首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine >Outcome of extralevator abdominoperineal excision over conventional abdominoperineal excision for low rectal tumor: a meta-analysis
【2h】

Outcome of extralevator abdominoperineal excision over conventional abdominoperineal excision for low rectal tumor: a meta-analysis

机译:低位直肠癌的常规腹部手术切除效果优于传统的腹部手术切除术:荟萃分析

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Objective: A meta-analysis was undertaken to provide an evidence-based basis of clinical trials comparing extralevator abdominoperineal excision with conventional abdominoperineal excision for low rectal tumor. Methods: We searched through the major medical databases such as PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, Science Citation Index, Web of Science for all published studies without any limit on language from January 2009 until January 2015. The following search terms were used: extralevator abdominoperineal excision or cylindrical abdominoperineal resection or conventional abdominoperineal excision or abdominoperineal excision or rectal cancer. Furthermore, Additional related studies were manually searched in the reference lists of all published reviews and retrieved articles. Results: In this meta-analysis, there are a total number of 1797 patients included: 1099 patients in the ELAPE group and 698 in the APE group, and there are not statistically differences between groups in CRM [RR=0.65, 95% CI (0.41, 1.04), P=0.07] and wound complications [RR=1.14, 95% CI (1.09, 1.66), P=0.45] between ELAPE and APE. However, ELAPE has a lower rate of intraoperation perforation [RR=0.44; 95% CI (0.33, 0.60); P<0.00001] and local recurrence [RR=0.45, 95% CI (0.27, 0.77), P=0.003] than APE in terms of short follow-up time.
机译:目的:进行一项荟萃分析,为比较直肠下腹部手术与常规腹部手术切除低位直肠癌的临床试验提供依据。方法:从2009年1月至2015年1月,我们通过主要医学数据库(例如PubMed,EMBASE,Medline,Science Citation Index,Web of Science)搜索了所有发表的研究,语言不受任何限制。使用了以下搜索词:提肛上腹切除术或圆筒形腹部手术切除术或常规腹部手术切除术或腹部手术切除术或直肠癌。此外,在所有已发表评论和检索到的文章的参考列表中手动搜索了其他相关研究。结果:在这项荟萃分析中,总共包括1797例患者:ELAPE组为1099例患者,APE组为698例,CRM组之间无统计学差异[RR = 0.65,95%CI( ELAPE和APE之间的并发症[RR = 0.41、1.04,P = 0.07]和伤口并发症[RR = 1.14、95%CI(1.09,1.66),P = 0.45]。但是,ELAPE术中穿孔的发生率较低[RR = 0.44; 95%CI(0.33,0.60);与较短的随访时间相比,P <0.00001]和局部复发[RR = 0.45,95%CI(0.27,0.77),P = 0.003]。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号