首页> 外文期刊>Lung. >A Network Comparative Meta-analysis of Percutaneous Dilatational Tracheostomies Using Anatomic Landmarks, Bronchoscopic, and Ultrasound Guidance Versus Open Surgical Tracheostomy
【24h】

A Network Comparative Meta-analysis of Percutaneous Dilatational Tracheostomies Using Anatomic Landmarks, Bronchoscopic, and Ultrasound Guidance Versus Open Surgical Tracheostomy

机译:使用解剖标志性地标,支气管镜和超声波引导与开放外科气管造口术经治疗经皮扩张性气管遗传学的网络比较荟萃分析

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

BackgroundSeveral different tracheostomy techniques (percutaneous and surgical) have been studied extensively in previous direct pairwise meta-analyses. However, a network comparative meta-analysis comparing all has not been conducted before.ObjectiveWe sought to compare three percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy techniques with open surgical tracheostomy technique (performed in the operating room or in the intensive care unit by bedside) in terms of their association with procedure-related major complications and procedure time.Data SourcesWe searched PubMed and Cochrane register of randomized active comparator trials.Data Extraction and SynthesisA network comparative meta-analysis was performed in Stata using frequentist methodology. Major complications were defined as a composite of a priori-selected procedure-related complications. Tracheostomy techniques that did not require any direct bronchoscopic or ultrasonographic visualization of the entire procedure were grouped under the headinganatomic landmark-based dilatational tracheostomy (ALDT). This along with bronchoscopic-guided dilatational tracheostomy (BDT), ultrasound-guided (UDT), and surgical tracheostomy (SGT) were compared with each other using network meta-analysis in Stata after all major assumptions (similarity, transitivity, and consistency) for performing a network were met. Log odds ratio (and standard errors) of the comparison of major complications between any two tracheostomy techniques (using indirect estimates) was statistically insignificant. Pairwise meta-analysis showed significant differences in procedure times between SGT and ALDT [mean difference: 9.96min (SE 3.18)] and between SGT and BDT [15.67min (SE 3.85)]. The indirect network meta-analysis comparing one versus the other also showed a statistically significant time difference between surgical tracheostomy when compared with every other technique.ConclusionsThe results of our network meta-analysis show that all tracheostomy techniques are comparable with respect to associated procedure-related complications, but all three percutaneous techniques take far less procedure time compared to the surgical tracheostomy.
机译:背景鉴相不同的气管造口术(经皮和外科)在先前的直接成对荟萃分析中被广泛研究过。然而,在其协会方面寻求比较所有尚未进行的网络比较Meta分析所有尚未进行的尚未进行所有尚未进行的尚未进行。通过程序相关的主要并发症和程序时间。DATA SourcesWe搜索的随机活性比较器试验的PUBMED和Cochrane寄存器。DATA提取和合成网络比较META分析使用频率方法在STATA中进行。主要并发症被定义为综合相关的程序相关的并发症。在基于头饰的基于地标的扩张性气管造口(ALDT)下,不需要对整个程序的任何直接支气管镜的或超声可视化的气管造口术或超声可视化。这与支气管镜引导的扩张气管造口术(BDT),超声引导(UDT)和手术气管造口术(SGT)在所有主要假设(相似性,转运和一致性)的所有主要假设(相似性,传递和一致性)中相互比较达到了执行网络。任何两个气管切解术技术(使用间接估计)之间的主要并发症的比较的数量比率(和标准误差)在统计上微不足道。成对荟萃分析显示SGT和ALDT之间的过程时间差异[平均差异:9.96min(SE 3.18)]和SGT和BDT之间[15.67min(SE 3.85)]。比较一个与另一个对比的间接网络元分析也显示出外科气管造口术之间的统计学上显着的时间差。与其他技术相比,我们的网络元分析结果表明,所有气管造口技术都与相关的程序相关的相当并发症,但与手术气管造口术相比,所有三种经皮技术都需要更少的程序时间。

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