首页> 外文期刊>Surgical laparoscopy, endoscopy and percutaneous techniques >Minimally invasive necrosectomy versus conventional surgery in the treatment of infected pancreatic necrosis: A systematic review and a meta-analysis of comparative studies
【24h】

Minimally invasive necrosectomy versus conventional surgery in the treatment of infected pancreatic necrosis: A systematic review and a meta-analysis of comparative studies

机译:微创坏死切除术与常规手术治疗感染性胰腺坏死的比较:系统评价和比较研究的荟萃分析

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

AIM: The purpose of this meta-analysis and systematic review is to compare minimally invasive necrosectomy (MIN) versus open necrosectomy (ON) surgery for infected necrosis of acute pancreatitis. METHODS: One randomized controlled trial and 3 clinical controlled trials were selected, with a total of 336 patients (215 patients who underwent MIN and 121 patients underwent ON) included after searching in the following databases: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, BioMed Central, Science Citation Index (from inception to August 2011), Greynet, SIGLE (System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe), National Technological Information Service, British Library Integrated catalogue, and the Current Controlled Trials. Statistical analysis is performed using the odds ratio (OR) and weighted mean difference with 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: After the analysis of the data amenable to polling, significant advantages were found in favor of the MIN in terms of: incidence of multiple organ failure (OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.06-0.39) (P<0.0001), incisional hernias (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.06-0.90) (P=0.03), new-onset diabetes (OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.12-0.88) (P=0.03), and for the use of pancreatic enzymes (OR, 0.005; 95% CI, 0.04-0.57) (P=0.005). No differences were found in terms of mortality rate (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.18-1.05) (P=0.06), multiple systemic complications (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.01-8.60) (P=0.51), surgical reintervention for further necrosectomy (OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.00-3.07) (P=0.19), intra-abdominal bleeding (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.41-1.50) (P=0.46), enterocutaneous fistula or perforation of visceral organs (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.27-1.00) (P=0.05), pancreatic fistula (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.30-1.46) (P=0.30), and surgical reintervention for postoperative complications (OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.23-1.08) (P=0.08). CONCLUSIONS: The lack of comparative studies and high heterogeneity of the data present in the literature did not permit to draw a definitive conclusion on this topic. The results of the present meta-analysis might be helpful to design future high-powered randomized studies that compare MIN with ON for acute necrotizing pancreatitis.
机译:目的:本荟萃分析和系统评价的目的是比较微创性坏死性切除术(MIN)与开放性坏死性切除术(ON)手术对急性胰腺炎感染性坏死的影响。方法:在以下数据库中进行搜索后,选择了一项随机对照试验和3项临床对照试验,总共336例患者(215例进行了MIN,121例进行了MIN),包括以下数据库:Medline,Embase,Cochrane中央对照试验注册,BioMed Central,科学引文索引(从成立到2011年8月),Greynet,SIGLE(欧洲灰色文献信息系统),国家技术信息服务,大英图书馆综合目录和当前对照试验。使用比值比(OR)和加权平均差和95%置信区间(CI)进行统计分析。结果:在分析了适合于民意调查的数据之后,发现在MIN方面具有明显的优势,这有利于:多器官功能衰竭的发生率(OR,0.16; 95%CI,0.06-0.39)(P <0.0001),切开疝(OR,0.23; 95%CI,0.06-0.90)(P = 0.03),新发糖尿病(OR,0.32; 95%CI,0.12-0.88)(P = 0.03),以及使用胰腺酶(OR,0.005; 95%CI,0.04-0.57)(P = 0.005)。在死亡率(OR,0.43; 95%CI,0.18-1.05)(P = 0.06),多系统性并发症(OR,0.34; 95%CI,0.01-8.60)(P = 0.51),进一步行坏死切除的手术再干预(OR,0.16; 95%CI,0.00-3.07)(P = 0.19),腹腔内出血(OR,0.79; 95%CI,0.41-1.50)(P = 0.46),肠内瘘或内脏器官穿孔(OR,0.52; 95%CI,0.27-1.00)(P = 0.05),胰瘘(OR,0.66; 95%CI,0.30-1.46)(P = 0.30),以及手术后并发症的手术再干预(OR,0.50; 95%CI,0.23-1.08)(P = 0.08)。结论:缺乏比较研究和文献中存在的数据高度异质性,无法得出关于该主题的明确结论。本荟萃分析的结果可能有助于设计未来的高性能随机研究,该研究将MIN与ON比较急性坏死性胰腺炎。

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