首页> 外文期刊>Surgical innovation >Technology-assisted versus clamp-crush liver resection: A systematic review and meta-analysis
【24h】

Technology-assisted versus clamp-crush liver resection: A systematic review and meta-analysis

机译:技术辅助与钳夹式肝切除术:系统评价和荟萃分析

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Objective. To review the published evidence on technology-assisted liver resection regarding operative time, intraoperative bleeding, mortality, hospital stay, postoperative bile leak, and other outcomes. Method. A systematic review of clinical studies comparing liver resection using vessel sealing systems (VSSs - LigaSure), Cavitron Ultrasonic Surgical Aspirator (CUSA), or radiofrequency dissecting sealer (RFDS) with the conventional clamp-crushing technique (CC) was performed. Data for each modality were synthesized and individually compared with CC with the methodology of meta-analysis. Result. In all, 8 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 7 nonrandomized studies evaluating 1539 patients were included. Compared with CC, the VSS group (3 RCTs and 3 nonrandomized studies) had significantly lower blood loss by a mean of 109 mL (weighted mean difference [WMD] = -109; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -192, -26; data on 494 patients), lower risk for postoperative bile leak by 63% (odds ratio [OR] = 0.37; CI = 0.17, 0.78; 559 patients), and shorter total hospital stay by 2 days (WMD = -2.04; CI = -3.08, -1; 340 patients); no difference was noted for liver parenchyma transection time and mortality. No difference was noted between CUSA (4 RCTs and 1 nonrandomized study) or RFDS (3 RCTs and 3 nonrandomized studies) versus CC for any of the studied outcomes. Conclusion. Of the 3 modalities used in liver resection (VSS, CUSA, and RFDS), only VSS appeared to offer significant benefit over standard CC. However, the generalization of our findings is limited by the scarcity and clinical heterogeneity of the published studies. Large, well-designed and implemented RCTs are warranted to further investigate the usefulness of novel modalities used in liver resection.
机译:目的。回顾已发表的有关技术辅助肝切除术的证据,这些证据涉及手术时间,术中出血,死亡率,住院时间,术后胆漏和其他结局。方法。对使用血管密封系统(VSSs-LigaSure),Cavitron超声外科抽吸器(CUSA)或射频解剖密封器(RFDS)与常规钳压技术(CC)进行肝切除术进行比较的临床研究进行了系统的综述。合成了每种方法的数据,并使用荟萃分析的方法分别与CC进行了比较。结果。总共纳入了8项随机对照试验(RCT)和7项评估1539例患者的非随机研究。与CC组相比,VSS组(3个RCT和3个非随机研究)的失血量平均降低了109 mL(加权平均差[WMD] = -109; 95%置信区间[CI] = -192,-26 ;有494例患者的数据),术后胆漏风险降低了63%(几率[OR] = 0.37; CI = 0.17,0.78; 559例患者),总住院时间缩短了2天(WMD = -2.04; CI = -3.08,-1; 340位患者);肝实质横切时间和死亡率无差异。对于任何研究结果,CUSA(4个RCT和1个非随机研究)或RFDS(3个RCT和3个非随机研究)与CC之间均未发现差异。结论。在肝切除术使用的三种方式(VSS,CUSA和RFDS)中,只有VSS似乎比标准CC具有明显优势。然而,我们发现的普遍性受到已发表研究的稀缺性和临床异质性的限制。大型,精心设计和实施的RCT值得进一步研究用于肝切除术的新方法的有用性。

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