Updated Meta-analysis of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Surgery for Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms

Pancreas ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 50 (3) ◽  
pp. 423-433
Author(s):  
Wei Zhang ◽  
Jianwei Zhang ◽  
Xu Che
CMAJ Open ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. E295-E305 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. Evaniew ◽  
M. Khan ◽  
B. Drew ◽  
D. Kwok ◽  
M. Bhandari ◽  
...  

HPB ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 23 ◽  
pp. S720
Author(s):  
C. Chen ◽  
J. Tseng ◽  
D. Patel ◽  
T. DiPeri ◽  
S. Gholami ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. 2507 ◽  
Author(s):  
Floriane Jochum ◽  
Muriel Vermel ◽  
Emilie Faller ◽  
Thomas Boisrame ◽  
Lise Lecointre ◽  
...  

As regards ovarian cancer, the use of minimally invasive surgery has steadily increased over the years. Reluctance persists, however, about its oncological outcomes. The main objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the three and five-year mortality of patients operated by minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for ovarian cancer to those operated by conventional open surgery (OPS), as well as their respective perioperative outcomes. PubMed, Cochrane library and CinicalTrials.gov were systematically searched, using the terms laparoscopy, laparoscopic or minimally invasive in combination with ovarian cancer or ovarian carcinoma. We finally included 19 observational studies with a total of 7213 patients. We found no statistically significant difference for five-year (relative risk (RR) = 0.89, 95% CI 0.53–1.49, p = 0.62)) and three-year mortality (RR = 0.95, 95% CI 0.80–1.12, p = 0.52) between the patients undergoing MIS and those operated by OPS. When five and three-year recurrences were analyzed, no statistically significant differences were also observed. Analysis in early and advanced stages subgroups showed no significant difference for survival outcomes, suggesting oncological safety of MIS in all stages. Whether the surgery was primary or interval debulking surgery in advanced ovarian cancer, did not influence the comparative results on mortality or recurrence. Although the available studies are retrospective, and mostly carry a high risk for bias and confounding, an overwhelming consistency of the evidence suggests the likely effectiveness of MIS in selected cases of ovarian cancer, even in advanced stages. To validate the use of MIS, the development of future randomized interventional studies should be a priority.


2014 ◽  
Vol 36 (5) ◽  
pp. E7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sean Dangelmajer ◽  
Patricia L. Zadnik ◽  
Samuel T. Rodriguez ◽  
Ziya L. Gokaslan ◽  
Daniel M. Sciubba

Object Historically, adult degenerative lumbar scoliosis (DLS) has been treated with multilevel decompression and instrumented fusion to reduce neural compression and stabilize the spinal column. However, due to the profound morbidity associated with complex multilevel surgery, particularly in elderly patients and those with multiple medical comorbidities, minimally invasive surgical approaches have been proposed. The goal of this meta-analysis was to review the differences in patient selection for minimally invasive surgical versus open surgical procedures for adult DLS, and to compare the postoperative outcomes following minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open surgery. Methods In this meta-analysis the authors analyzed the complication rates and the clinical outcomes for patients with adult DLS undergoing complex decompressive procedures with fusion versus minimally invasive surgical approaches. Minimally invasive surgical approaches included decompressive laminectomy, microscopic decompression, lateral and extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF), and percutaneous pedicle screw placement for fusion. Mean patient age, complication rates, reoperation rates, Cobb angle, and measures of sagittal balance were investigated and compared between groups. Results Twelve studies were identified for comparison in the MIS group, with 8 studies describing the lateral interbody fusion or XLIF and 4 studies describing decompression without fusion. In the decompression MIS group, the mean preoperative Cobb angle was 16.7° and mean postoperative Cobb angle was 18°. In the XLIF group, mean pre- and postoperative Cobb angles were 22.3° and 9.2°, respectively. The difference in postoperative Cobb angle was statistically significant between groups on 1-way ANOVA (p = 0.014). Mean preoperative Cobb angle, mean patient age, and complication rate did not differ between the XLIF and decompression groups. Thirty-five studies were identified for inclusion in the open surgery group, with 18 studies describing patients with open fusion without osteotomy and 17 papers detailing outcomes after open fusion with osteotomy. Mean preoperative curve in the open fusion without osteotomy and with osteotomy groups was 41.3° and 32°, respectively. Mean reoperation rate was significantly higher in the osteotomy group (p = 0.008). On 1-way ANOVA comparing all groups, there was a statistically significant difference in mean age (p = 0.004) and mean preoperative curve (p = 0.002). There was no statistically significant difference in complication rates between groups (p = 0.28). Conclusions The results of this study suggest that surgeons are offering patients open surgery or MIS depending on their age and the severity of their deformity. Greater sagittal and coronal correction was noted in the XLIF versus decompression only MIS groups. Larger Cobb angles, greater sagittal imbalance, and higher reoperation rates were found in studies reporting the use of open fusion with osteotomy. Although complication rates did not significantly differ between groups, these data are difficult to interpret given the heterogeneity in reporting complications between studies.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Eugenio Hinojosa-Gonzalez ◽  
Andres Roblesgil-Medrano ◽  
Juan Bernardo Villarreal-Espinosa ◽  
Eduardo Tellez-Garcia ◽  
Luis Carlos Bueno-Gutierrez ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document