...
首页> 外文期刊>European urology >Laparoendoscopic single-site nephrectomy compared with conventional laparoscopic nephrectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies
【24h】

Laparoendoscopic single-site nephrectomy compared with conventional laparoscopic nephrectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies

机译:腹腔镜内单点肾切除术与常规腹腔镜肾切除术的比较:比较研究的系统评价和荟萃分析

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Context: Laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) surgery has increasingly been used to perform radical, partial, simple, or donor nephrectomy to reduce the morbidity and scarring associated with surgical intervention. Studies comparing LESS nephrectomy (LESS-N) and conventional laparoscopic nephrectomy (CL-N) have reported conflicting results. Objective: To assess the current evidence regarding the efficiency, safety, and potential advantages of LESS-N compared with CL-N. Evidence acquisition: We comprehensively searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library and performed a systematic review and cumulative meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective comparative studies assessing the two techniques. Evidence synthesis: Two RCTs and 25 retrospective studies including a total of 1094 cases were identified. Although LESS-N was associated with a longer operative time (weighted mean difference [WMD]: 9.87 min; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.37-16.38; p = 0.003) and a higher conversion rate (6% compared with 0.3%; odds ratio: 4.83; 95% CI, 1.87-12.45; p = 0.001), patients in this group might benefit from less postoperative pain (WMD: -0.48; 95% CI, -0.95 to -0.02; p = 0.04), lower analgesic requirement (WMD: -4.78 mg; 95% CI, -8.59 to -0.97; p = 0.01), shorter hospital stay (WMD: -0.32 d; 95% CI, -0.55 to -0.09; p = 0.007), shorter recovery time (WMD: -5.08 d; 95% CI, -8.49 to -1.68; p = 0.003), and better cosmetic outcome (WMD: 1.07; 95% CI, 0.67-1.48; p < 0.00001). Perioperative complications, estimated blood loss, warm ischemia time, and postoperative serum creatinine levels of graft recipients did not differ significantly between techniques. Conclusions: LESS-N offers a safe and efficient alternative to CL-N with less pain, shorter recovery time, and better cosmetic outcome. Given the inherent limitations of the included studies, future well-designed RCTs are awaited to confirm and update the findings of this analysis.
机译:背景:腹腔镜单部位(LESS)外科手术已越来越多地用于进行根治性,部分性,简单或供体肾切除术,以减少与外科手术相关的发病率和疤痕形成。比较LESS肾切除术(LESS-N)和常规腹腔镜肾切除术(CL-N)的研究报告了矛盾的结果。目的:评估有关LESS-N与CL-N的效率,安全性和潜在优势的现有证据。证据收集:我们全面搜索了PubMed,Embase和Cochrane库,并对所有随机对照试验(RCT)进行了系统评价和累积荟萃分析,并对评估这两种技术的回顾性比较研究进行了评估。证据综合:确定了两项随机对照试验和25项回顾性研究,包括1094例病例。尽管LESS-N与更长的手术时间(加权平均差异[WMD]:9.87分钟; 95%的置信区间[CI],3.37-16.38; p = 0.003)相关,并且转换率更高(6%,而0.3%) ;比值比:4.83; 95%CI,1.87-12.45; p = 0.001),该组患者术后疼痛减轻(WMD:-0.48; 95%CI,-0.95至-0.02; p = 0.04),较低的镇痛要求(WMD:-4.78 mg; 95%CI,-8.59至-0.97; p = 0.01),住院时间较短(WMD:-0.32 d; 95%CI,-0.55至-0.09; p = 0.007),恢复时间更短(WMD:-5.08 d; 95%CI,-8.49至-1.68; p = 0.003)和更好的美容效果(WMD:1.07; 95%CI,0.67-1.48; p <0.00001)。两种技术之间的围手术期并发症,估计的失血量,温暖的缺血时间和术后的血清肌酐水平无显着差异。结论:LESS-N提供了一种安全有效的替代CL-N的方法,其疼痛更少,恢复时间更短,美容效果更好。考虑到纳入研究的固有局限性,有待将来设计良好的RCT来确认和更新此分析的结果。

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