低钙血症(超声刀组为19.7%,传统止血组为20.3%;P = 0.743)。超声刀组的中位手术时间明显更短(90分钟,传统止血组为100分钟;P < 0.001)。6个月时的总平均(标准差)直接成本分别为4311(1547)欧元和4011(1596)欧元(P < 0.001)。

结论

超声刀在临床效果上并不优于传统止血方法,但使用这些器械成本更高。注册号:NCT01551914(http://www.clinicaltrials.gov)。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2ee4/5989994/6174aeaed5a9/BJS5-1-2-g001.jpg

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