Suppr超能文献

早期宫颈癌治疗的荟萃分析:开放式与微创根治性子宫颈切除术比较。

A meta-analysis of treatment for early-stage cervical cancer: open versus minimally invasive radical trachelectomy.

机构信息

Department of Obstetrics, Guangzhou Women and Children's Medical Center, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.

Department of Obstetrics, Guangzhou Women and Children's Medical Center Affiliated to Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.

出版信息

BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2023 Oct 14;23(1):727. doi: 10.1186/s12884-023-06036-z.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

In previous systematic reviews, meta-analysis was lacking, resulting in the statistical difference between the data of different surgeries being impossible to judge. This meta-analysis aims to contrast the fertility results and cancer outcomes between open and minimally invasive surgery.

METHOD

We systematically searched databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Scopus to collect studies that included open and minimally invasive radical trachelectomy. A random-effect model calculated the weighted average difference of each primary outcome via Review Manager V.5.4.

RESULT

Eight studies (1369 patients) were incorporated into our study. For fertility results, the Open group excels MIS group in pregnancies-Third trimester delivery [OR = 2.68; 95% CI (1.29, 5.59); P = 0.008]. Nevertheless, there is no statistical difference in clinical pregnancy, miscarriage, and second-trimester rate. Concerning cancer outcomes, no difference was detected in the overall survival [OR = 1.56; 95% CI (0.70, 3.45); P = 0.27] and recurrence [OR = 0.63; 95% CI (0.35, 1.12); P = 0.12]. Concerning surgery-related outcomes, the comprehensive effects revealed that the estimated blood loss of the Open group was higher than that of the MIS group[MD = 139.40; 95% CI (79.05, 199.75); P < 0.0001]. However, there was no difference between the postoperative complication rate in the two groups [OR = 1.52; 95% CI (0.89, 2.60); P = 0.12].

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis suggested that the fertility result of the Open group may be better than the MIS group, while the MIS group has better surgery-related outcomes. Owing to the poor cases of our study, a more robust conclusion requires more relevant articles in the future.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42022352999.

摘要

背景

在之前的系统评价中,缺乏荟萃分析,因此无法判断不同手术的数据之间的统计学差异。本荟萃分析旨在比较开放手术和微创手术治疗的生育结果和癌症结局。

方法

我们系统地检索了包括 PubMed、Embase、Cochrane 和 Scopus 在内的数据库,收集了包括开放和微创根治性宫颈切除术的研究。使用 Review Manager V.5.4 计算每个主要结局的加权平均差异。

结果

纳入了 8 项研究(1369 名患者)。对于生育结果,开放组在妊娠-孕晚期分娩方面优于微创组 [OR=2.68;95%CI(1.29,5.59);P=0.008]。然而,临床妊娠、流产和孕中期率方面无统计学差异。关于癌症结局,总生存无差异 [OR=1.56;95%CI(0.70,3.45);P=0.27]和复发 [OR=0.63;95%CI(0.35,1.12);P=0.12]。关于手术相关结局,综合效应显示,开放组的估计出血量高于微创组 [MD=139.40;95%CI(79.05,199.75);P<0.0001]。然而,两组术后并发症发生率无差异 [OR=1.52;95%CI(0.89,2.60);P=0.12]。

结论

本荟萃分析表明,开放组的生育结果可能优于微创组,而微创组具有更好的手术相关结局。由于本研究的病例较少,需要未来更多相关文章来得出更稳健的结论。

系统评价注册

PROSPERO CRD42022352999。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/289c/10576315/b306d827d324/12884_2023_6036_Fig1_HTML.jpg

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