scholarly journals Video-Assisted Thoracic Surgery vs. Thoracotomy for the Treatment in Patients With Esophageal Leiomyoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2022 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cheng Shen ◽  
Jue Li ◽  
Guowei Che

Background: Surgical treatment is usually suitable for patients with esophageal leiomyoma. Video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) offers a minimally invasive approach to thoracotomy. However, there is no clear conclusion on whether VATS can achieve an equal or even better surgical effect when compared with the traditional open approach in the treatment of esophageal leiomyoma. We performed this meta-analysis to explore and compare the outcomes of VATS vs. thoracotomy for patients with esophageal leiomyoma.Methods: PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Medline, and Web of Science databases were searched for full-text literature citations. The quality of the articles was evaluated using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale and the data were analyzed using the Review Manager 5.3 software. Fixed or random effect models were applied according to heterogeneity.Results: A total of 8 studies with 290 patients, of whom 141 patients were in the VATS group and 149 in the thoracotomy group, were involved in the analysis. Compared with thoracotomy, VATS was associated with shorter operative time, less blood loss in operation, and shorter postoperative hospital stay. There is no significant difference in postoperative pleural drainage day and postoperative complications between the two groups.Conclusions: VATS has more advantages over thoracotomy, indicating that VATS is better than thoracotomy in terms of postoperative recovery. We look forward to more large-sample, high-quality studies published in the future.

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 174-185 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahmed A. Abouarab ◽  
Mohamed Rahouma ◽  
Mohamed Kamel ◽  
Galal Ghaly ◽  
Abdelrahman Mohamed

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 124-133 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zahra Ghorbani ◽  
Mojgan Mirghafourvand

Objectives: An increase in life expectancy results in the aging population growth. This study was designed to evaluate the efficacy and adverse events of ginseng that could be used as a herbal medicine in women with sexual dysfunction. Materials and Methods: The authors of this study searched Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, ProQuest, Google Scholar, and Persian databases without a time limitation until May 2018 and examined all the randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared the effect of different types of ginseng on sexual function of menopausal women as compared to the placebo controls. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. The heterogeneity was determined using the I2 index. In addition, standardized mean difference (SMD) was used instead of mean differences (MD) and a random effect was reported instead of fixed effect in meta-analysis. Results: The eligibility criteria were found in five RCTs. All the included studies were placebo-controlled. Two trials had a parallel design while three studies used a crossover design. Although four trials indicated that ginseng significantly improved sexual function, they didn’t report any treatment effect compared to the placebo group. Based on the results of meta-analysis obtained from five studies including 531 women, there was no statistically significant effect of ginseng on female sexual dysfunction (FSD) compared to the placebo control group (SMD: 0.26; 95% CI: -0.26 to 0.76). Nonetheless, there was a considerable heterogeneity among the studies (I2 = 81%; P < 0.0001). Moreover, all the included studies assessed adverse events, but in three of the RCTs, there was no significant difference between the placebo and ginseng groups. Conclusions: The evidence regarding ginseng as a therapeutic agent for sexual dysfunction is unjustifiable. Rigorous studies seem warranted in this respect.


2010 ◽  
Vol 2010 (1014) ◽  
Author(s):  
L. M. Argote-Greene ◽  
L. A. Martin-del-Campo ◽  
G. Torres-Villalobos ◽  
P. Santillan-Doherty

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 903-906 ◽  
Author(s):  
Javier Gallego-Poveda ◽  
Nuno Carvalho Guerra ◽  
Catarina Carvalheiro ◽  
Hugo Ferreira ◽  
André Sena ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document