scholarly journals Clinical effectiveness of gasless laparoscopic surgery for abdominal conditions: systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. Aruparayil ◽  
W. Bolton ◽  
A. Mishra ◽  
L. Bains ◽  
J. Gnanaraj ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
General Surgery ◽  
Open Surgery ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Intraoperative Complications ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Conventional Laparoscopy ◽  
Gynaecological Surgery ◽  
Gasless Laparoscopy ◽  
Conversion Rates

Abstract Background In high-income countries, laparoscopic surgery is the preferred approach for many abdominal conditions. Conventional laparoscopy is a complex intervention that is challenging to adopt and implement in low resource settings. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluate the clinical effectiveness of gasless laparoscopy compared to conventional laparoscopy with CO2 pneumoperitoneum and open surgery for general surgery and gynaecological procedures. Methods A search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Global Health, AJOL databases and Cochrane Library was performed from inception to January 2021. All randomised (RCTs) and comparative cohort (non-RCTs) studies comparing gasless laparoscopy with open surgery or conventional laparoscopy were included. The primary outcomes were mortality, conversion rates and intraoperative complications. Secondary outcomes: operative times and length of stay. The inverse variance random-effects model was used to synthesise data. Results 63 studies were included: 41 RCTs and 22 non-RCTs (3,620 patients). No procedure-related deaths were reported in the studies. For gasless vs conventional laparoscopy there was no difference in intraoperative complications for general RR 1.04 [CI 0.45–2.40] or gynaecological surgery RR 0.66 [0.14–3.13]. In the gasless laparoscopy group, the conversion rates for gynaecological surgery were high RR 11.72 [CI 2.26–60.87] when compared to conventional laparoscopy. For gasless vs open surgery, the operative times were longer for gasless surgery in general surgery RCT group MD (mean difference) 10 [CI 0.64, 19.36], but significantly shorter in the gynaecology RCT group MD − 18.74 [CI − 29.23, − 8.26]. For gasless laparoscopy vs open surgery non-RCT, the length of stay was shorter for gasless laparoscopy in general surgery MD − 3.94 [CI − 5.93, − 1.95] and gynaecology MD − 1.75 [CI − 2.64, − 0.86]. Overall GRADE assessment for RCTs and Non-RCTs was very low. Conclusion Gasless laparoscopy has advantages for selective general and gynaecological procedures and may have a vital role to play in low resource settings.

scholarly journals Safety and efficiency of gasless laparoscopy: a systematic review protocol

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Haitham Shoman ◽  
Simone Sandler ◽  
Alexander Peters ◽  
Ameer Farooq ◽  
Magdalen Gruendl ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Conventional Laparoscopy ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Gasless Laparoscopy ◽  
Resource Setting

Abstract Background Gasless laparoscopy, developed in the early 1990s, was a means to minimize the clinical and financial challenges of pneumoperitoneum and general anaesthesia. It has been used in a variety of procedures such as in general surgery and gynecology procedures including diagnostic laparoscopy. There has been increasing evidence of the utility of gasless laparoscopy in resource limited settings where diagnostic imaging is not available. In addition, it may help save costs for hospitals. The aim of this study is to conduct a systematic review of the available evidence surrounding the safety and efficiency of gasless laparoscopy compared to conventional laparoscopy and open techniques and to analyze the benefits that gasless laparoscopy has for low resource setting hospitals. Methods This protocol is developed by following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis–Protocols (PRISMA-P). The PRISMA statement guidelines and flowchart will be used to conduct the study itself. MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central, and Global Index Medicus (WHO) will be searched and the National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials database. The articles that will be found will be pooled into Covidence article manager software where all the records will be screened for eligibility and duplicates removed. A data extraction spreadsheet will be developed based on variables of interest set a priori. Reviewers will then screen all included studies based on the eligibility criteria. The GRADE tool will be used to assess the quality of the studies and the risk of bias in all the studies will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk assessment tool. The RoB II tool will assed the risk of bias in randomized control studies and the ROBINS I will be used for the non-randomized studies. Discussion This study will be a comprehensive review on all published articles found using this search strategy on the safety and efficiency of the use of gasless laparoscopy. The systematic review outcomes will include safety and efficiency of gasless laparoscopy compared to the use of conventional laparoscopy or laparotomy. Trial registration The study has been registered in PROSPERO under registration number: CRD42017078338

scholarly journals Intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of robot-assisted cholecystectomy: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rivfka Shenoy ◽  
Michael A. Mederos ◽  
Linda Ye ◽  
Selene S. Mak ◽  
Meron M. Begashaw ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy ◽  
Narrative Analysis ◽  
Single Port ◽  
Intraoperative Complications ◽  
Gallbladder Disease ◽  
Laparoscopic Approach ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Robot Assisted ◽  
Conversion Rates

Abstract Background Rapid adoption of robotic-assisted general surgery procedures, particularly for cholecystectomy, continues while questions remain about its benefits and utility. The objective of this study was to compare the clinical effectiveness of robot-assisted cholecystectomy for benign gallbladder disease as compared with the laparoscopic approach. Methods A literature search was performed from January 2010 to March 2020, and a narrative analysis was performed as studies were heterogeneous. Results Of 887 articles screened, 44 met the inclusion criteria (range 20–735,537 patients). Four were randomized controlled trials, and four used propensity-matching. There were variable comparisons between operative techniques with only 19 out of 44 studies comparing techniques using the same number of ports. Operating room time was longer for the robot-assisted technique in the majority of studies (range 11–55 min for 22 studies, p < 0.05; 15 studies showed no difference; two studies showed shorter laparoscopic times), while conversion rates and intraoperative complications were not different. No differences were detected for the length of stay, surgical site infection, or readmissions. Across studies comparing single-port robot-assisted to multi-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy, there was a higher rate of incisional hernia; however, no differences were noted when comparing single-port robot-assisted to single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Conclusions Clinical outcomes were similar for benign, elective gallbladder disease for robot-assisted compared with laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Overall, the rates of complications were low. More high-quality studies are needed as the robot-assisted technique expands to more complex gallbladder disease, where its utility may prove increasingly beneficial. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020156945

scholarly journals Robotic Esophagectomy. A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis of Clinical Outcomes

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (7) ◽  
pp. 640
Author(s):  
Michele Manigrasso ◽  
Sara Vertaldi ◽  
Alessandra Marello ◽  
Stavros Athanasios Antoniou ◽  
Nader Kamal Francis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Robotic Surgery ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Wound Infection ◽  
Open Surgery ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Conventional Laparoscopy ◽  
R0 Resection ◽  
Robotic Approach ◽  
Robotic Esophagectomy

Background: Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy is demonstrated to be related with a facilitation in thoracoscopic procedure. To give an update on the state of art of robotic esophagectomy for cancr a systematic review with meta-analysis has been performed. Methods: a search of the studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic or open esophagectomy was performed trough the medical libraries, with the search string “robotic and (oesophagus OR esophagus OR esophagectomy OR oesophagectomy)”. Outcomes were: postoperative complications rate (anastomotic leakage, bleeding, wound infection, pneumonia, recurrent laryngeal nerves paralysis, chylotorax, mortality), intraoperative outcomes (mean blood loss, operative time and conversion), oncologic outcomes (harvested nodes, R0 resection, recurrence) and recovery outcomes (length of hospital stay). Results: Robotic approach is superior to open surgery in terms of blood loss p = 0.001, wound infection rate, p = 0.002, pneumonia rate, p = 0.030 and mean number of harvested nodes, p < 0.0001 and R0 resection rate, p = 0.043. Similarly, robotic approach is superior to conventional laparoscopy in terms of mean number of harvested nodes, p = 0.001 pneumonia rate, p = 0.003. Conclusions: robotic surgery could be considered superior to both open surgery and conventional laparoscopy. These encouraging results should promote the diffusion of the robotic surgery, with the creation of randomized trials to overcome selection bias.

scholarly journals Clinical effectiveness of convalescent plasma in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
pp. 175346662110280
Author(s):  
Roberto Ariel Abeldaño Zuñiga ◽  
Ruth Ana María González-Villoria ◽  
María Vanesa Elizondo ◽  
Anel Yaneli Nicolás Osorio ◽  
David Gómez Martínez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Improvement ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Hospitalized Patients ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Controlled Clinical Trials

Aims: Given the variability of previously reported results, this systematic review aims to determine the clinical effectiveness of convalescent plasma employed in the treatment of hospitalized patients diagnosed with COVID-19. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of controlled clinical trials assessing treatment with convalescent plasma for hospitalized patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection. The outcomes were mortality, clinical improvement, and ventilation requirement. Results: A total of 51 studies were retrieved from the databases. Five articles were finally included in the data extraction and qualitative and quantitative synthesis of results. The overall risk of bias in the reviewed articles was established at low-risk only in two trials. The meta-analysis suggests that there is no benefit of convalescent plasma compared with standard care or placebo in reducing the overall mortality and the ventilation requirement. However, there could be a benefit for the clinical improvement in patients treated with plasma. Conclusion: Current results led to assume that the convalescent plasma transfusion cannot reduce the mortality or ventilation requirement in hospitalized patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection. More controlled clinical trials conducted with methodologies that ensure a low risk of bias are still needed. The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

scholarly journals Handwash versus hand-rub practices for preventing nosocomial infection in hospital intensive care units: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
pp. 82-90
Author(s):  
S Bello ◽  
EA Bamgboye ◽  
DT Ajayi ◽  
EN Ossai ◽  
EC Aniwada ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Nosocomial Infection ◽  
Intensive Care Units ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Infection Rates

Background: Compliance with handwashing in busy healthcare facilities, such as intensive care units (ICUs), is suboptimal and alcohol hand-rub preparations have been suggested to improve compliance. There is no evidence on the comparative effectiveness between handwash and hand-rub strategies. This systematic review was to assess the effectiveness of handwash versus hand-rub strategies for preventing nosocomial infection in ICUs. Methods Studies conducted in ICUs and indexed in PubMed comparing the clinical effectiveness and adverse events between handwash and hand-rub groups were included in a systematic review. The primary outcome was nosocomial infection rates. Secondary outcomes included microbial counts on healthcare providers’ hands, mortality rates, patient/hospital cost of treatment of healthcare-associated infections (HCAIs), length of ICU/hospital stays, and adverse events. Studies were independently screened and data extracted by at least two authors. Meta-analyses of risk ratios (RR), incidence rate ratios (IRR), odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD), were conducted using the RevMan 5.3 software. Results: Seven studies published between 1992-2009 and involving a total of 11,663 patients were included. Five studies (10,981 patients) contributed data to the ICU acquired nosocomial infection rates. The pooled IRR was 0.71 (95% CI 0.61, 0.82; I2 = 94%). On sensitivity analysis, pooled IRR was 0.39 (95% CI 0.32, 0.48; 4 studies; 8,247 patients; I2 = 0%) in favour of hand rub. The pooled OR for mortality was 0.95 (95% CI 0.78, 1.61; 4 studies; 3,475 patients; I2 = 39%). The pooled MD for length of hospital stay was -0.74 (95% CI -2.83, 1.34; 3 studies; 741 patients; I2 = 0%). The pooled OR for an undesirable skin effect was 0.37 (95% CI 0.23, 0.60; 3 studies;1504 patients; I2 = 0%) in favour of hand rub. Overall quality of evidence was low. Conclusion: Hand rub appeared more effective when compared to handwash in ICUs.

scholarly journals Clinical effectiveness of drugs in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roberto Ariel Abeldano Zuniga ◽  
Silvia Coca ◽  
Giuliana Abeldano ◽  
Ruth Ana Maria Gonzalez Villoria
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Improvement ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Hospitalized Patients ◽  
Low Income Countries ◽  
Qualitative Synthesis

Objective. The aim was to assess the clinical effectiveness of drugs used in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 infection. Method. We conducted a systematic review of randomized clinical trials assessing treatment with remdesivir, chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir, ritonavir, dexamethasone, and convalescent plasma, for hospitalized patients with a diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The outcomes were mortality, clinical improvement, duration of ventilation, duration of oxygen support, duration of hospitalization), virological clearance, and severe adverse events. Results. A total of 48 studies were retrieved from the databases. Ten articles were finally included in the data extraction and qualitative synthesis of results. The meta-analysis suggests a benefit of dexamethasone versus standard care in the reduction of risk of mortality at day 28; and the clinical improvement at days 14 and 28 in patients treated with remdesivir. Conclusions. Dexamethasone would have a better result in hospitalized patients, especially in low-resources settings. Significance of results. The analysis of the main treatments proposed for hospitalized patients is of vital importance to reduce mortality in low-income countries; since the COVID-19 pandemic had an economic impact worldwide with the loss of jobs and economic decline in countries with scarce resources. Keywords: Drugs; Antivirals; Clinical improvement; Mortality; COVID-19; SARS-CoV2.

scholarly journals Xyloglucan, Hibiscus and Propolis in the Management of Uncomplicated Lower Urinary Tract Infections: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Antibiotics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 14
Author(s):  
Tommaso Cai ◽  
Umberto Anceschi ◽  
Irene Tamanini ◽  
Serena Migno ◽  
Michele Rizzo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Medical Device ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Adult Women ◽  
End Of Treatment ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Clinically Significant ◽  
Tract Infections ◽  
Uncomplicated Cystitis

Background: In the era of antibiotic resistance, an antibiotic-sparing approach presents an interesting alternative treatment of uncomplicated cystitis in women. Our aim is to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness and safety profile of a medical device containing xyloglucan, hibiscus and propolis (XHP) in women with uncomplicated cystitis. Methods: Relevant databases were searched using methods recommended by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. The primary endpoint was clinical or microbiological success, defined as the complete (cure) and/or non-complete (improvement) resolution of symptoms at the end of treatment, or microbiological resolutions. Results: After screening 21 articles, three studies were included, recruiting a total of 178 patients. All three studies used placebo as comparator. A statistically significant difference was found in terms of clinical or microbiological resolution between the medical device and the comparator (3 RCTs, 178 patients, OR: 0.13; 95% CI: 0.05–0.33; p < 0.0001). No clinically significant adverse effects have been reported. Conclusion: A medical device containing xyloglucan, hibiscus and propolis is superior to comparator regimens in terms of clinical effectiveness in adult women with microbiologically confirmed or clinical suspicion of uncomplicated cystitis and is associated with a high patient compliance.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document