...
首页> 外文期刊>Annals of Surgery >Suture Cruroplasty Versus Prosthetic Hiatal Herniorrhaphy for Large Hiatal Hernia A Meta-analysis and Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials
【24h】

Suture Cruroplasty Versus Prosthetic Hiatal Herniorrhaphy for Large Hiatal Hernia A Meta-analysis and Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

机译:缝线成形术与人工裂孔裂孔疝治疗大型食管裂孔疝的Meta分析和系统评价

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Objective:The aim was to conduct a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing 2 methods of hiatal closure for large hiatal hernia and to evaluate their strengths and flaws.Methods:Prospective RCTs comparing suture cruroplasty versus prosthetic hiatal herniorrhaphy for large hiatal hernia were selected by searching PubMed, Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index, Current Contents, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials published between January 1991 and October 2014. The outcome variables analyzed included operating time, complications, recurrence of hiatal hernia or wrap migration, and reoperation. These outcomes were unanimously decided to be important because they influence the practical approach toward patient management. Random effects model was used to calculate the effect size of both dichotomous and continuous data. Heterogeneity among the outcome variables of these trials was determined by the Cochran's Q statistic and I-2 index. The meta-analysis was prepared in accordance with Preferred Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.Results:Four RCTs were analyzed totaling 406 patients (Suture=186, Prosthesis=220). For only 1 of the 4 outcomes, ie, reoperation rate (OR 3.73, 95% CI 1.18, 11.82, P=0.03), the pooled effect size favored prosthetic hiatal herniorrhaphy over suture cruroplasty. For other outcomes, comparable effect sizes were noted for both groups which included recurrence of hiatal hernia or wrap migration (OR 2.01, 95% CI 0.92, 4.39, P=0.07), operating time (SMD -0.46, 95% CI -1.16, -0.24, P=0.19) and complication rates (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.45, 2.50, P=0.90).Conclusions:On the basis of our meta-analysis and its limitations, we believe that the prosthetic hiatal herniorrhaphy and suture cruroplasty produces comparable results for repair of large hiatal hernias. In the future, a number of issues need to be addressed to determine the clinical outcomes, safety, and effectiveness of these 2 methods for elective surgical treatment of large hiatal hernias. Presently, the use of prosthetic hiatal herniorrhaphy for large hiatal hernia cannot be endorsed routinely and the decision for the placement of mesh needs to be individualized based on the operative findings and the surgeon's recommendation.
机译:目的:目的是进行荟萃分析,比较大型裂孔疝的两种封闭裂孔方法的随机对照试验(RCT),并评估其优势和缺陷。方法:前瞻性RCT比较缝线成形术与假体裂孔疝治疗大裂孔通过搜索PubMed,Medline,Embase,Science Citation Index,当前内容和1991年1月至2014年10月发布的Cochrane对照试验中央登记册选择疝气。分析的结果变量包括手术时间,并发症,食管裂孔疝复发或包裹迁移和重新手术。一致认为这些结果很重要,因为它们会影响患者管理的实际方法。随机效应模型用于计算二分数据和连续数据的效应大小。这些试验的结果变量之间的异质性由Cochran的Q统计量和I-2指数确定。根据系统评价的首选报告和荟萃分析指南进行荟萃分析。结果:共分析了4例RCT,共406例患者(缝合= 186,假体= 220)。对于4个结局中只有1个结局,即再次手术率(OR 3.73,95%CI 1.18,11.82,P = 0.03),合并效果的大小有利于人工裂孔性疝修补术而不是缝合线成形术。对于其他结局,两组的疗效均具有可比性,其中包括食管裂孔疝复发或包膜移行(OR 2.01,95%CI 0.92,4.39,P = 0.07),手术时间(SMD -0.46,95%CI -1.16, -0.24,P = 0.19)和并发症发生率(OR 1.06,95%CI 0.45,2.50,P = 0.90)。结论:在我们的荟萃分析及其局限性的基础上,我们认为人工裂孔性疝修补术和缝合线成形术修复裂孔性疝的效果可比。将来,需要解决许多问题,以确定这两种大裂孔疝的选择性手术治疗的临床结果,安全性和有效性。目前,不能常规地认可使用人工裂孔性疝修补术治疗大的裂孔性疝,并且必须根据手术结果和外科医生的建议对网状放置的决定进行个体化。

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