Suppr超能文献

静脉内射频消融后压缩与不压缩的比较:随机对照试验的荟萃分析。

Compression versus no compression after endovenous radiofrequency ablation: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

机构信息

The First Clinical Medical College, Gansu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Lanzhou, China.

Department of Vascular Surgery, 91589Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, China.

出版信息

Phlebology. 2022 Sep;37(8):555-563. doi: 10.1177/02683555221108568. Epub 2022 Jun 17.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare compression with no-compression, after radiofrequency endothermal ablation of a truncal varicose vein.

METHODS

Databases, such as PubMed, Embase, Cochran Library, and Web of Science, were independently searched by two researchers for relevant literature, preliminary screening was performed, and the full text was read to select studies that met the inclusion criteria. The quality of the included literature was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, and meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4.

RESULTS

A total of four randomized controlled trials were included and a total of 552 patients were involved. Among them, 273 patients were in the compression group and 279 in the no-compression group. Meta-analysis results showed that the pain using the 100 mm Visual Analogue Scale was lower in the compression group than the pain in the no-compression group (MD = -4.22, 95% CI = -7.95 - -0.49, = 0.03). No significant differences in terms of occlusion rate (RR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.96-1.02, = 0.55), Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire (MD = 0.46, 95% CI = -0.80-1.73, = 0.47), and complications (OR = 1.33, 95% CI = 0.61-2.94, = 0.47) were observed between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis suggests that compression therapy reduced post-operative pain compared to the no-compression group. However, no additional advantages were observed in terms of occlusion rates, quality of life scores and complications.

摘要

目的

本荟萃分析旨在比较射频热消融治疗主干静脉曲张后加压与不加压的效果。

方法

由两名研究人员独立检索 PubMed、Embase、Cochrane 图书馆和 Web of Science 等数据库,进行初步筛选,并阅读全文以选择符合纳入标准的研究。使用 Cochrane 偏倚风险工具评估纳入文献的质量,并使用 Review Manager 5.4 进行荟萃分析。

结果

共纳入 4 项随机对照试验,共 552 例患者。其中,加压组 273 例,不加压组 279 例。荟萃分析结果显示,使用 100mm 视觉模拟评分法(VAS)评估的疼痛,加压组低于不加压组(MD=-4.22,95%CI=-7.95 至-0.49, =0.03)。两组在闭塞率(RR=0.99,95%CI=0.96-1.02, =0.55)、Aberdeen 静脉曲张问卷(MD=0.46,95%CI=-0.80 至 1.73, =0.47)和并发症(OR=1.33,95%CI=0.61-2.94, =0.47)方面无显著差异。

结论

本荟萃分析表明,与不加压组相比,加压治疗可减轻术后疼痛,但在闭塞率、生活质量评分和并发症方面无额外获益。

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