scholarly journals Laparoscopic versus Open Surgery for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Meta-Analysis of High-Quality Case-Matched Studies

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ke Chen ◽  
Yu Pan ◽  
Bin Zhang ◽  
Xiao-long Liu ◽  
Hendi Maher ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Survival Rate ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Surgical Outcomes ◽  
Comparative Studies ◽  
Major Hepatectomy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
High Quality

Objective. To present a meta-analysis of high-quality case-matched studies comparing laparoscopic (LH) and open hepatectomy (OH) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).Methods. Studies published up to September 2017 comparing LH and OH for HCC were identified. Selection of high-quality, nonrandomized comparative studies (NRCTs) with case-matched design was based on a validated tool (Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies) since no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were published. Morbidity, mortality, operation time, blood loss, hospital stay, margin distance, recurrence, and survival outcomes were compared. Subgroup analyses were carried out according to the surgical extension (minor or major hepatectomy).Results. Twenty studies with a total of 830 patients (388 in LH and 442 in OH) were identified. For short-term surgical outcomes, LH showed less morbidity (RR = 0.55; 95% CI, 0.47~0.65;P<0.01), less mortality (RR = 0.43; 95% CI, 0.18~1.00;P=0.05), less blood loss (WMD = −93.21 ml, 95% CI, −157.33~−29.09 ml;P<0.01), shorter hospital stay (WMD = −2.86, 95% CI, −3.63~−2.08;P<0.01), and comparable operation time (WMD = 9.15 min; 95% CI: −7.61~25.90,P=0.28). As to oncological outcomes, 5-year overall survival rate was slightly better in LH than OH (HR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.52~0.84,P<0.01), whereas the 5-year disease-free survival rate was comparable between two groups (HR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.74~1.06,P=0.18).Conclusion. This meta-analysis has highlighted that LH can be safely performed in selective patients and improves surgical outcomes as compared to OH. Given the limitations of study design, especially the limited cases of major hepatectomy, methodologically high-quality comparative studies are needed for further evaluation.

scholarly journals Laparoscopic versus open major liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative cohort studies

BMC Cancer ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zi-Yu Wang ◽  
Qing-Lian Chen ◽  
Ling-Ling Sun ◽  
Shu-Ping He ◽  
Xiao-Fen Luo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Liver Resection ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Weighted Mean Difference ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Disease Free Survival ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Random Effects Models

Abstract Background The application of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has expanded rapidly in recent decades. Although multiple authors have reported LLR shows improved safety and efficacy in treating hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) compared with open liver resection (OLR), laparoscopic (LMLR) and open (OMLR) major liver resections for HCC treatment remain inadequately evaluated. This work aimed to test the hypothesis that LMLR is safer and more effective than OMLR for HCC. Methods Comparative cohort and registry studies on LMLR and OMLR, searched in PubMed, the Science Citation Index, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, and published before March 31, 2018, were collected systematically and meta-analyzed. Fixed- and random-effects models were employed for generating pooled estimates. Heterogeneity was assessed by the Q-statistic. Results Nine studies (1173 patients) were included. Although the pooled data showed operation time was markedly increased for LMLR in comparison with OMLR (weighted mean difference [WMD] 74.1, 95% CI 35.1 to 113.1, P = 0.0002), blood loss was reduced (WMD = − 107.4, 95% CI − 179.0 to − 35.7, P = 0.003), postoperative morbidity was lower (odds ratio [OR] 0.47, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.63, P <  0.0001), and hospital stay was shorter (WMD = − 3.27, 95% CI − 4.72 to − 1.81, P <  0.0001) in the LMLR group. Although 1-year disease-free survival (DFS) was increased in patients administered LMLR (OR = 1.55, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.31, P = 0.03), other 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival outcomes (overall survival [OS] and/or DFS) were comparable in both groups. Conclusions Compared with OMLR, LMLR has short-term clinical advantages, including reduced blood loss, lower postsurgical morbidity, and shorter hospital stay in HCC, despite its longer operative time. Long-term oncological outcomes were comparable in both groups.

scholarly journals Perioperative morbidity of different operative approaches in early cervical carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing minimally invasive versus open radical hysterectomy

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Kampers ◽  
E. Gerhardt ◽  
P. Sibbertsen ◽  
T. Flock ◽  
H. Hertel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Loss ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Radical Hysterectomy ◽  
Postoperative Morbidity ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Estimated Blood Loss

Abstract Purpose Radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy is the standard treatment for early cervical cancer. Studies have shown superior oncological outcome for open versus minimal invasive surgery, but peri- and postoperative complication rates were shown vice versa. This meta-analysis evaluates the peri- and postoperative morbidities and complications of robotic and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy compared to open surgery. Methods Embase and Ovid-Medline databases were systematically searched in June 2020 for studies comparing robotic, laparoscopic and open radical hysterectomy. There was no limitation in publication year. Inclusion criteria were set analogue to the LACC trial. Subgroup analyses were performed regarding the operative technique, the study design and the date of publication for the endpoints intra- and postoperative morbidity, estimated blood loss, hospital stay and operation time. Results 27 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Five prospective, randomized-control trials were included. Meta-analysis showed no significant difference between robotic radical hysterectomy (RH) and laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) concerning intra- and perioperative complications. Operation time was longer in both RH (mean difference 44.79 min [95% CI 38.16; 51.42]), and LH (mean difference 20.96 min; [95% CI − 1.30; 43.22]) than in open hysterectomy (AH) but did not lead to a rise of intra- and postoperative complications. Intraoperative morbidity was lower in LH than in AH (RR 0.90 [0.80; 1.02]) as well as in RH compared to AH (0.54 [0.33; 0.88]). Intraoperative morbidity showed no difference between LH and RH (RR 1.29 [0.23; 7.29]). Postoperative morbidity was not different in any approach. Estimated blood loss was lower in both LH (mean difference − 114.34 [− 122.97; − 105.71]) and RH (mean difference − 287.14 [− 392.99; − 181.28]) compared to AH, respectively. Duration of hospital stay was shorter for LH (mean difference − 3.06 [− 3.28; − 2.83]) and RH (mean difference − 3.77 [− 5.10; − 2.44]) compared to AH. Conclusion Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy appears to be associated with reduced intraoperative morbidity and blood loss and improved reconvalescence after surgery. Besides oncological and surgical factors these results should be considered when counseling patients for radical hysterectomy and underscore the need for new randomized trials.

scholarly journals Comparison of Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion and Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Lumbar Disease: A Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
CHEN Tai-bang ◽  
HE Xiao-qing ◽  
Liang Jing-long
Keyword(s):  
Blood Loss ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Fusion Rate ◽  
Disc Height ◽  
Estimated Blood Loss ◽  
Degenerative Lumbar Disease

Abstract Aim: Both oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) are frequently used to treat degenerative lumbar disease. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the radiologic and clinical outcomes between these two methods.Methods: Electronic databases, including PubMed, Web of Science and MEDLINE, were searched to identify relevant studies that compared OLIF and TLIF up to May 2020. The radiographic outcomes comprised of the disc height (DH), lumbar lordotic angle (LLA), disc angle (DA), fusion rate (FR), and foraminal height (FH). The secondary outcomes were length of hospital stay, operation time, estimated blood loss, visual analog scale (VAS), and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Data pooling and a meta-analysis with the random effects model were performed to evaluate the major results and conclusions. Results: A total of nine studies that involved 593 patients (271 patients in the OLIF group and 322 in the TLIF group) were included in the meta-analysis. Similar changes, in terms of disc height and fusion rate of >80%, were observed between the two groups. In comparing OLIF to TLIF, the OLIF group had less estimated blood loss, and a shorter operative time and hospital stay, with statistical difference. However, there was no significant difference in VAS and ODI between OLIF and TLIF.The meta-analysis suggested that TLIF is associated with better postoperative LLA, FH and DA, when compared to OLIF. However, these were not statistically significant (P>005).Conclusion: These results demonstrate that both OLIF and TLIF are similar in terms of the restoration of disc height and intervertebral fusion rate in the treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases. OLIF was superior to TLIF in terms of operation time, hospital stay and estimated blood loss. However, there was no advantage in restoring the sagittal balance and correcting the lordosis.

Comparison of safety and efficacy of laparoscopic pyelolithotomy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy in patients with large renal pelvic stones: a meta-analysis

2016 ◽  
Vol 64 (6) ◽  
pp. 1134-1142 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xuefang Rui ◽  
Haiyi Hu ◽  
Yanlan Yu ◽  
Shicheng Yu ◽  
Zhigen Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Blood Loss ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Publication Bias ◽  
Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Renal Stones ◽  
Quality Analysis ◽  
Laparoscopic Pyelolithotomy

To compare percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and laparoscopic pyelolithotomy (LP) for surgical management for large (>2 cm) renal stones. We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane, and EMBASE databases until March 11, 2015, using the following search terms: renalpelvic stone, percutaneous nephrolithotomy, laparoscopic pyelolithotomy. Randomized controlled and prospective and retrospective two-armed studies were included. Sensitivity analysis and assessment of the quality of the included studies and publication bias were performed. Nine studies were included in the study with a patient population of 622. The studies were homogeneous with respect to the primary end point of stone-free rate, but were heterogeneous with respect to operation time, length of hospital stay, and blood loss. A higher percentage of patients who received LP remained stone-free following surgery compared with patients who were treated with PCNL (p=0.001). However, the mean operation time was longer for patients with LP than for those treated with PCNL (p=0.002). There was no difference between procedures with regard to length of hospital stay or blood loss (p≥0.071). Sensitivity and quality analysis indicated that the data are reliable and the included studies are of good quality. No publication bias was observed. The study suggests that both procedures are effective and safe for removing large renal stones. However, LP may be more efficacious than PCNL in treating large kidney stones.

Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Preoperative Embolization on the Outcomes of Carotid Body Tumor Surgery

QJM ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 114 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohamed Magdy Samir ◽  
Tamer Abd ElWahab Abo Elezz ◽  
Peter Milad Mikahail ◽  
Mohamed Khaled Shafeek Bassam
Keyword(s):  
Postoperative Complications ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Surgical Resection ◽  
Carotid Body ◽  
Surgical Outcomes ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Carotid Body Tumor ◽  
Preoperative Embolization ◽  
Tumor Surgery

ABSTRACT Background Carotid body tumors (CBTs) are situated at the bifurcation of the common carotid artery within the adventitia, and are reported to be the most common head and neck paragangliomas. Surgery is the gold standard for curative treatment of resectable CBTs and is recommended in otherwise healthy patients because of the risk of local complications related to tumor size and a small but definite risk of malignancy. Preoperative embolization has been shown to reduce potential intraoperative blood loss and provide the surgeon with greater ease and safety in excising the tumor, thus reducing the operation time and morbidity. However, other physicians have stated that although blood loss may be reduced after preoperative embolization, transfusion requirements are not affected, and that the embolization procedure adds a significant risk for stroke. Therefore, the purpose of the current study was to compare the surgical outcomes of patients undergoing CBT surgical resection with and without preoperative embolization. Aim To evaluate the need for preoperative embolization for the treatment of carotid body tumor. Methodology A meta-analysis study is done to compare the surgical outcomes of patients undergoing CBT surgical resection with and without preoperative embolization. Results Our meta-analysis for evaluation of the effects of preoperative embolization on the outcomes of carotid body tumor surgery, included (14) studies with a total number of patients (n = 477).The results of these studies showed no statistically significant difference between preoperative embolization group and non embolization group in carotid body surgery for (blood loss & operation time). Preoperative embolization did not reduce risk of postoperative complications. Conclusion Preoperative embolization shows no statistically significant reducing in blood loss and operation time, also embolization does not decrease incidence of postoperative complications. It seems that embolization should not be a routine part of carotid body tumor surgery especially with the known potential risks and complications of this procedure .

scholarly journals Posterolateral Fusion Versus Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2021 ◽  
pp. 219256822110164
Author(s):  
Elsayed Said ◽  
Mohamed E. Abdel-Wanis ◽  
Mohamed Ameen ◽  
Ali A. Sayed ◽  
Khaled H. Mosallam ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Revision Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Objectives: Arthrodesis has been a valid treatment option for spinal diseases, including spondylolisthesis and lumbar spinal stenosis. Posterolateral and posterior lumbar interbody fusion are amongst the most used fusion techniques. Previous reports comparing both methods have been contradictory. Thus, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to establish substantial evidence on which fusion method would achieve better outcomes. Methods: Major databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and CENTRAL were searched to identify studies comparing outcomes of interest between posterolateral fusion (PLF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). We extracted data on clinical outcome, complication rate, revision rate, fusion rate, operation time, and blood loss. We calculated the mean differences (MDs) for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each outcome and the odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for binary outcomes. P < 0.05 was considered significant. Results: We retrieved 8 studies meeting our inclusion criteria, with a total of 616 patients (308 PLF, 308 PLIF). The results of our analysis revealed that patients who underwent PLIF had significantly higher fusion rates. No statistically significant difference was identified in terms of clinical outcomes, complication rates, revision rates, operation time or blood loss. Conclusions: This systematic review and meta-analysis provide a comparison between PLF and PLIF based on RCTs. Although PLIF had higher fusion rates, both fusion methods achieve similar clinical outcomes with equal complication rate, revision rate, operation time and blood loss at 1-year minimum follow-up.

Haemostatic devices in parotid surgery: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
L Allen ◽  
C MacKay ◽  
M H Rigby ◽  
J Trites ◽  
S M Taylor
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Facial Nerve ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Operating Time ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Operative Blood Loss ◽  
Parotid Surgery

Abstract Objective The Harmonic Scalpel and Ligasure (Covidien) devices are commonly used in head and neck surgery. Parotidectomy is a complex and intricate surgery that requires careful dissection of the facial nerve. This study aimed to compare surgical outcomes in parotidectomy using these haemostatic devices with traditional scalpel and cautery. Method A systematic review of the literature was performed with subsequent meta-analysis of seven studies that compared the use of haemostatic devices to traditional scalpel and cautery in parotidectomy. Outcome measures included: temporary facial paresis, operating time, intra-operative blood loss, post-operative drain output and length of hospital stay. Results A total of 7 studies representing 675 patients were identified: 372 patients were treated with haemostatic devices, and 303 patients were treated with scalpel and cautery. Statistically significant outcomes favouring the use of haemostatic devices included operating time, intra-operative blood loss and post-operative drain output. Outcome measures that did not favour either treatment included facial nerve paresis and length of hospital stay. Conclusion Overall, haemostatic devices were found to reduce operating time, intra-operative blood loss and post-operative drain output.

scholarly journals Comparison of early clinical results for the femoral neck system and cannulated screws in the treatment of unstable femoral neck fractures

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaoqiang Zhou ◽  
Zhiqiang Li ◽  
Renjie Xu ◽  
Yuanshi She ◽  
Xiangxin Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Femoral Head ◽  
Femoral Neck ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Clinical Efficacy ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Femoral Neck Fractures ◽  
Femoral Head Necrosis ◽  
Cannulated Screws ◽  
Intraoperative Blood Loss

Abstract Objective: To compare early clinical effects of the femoral neck system (FNS) and three cannulated screws for the treatment of patients with unstable femoral neck fractures.Methods: A retrospective analysis with pair matching of 81 patients who received FNS or cannulated screw internal fixation for Pauwels type-3 femoral neck fracture in our hospital from January 2019 to December 2019 was conducted. Patients who received FNS were the test group, and those who received cannulated screws comprised the control group. Matching requirements were as follows: same sex, similar age and similar body mass index (BMI). A total of 30 pairs were successfully matched, and the average age was 53.84 years. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay, hospitalization cost, postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score, time to walking without crutches, Harris score, femoral head necrosis rate and complication rate were compared between the groups.Results: Postoperative re-examination of radiographs showed satisfactory reduction in all patients, and all patients were followed up for 10-22 months. Those in the FNS group had lower postoperative VAS scores, earlier times to walking without crutches, higher Harris scores at the last follow-up and lower complication rates (P<0.05). However, intraoperative blood loss and hospitalization costs were greater in the FNS group (P<0.05). No statistically significant difference in operation time, hospital stay or femoral head necrosis rate was observed between the two groups (P>0.05).Conclusion: For patients with unstable femoral neck fractures, FNS has better clinical efficacy than cannulated screws, though it is also more expensive. The excellent biomechanical performance and clinical efficacy of FNS make it a new choice for the treatment of unstable femoral neck fractures.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document