Suppr超能文献

经鼻外、鼻内及经泪小管激光泪囊鼻腔造口术联合或不联合硅胶支架置入治疗鼻泪管阻塞的成功率:一项随机对照试验的网状Meta分析

Success rate of external, endonasal, and transcanalicular laser DCR with or without silicone stent intubation for NLD obstruction: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

作者信息

Evereklioglu Cem, Sener Hidayet, Polat Osman Ahmet, Sonmez Hatice Kubra, Gunay Sener Ayse Busra, Horozoglu Fatih

机构信息

Department of Ophthalmology, Division of Oculoplastic, Orbital, and Lacrimal Surgery, Erciyes University Medical Faculty, Kayseri, Türkiye.

Department of Medical Informatics and Biostatistics, Erciyes University Medical Faculty, Kayseri, Türkiye.

出版信息

Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2023 Dec;261(12):3369-3384. doi: 10.1007/s00417-023-06089-y. Epub 2023 May 15.

Abstract

PURPOSE

To define and compare the effectiveness of external dacryocystorhinostomy (EX-DCR), endonasal (EN-DCR), and transcanalicular laser-assisted (TL-DCR) with or without silicone stent (S) intubation.

METHODS

Studies were retrieved from PubMed, Scopus, and WoS. Frequentist and Bayesian network meta-analyses were performed and pooled estimations were expressed as risk ratio (RR). We included all original investigations of prospective, randomized controlled trials comparing success rate for any two of the following six surgical procedures: standard EX-DCR with or without S, cold EN-DCR with or without S, and TL-DCR with or without S. The primary outcome measure was the objective success rate.

RESULTS

Thirty-two studies with 3277 cases were included in the final quantitative analysis. TL-DCR with S was inferior to EN-DCR with S (RR: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.05-1.37), EX-DCR with S (RR: 1.17 95% CI: 1.05-1.29), EN-DCR without S (RR: 1.18; 95% CI: 1.03-1.35), and EX-DCR without S (RR: 1.15; 95%CI: 1.05-1.26) in frequentist statistics. No other statistical difference was found between other surgeries. When we excluded studies with additional interventions (nasal and revision surgery) for sensitivity analysis, 23 studies with 2468 cases were included to analysis. The success rates of TL-DCR with S and EN-DCR without S became similar (RR: 1.14 95% CI: 0.99-1.30) but there was no change in other outcomes. Similar results were found in Bayesian statistics. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve was higher for EN-DCR with S (0.75), whereas it was higher for EX-DCR with S (0.56) after sensitivity analysis.

CONCLUSION

Between endoscopic and external and transcanalicular laser without S procedures, there is no statistical difference. The rank probability showed that EN-DCR with S was a more appropriate surgical option when patients with nasal disease were included, whereas EX-DCR with S was a more appropriate surgical option when patients with nasal disease were excluded from the analysis.

摘要

目的

定义并比较外置式泪囊鼻腔造口术(EX-DCR)、鼻内镜下泪囊鼻腔造口术(EN-DCR)和经泪小管激光辅助泪囊鼻腔造口术(TL-DCR)在使用或不使用硅胶支架(S)插管情况下的有效性。

方法

从PubMed、Scopus和Web of Science数据库中检索研究。进行了频率学派和贝叶斯网络荟萃分析,并将汇总估计值表示为风险比(RR)。我们纳入了所有前瞻性随机对照试验的原始研究,这些研究比较了以下六种手术中的任意两种的成功率:标准EX-DCR(使用或不使用S)、冷器械EN-DCR(使用或不使用S)以及TL-DCR(使用或不使用S)。主要结局指标是客观成功率。

结果

最终定量分析纳入了32项研究,共3277例患者。在频率学派统计中,带S的TL-DCR不如带S的EN-DCR(RR:1.20;95%CI:1.05 - 1.37)、带S的EX-DCR(RR:1.17,95%CI:1.05 - 1.29)、不带S的EN-DCR(RR:1.18;95%CI:1.03 - 1.35)以及不带S的EX-DCR(RR:1.15;95%CI:1.05 - 1.26)。其他手术之间未发现其他统计学差异。当我们排除有额外干预(鼻腔和翻修手术)的研究进行敏感性分析时,纳入了23项研究,共2468例患者进行分析。带S的TL-DCR和不带S的EN-DCR的成功率变得相似(RR:1.14,95%CI:0.99 - 1.30),但其他结局没有变化。在贝叶斯统计中也发现了类似结果。敏感性分析后,带S的EN-DCR的累积排名曲线下面积较高(0.75),而带S的EX-DCR的累积排名曲线下面积较高(0.56)。

结论

在内镜下、外置式和不使用S的经泪小管激光手术之间,没有统计学差异。排名概率显示,当纳入有鼻腔疾病的患者时,带S的EN-DCR是更合适的手术选择,而当分析中排除有鼻腔疾病的患者时,带S的EX-DCR是更合适的手术选择。

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