Proportional meta-analysis of open surgery or fenestrated-endograft repair for post-dissection thoracoabdominal aneurysms.

Objectives:Rotator cuff tear is the leading cause of the decline in quality of life for older adults, but comparative evidence on treatment effectiveness is lacking. This study systematically reviewed the effects of various rotator cuff tear treatments through a Bayesian meta-analysis of the related randomized clinical trials (RCTs).Methods:We searched nine electronic databases for RCTs evaluating rotator cuff tear treatments from their inception through June 2017. A systematic review was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence-Decision Support Unit guidelines (Supplementary Table 1). Outcomes included functional improvement, pain one year after surgical treatment, and tendon structural integrity. The Bayesian network meta-analysis was applied for functional improvement and pain, based on an assumption of consistency and similarity. Tendon integrity was reported descriptively.Results:Fifteen RCTs were selected. Patients undergoing physiotherapy after open surgery showed statistically significant functional improvements compared with those undergoing physiotherapy only (mean differences, 9.1 [credible interval, 0.9–17.4]). Open surgery with physiotherapy was associated with a decrease in pain 1 year after treatment compared with when physiotherapy was combined with arthroscopic rotator cuff surgery, mini open surgery, platelet-rich plasma therapy, or physiotherapy alone (absolute value of mean difference 1.2 to 1.4). The tendon integrity results were inconsistent.Conclusions:Some surgical treatments were associated with significant improvement in function and pain, but evidence regarding their comparative effectiveness is still lacking. A well-designed RCT discussing functional and structural treatment outcomes is needed in future.

Download Full-text

Laparoscopic versus Open Surgery in Lateral Lymph Node Dissection for Advanced Rectal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Gastroenterology Research and Practice ◽

10.1155/2019/7689082 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 2019 ◽

pp. 1-13 ◽

Cited By ~ 7

Author(s):

Manzhao Ouyang ◽

Tianyou Liao ◽

Yan Lu ◽

Leilei Deng ◽

Zhentao Luo ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Rectal Cancer ◽

Lymph Node ◽

Open Surgery ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Advanced Rectal Cancer ◽

R0 Resection ◽

Resection Rate ◽

Lateral Lymph Node ◽

Oncological Outcomes ◽

Conventional Open Surgery

Aim. To compare the clinical efficacies between laparoscopic and conventional open surgery in lateral lymph node dissection (LLND) for advanced rectal cancer. Methods. We comprehensively searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, and Wanfang Data and performed a cumulative meta-analysis. According to inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria, all eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or retrospective or prospective comparative studies assessing the two techniques were included, and then a meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan 5.3 software to assess the difference in clinical and oncological outcomes between the two treatment approaches. Results. Eight studies involving a total of 892 patients were finally selected, with 394 cases in the laparoscopic surgery group and 498 cases in the traditional open surgery group. Compared with the traditional open group, the laparoscopic group had a longer operative time (WMD=81.56, 95% CI (2.09, 142.03), P=0.008), but less intraoperative blood loss (WMD=−452.18, 95% CI (-652.23, -252.13), P<0.00001), shorter postoperative hospital stay (WMD=−5.30, 95% CI (-8.42, -2.18), P=0.0009), and higher R0 resection rate (OR=2.17, 95% CI (1.14, 4.15), P=0.02). There was no significant difference in the incidence of surgical complications between the two groups (OR=0.52, 95% CI (0.26, 1.07), P=0.08). Lateral lymph node harvest, lateral lymph node metastasis, local recurrence, 3-year overall survival, and 3-year disease-free survival did not differ significantly between the two approaches (P>0.05). Conclusion. Laparoscopic LLND has a similar efficacy in oncological outcomes and postoperative complications to the conventional open surgery, with the advantages of reduced intraoperative blood loss, shorter postoperative hospital stay, and higher R0 resection rate, and tumor radical cure is similar to traditional open surgery. Laparoscopic LLND is a safe and feasible surgical approach, and it may be used as a standard procedure in LLND for advanced rectal cancer.

Download Full-text