...
首页> 外文期刊>BMC Nephrology >Randomized controlled trials for comparison of laparoscopic versus conventional open catheter placement in peritoneal dialysis patients: a meta-analysis
【24h】

Randomized controlled trials for comparison of laparoscopic versus conventional open catheter placement in peritoneal dialysis patients: a meta-analysis

机译:用于比较腹腔镜对腹膜透析患者的腹​​腔镜与常规开放导管放置的随机对照试验:META分析

获取原文
           

摘要

The application of laparoscopic catheterization technology in peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients has recently increased. However, the advantages and disadvantages of laparoscopic versus conventional open PD catheter placement are still controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis is to assess the complications of catheterization in PD patients and to provide a reference for choosing a PD-catheter placement technique in the clinic. We searched numerous databases, including Embase, PubMed, CNKI and the Cochrane Library, for published randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Eight relevant studies (n?=?646) were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled results showed a lower incidence of catheter migration (OR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.19 to 0.90, P: 0.03) and catheter removal (OR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.79, P: 0.008) but a higher incidence of bleeding (OR: 3.25, 95% CI: 1.18 to 8.97, P: 0.02) with a laparoscopic approach than with a conventional approach. There was no significant difference in the incidence of omentum adhesion (OR: 0.32, 95% CI: 0.05 to 2.10, P: 0.24), hernia (OR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.09 to 1.68, P: 0.20), leakage (OR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.38 to 1.26, P: 0.23), intestinal obstruction (OR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.48 to 1.91, P: 0.90) or perforation (OR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.06 to 15.42, P: 0.97). The statistical analysis showed no significant difference in early (OR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.15 to 1.33, P: 0.15), late (OR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.41 to 1.90, P: 0.76) or total (OR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.42 to 1.12, P: 0.13) peritonitis infections between the 2 groups, and there are no no significant difference in early (OR: 0.39, 95% CI: 0.06 to 2.36, P: 0.30), late (OR: 1.35, 95% CI: 0.78 to 2.33, P: 0.16) or total (OR: 1.20, 95% CI: 0.71 to 2.02, P: 0.17) tunnel or exit-site infections between the 2 groups. Laparoscopic catheterization and conventional open catheter placement in PD patients have unique advantages, but laparoscopic PD catheterization may be superior to conventional open catheter placement. However, this conclusion needs to be confirmed with further large-sample-size, multi-centre, high-quality RCTs.
机译:腹腔镜导管插入技术在腹膜透析(PD)患者中的应用最近增加。然而,腹腔镜与常规开放式PD导管放置的优点和缺点仍然是争议的。该META分析的目的是评估PD患者中导管插入患者的并发症,并提供在临床中选择PD导管置入技术的参考。我们搜索了众多数据库,包括Embase,PubMed,CNKI和Cochrane库,用于公布的随机对照试验(RCT)。在Meta分析中包含八项相关研究(n?= 346)。汇总结果显示出导管迁移的发生率较低(或:0.42,95%CI:0.19至0.90,P:0.03)和导管除去(或:0.41,95%CI:0.21至0.79,P:0.008),但较高腹腔镜接近的出血性出血(或3.25,95%CI:1.18至8.97,P:0.02),而不是常规方法。 Omentum粘附的发生率没有显着差异(或:0.32,95%CI:0.05至2.10,P:0.24),疝气(或:0.38,95%CI:0.09至1.68,P:0.20),泄漏(或者:0.69,95%CI:0.38至1.26,P:0.23),肠梗阻(或:0.96,95%CI:0.48至1.91,P:0.90)或穿孔(或:0.95,95%CI:0.06至15.42 ,p:0.97)。统计学分析表现出早期没有显着差异(或:0.44,95%CI:0.15至1.33,P:0.15),晚期(或:0.89,95%CI:0.41至1.90,P:0.76)或总数(或: 0.68,95%CI:0.42至1.12,P:0.13)2组之间的腹膜炎感染,早期没有显着差异(或:0.39,95%CI:0.06至2.36,P:0.30),晚期(或者:1.35,95%CI:0.78至2.33,p:0.16)或总(或:1.20,95%CI:0.71至2.02,P:0.17)隧道或出口位点感染2组之间。腹腔镜导管插入和常规的PD患者的常规导管放置具有独特的优点,但是腹腔镜PD导管插入术可以优于传统的开放导管置位置。然而,这一结论需要通过进一步的大样本,多中心,高质量的RCT确认。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

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