Dataset Information

Laparoscopic versus conventional appendectomy--a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Although laparoscopic surgery has been available for a long time and laparoscopic cholecystectomy has been performed universally, it is still not clear whether open appendectomy (OA) or laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is the most appropriate surgical approach to acute appendicitis. The purpose of this work is to compare the therapeutic effects and safety of laparoscopic and conventional "open" appendectomy by means of a meta-analysis.

Methods

A meta-analysis was performed of all randomized controlled trials published in English that compared LA and OA in adults and children between 1990 and 2009. Calculations were made of the effect sizes of: operating time, postoperative length of hospital stay, postoperative pain, return to normal activity, resumption of diet, complications rates, and conversion to open surgery. The effect sizes were then pooled by a fixed or random-effects model.

Results

Forty-four randomized controlled trials with 5292 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Operating time was 12.35 min longer for LA (95% CI: 7.99 to 16.72, p < 0.00001). Hospital stay after LA was 0.60 days shorter (95% CI: -0.85 to -0.36, p < 0.00001). Patients returned to their normal activity 4.52 days earlier after LA (95% CI: -5.95 to -3.10, p < 0.00001), and resumed their diet 0.34 days earlier(95% CI: -0.46 to -0.21, p < 0.00001). Pain after LA on the first postoperative day was significantly less (p = 0.008). The overall conversion rate from LA to OA was 9.51%. With regard to the rate of complications, wound infection after LA was definitely reduced (OR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.34 to 0.59, p < 0.00001), while postoperative ileus was not significantly reduced(OR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.57 to 1.47, p = 0.71). However, intra-abdominal abscess (IAA), intraoperative bleeding and urinary tract infection (UIT) after LA, occurred slightly more frequently(OR = 1.56, 95% CI: 1.01 to 2.43, p = 0.05; OR = 1.56, 95% CI: 0.54 to 4.48, p = 0.41; OR = 1.76, 95% CI: 0.58 to 5.29, p = 0.32).

Conclusion

LA provides considerable benefits over OA, including a shorter length of hospital stay, less postoperative pain, earlier postoperative recovery, and a lower complication rate. Furthermore, over the study period it was obvious that there had been a trend toward fewer differences in operating time for the two procedures. Although LA was associated with a slight increase in the incidence of IAA, intraoperative bleeding and UIT, it is a safe procedure. It may be that the widespread use of LA is due to its better therapeutic effect.

SUBMITTER: Li X

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2988072 | biostudies-literature | 2010 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Laparoscopic versus conventional appendectomy--a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Li Xiaohang X Zhang Jialin J Sang Lixuan L Zhang Wenliang W Chu Zhiqiang Z Li Xin X Liu Yongfeng Y

BMC gastroenterology 20101103

<h4>Background</h4>Although laparoscopic surgery has been available for a long time and laparoscopic cholecystectomy has been performed universally, it is still not clear whether open appendectomy (OA) or laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is the most appropriate surgical approach to acute appendicitis. The purpose of this work is to compare the therapeutic effects and safety of laparoscopic and conventional "open" appendectomy by means of a meta-analysis.<h4>Methods</h4>A meta-analysis was performe ...[more]

PMID: 21047410

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRecently, using the patient's genotype to guide warfarin dosing has gained interest; however, whether pharmacogenetics-based dosing (PD) improves clinical outcomes compared to conventional dosing (CD) remains unclear. Thus, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate these two strategies.MethodsThe PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese VIP and Chinese Wan-fang databases were searched. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool was used to assess the risk of bias in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The primary outcome was time within the therapeutic range (TTR); the secondary end points were the time to maintenance dose and time to first therapeutic international normalized ratio (INR), an INR greater than 4, adverse events, major bleeding, thromboembolism and death from any cause.ResultsA total of 11 trials involving 2,678 patients were included in our meta-analysis. The results showed that PD did not improve the TTR compared to CD, although PD significantly shortened the time to maintenance dose (MD = -8.80; 95% CI: -11.99 to -5.60; P<0.00001) and the time to first therapeutic INR (MD = -2.80; 95% CI: -3.45 to -2.15; P<0.00001). Additionally, PD significantly reduced the risk of adverse events (RR = 0.86; 95% CI: 0.75 to 0.99; P = 0.03) and major bleeding (RR = 0.36; 95% CI: 0.15 to 0.89, P = 0.03), although it did not reduce the percentage of INR greater than 4, the risk of thromboembolic events and death from any cause. Subgroup analysis showed that PD resulted in a better improvement in the endpoints of TTR and over-anticoagulation at a fixed initial dosage rather than a non-fixed initial dosage.ConclusionsThe use of genotype testing in the management of warfarin anticoagulation was associated with significant improvements in INR-related and clinical outcomes. Thus, genotype-based regimens can be considered a reliable and accurate method to determine warfarin dosing and may be preferred over fixed-dose regimens.Trial registration prosperoDatabase registration: CRD42015024127.

Project description:BackgroundSelection of intracorporeal anastomosis (IA) or extracorporeal anastomosis (EA) in laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC) remains controversial. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of IA compared with EA in LRC patients.MethodsLiterature was searched systematically for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared IA with EA in LRC patients until May 2021. The eligible studies for risk of bias were assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Data were extracted and analysed for the following outcomes of interest: operative time, length of incision, nodal harvest, bowel function recovery, postoperative pain, postoperative complications (wound infection, anastomotic leak, ileus, obstruction, reoperation), death at 30 days, duration of hospital stay and 30-day readmission.ResultsFive RCTs, including a total of 559 patients, were eligible for meta-analysis. All of the trials reported adequate random sequence generation and allocation concealment. There were significantly better outcomes in the IA group than in the EA group in time to first flatus (mean difference (MD) -0.71 (95 per cent c.i. -1.12 to -0.31), P = 0.0005), time to first passage of stool (MD -0.53 (95 per cent c.i. -0.69 to -0.37), P < 0.00001), visual analogue scale of pain on postoperative day (POD) 3 (MD -0.76 (95 per cent c.i. -1.23 to -0.28), P = 0.002), POD 4 (MD -0.83 (95 per cent c.i. -1.46 to -0.20), P = 0.01), POD 5 (MD -0.60 (95 per cent c.i. -0.95 to -0.25), P = 0.0007), length of incision (MD -1.52 (95 per cent c.i. -2.30 to -0.74), P = 0.0001) and wound infection (relative risk 0.46 (95 per cent c.i. 0.23 to 0.91), P = 0.02). However, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in duration of hospital stay (P = 0.47), operative time (P = 0.07), number of lymph nodes harvested (P = 0.70), anastomotic leak (P = 0.88), postoperative ileus (P = 0.48), bleeding (P = 0.15), bowel obstruction (P = 0.24), reoperation (P = 0.34), readmission within 30 days (P = 0.26), and death (P = 0.70).ConclusionCompared with EA, IA shows a faster recovery of bowel function with fewer wound infections.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Carpal tunnel syndrome is a common compressive neuropathy of the median nerve. The efficacy and safety of endoscopic versus open carpal tunnel release remain controversial. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES:The purpose of this study was to determine whether endoscopic compared with open carpal tunnel release provides better symptom relief, validated outcome scores, short- and long-term strength, and/or digital sensibility; entails a differential risk of complications such as nerve injury, scar tenderness, pillar pain, and reoperation; allows an earlier return to work; and takes less operative time. METHODS:The English-language literature was searched using MEDLINE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Randomized controlled trials that compared endoscopic and open carpal tunnel release were included in the meta-analysis. Methodologic quality was assessed with the Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist, and a sensitivity analysis was performed. Symptom relief, Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ) scores, strength, digital sensibility, complications, reoperation, interval to return to work, and operative time were analyzed. Twenty-one randomized controlled trials containing 1859 hands were included. RESULTS:Endoscopically treated patients showed similar symptom relief and BCTQ scores; better early recovery of grip strength (mean difference [MD], 3.03 kg [0.08-5.98]; p = 0.04) and pinch strength (MD, 0.77 kg [0.33-1.22]; p < 0.001) but no advantage after 6 months; lower risk of scar tenderness (risk ratio [RR], 0.53 [0.35-0.82]; p = 0.005); higher risk of nerve injury (RR, 2.84 [1.08-7.46]; p = 0.03), most of which were transient neurapraxias. Similar risk of pillar pain and reoperation; an earlier return to work (MD, -8.73 days [-12.82 to -4.65]; p < 0.001); and reduced operative time (MD, -4.81 minutes [-9.23 to -0.39]; p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS:High-level evidence from randomized controlled trials indicates that endoscopic release allows earlier return to work and improved strength during the early postoperative period. Results at 6 months or later are similar according to current data except that patients undergoing endoscopic release are at greater risk of nerve injury and lower risk of scar tenderness compared with open release. While endoscopic release may appeal to patients who require an early return to work and activities, surgeons should be cognizant of its elevated incidence of transient nerve injury amid its similar overall efficacy to open carpal tunnel release. Additional research is required to define the learning curve of endoscopic release and clarify the influence of surgeon volume on its safety.

Dataset Information

Laparoscopic versus conventional appendectomy--a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Laparoscopic versus conventional appendectomy--a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets