Dataset Information

Two-dimensional versus three-dimensional laparoscopy in surgical efficacy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Laparoscopy is a revolutionary technique in modern surgery. However, the comparative efficacy between two-dimensional laparoscopy and three-dimensional laparoscopy remains in uncertainty. Therefore we performed this systematic review and meta-analysis in order to seek for answers.

Methods

Databases of PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were carefully screened. Clinical trials comparing two-dimensional versus three-dimensional laparoscopy were included for pooled analysis. Observational and randomized trials were methodologically appraised by Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Revised Jadad's Scale respectively. Subgroup analyses were additionally conducted to clarify the potential confounding elements. Outcome stability was examined by sensitivity analysis, and publication bias was analyzed by Begg's test and Egger's test.

Results

21 trials were screened out from the preliminary 3126 records. All included studies were high-quality in methodology, except for Bilgen 2013 and Ruan 2015. Three-dimensional laparoscopy was superior to two-dimensional laparoscopy in terms of surgical time (P < 0.00001), blood loss (P = 0.01), perioperative complications (P = 0.04) and hospital stay (P = 0.03). Additionally, both techniques demonstrated comparable results of secondary endpoints, including drainage volume (P = 0.74), drainage time (P = 0.26), numbers of retrieved lymphnodes (P = 0.85), hospital expenses (P = 0.49), anastomosis time in prostatectomy (P=0.15) and 6-month continence rate (P = 0.61). The pooled outcomes of primary endopoints were verified to be stable by sensitivity analysis. Although Begg's test (P = 0.215) and Egger's test (P = 0.003) revealed that there was publication bias across included studies, Trim-and-Fill method confirmed that the results remained stable.

Conclusion

Three-dimensional laparoscopy is a preferably surgical option against two-dimensional laparoscopy due to its better surgical efficacy.

SUBMITTER: Cheng J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5342603 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Two-dimensional versus three-dimensional laparoscopy in surgical efficacy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Cheng Ji J Gao Jinbo J Shuai Xiaoming X Wang Guobin G Tao Kaixiong K

Oncotarget 20161001 43

<h4>Background</h4>Laparoscopy is a revolutionary technique in modern surgery. However, the comparative efficacy between two-dimensional laparoscopy and three-dimensional laparoscopy remains in uncertainty. Therefore we performed this systematic review and meta-analysis in order to seek for answers.<h4>Methods</h4>Databases of PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were carefully screened. Clinical trials comparing two-dimensional versus three-dimensional laparoscopy were included f ...[more]

PMID: 27486967

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCarpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is a common peripheral nerve entrapment disease. Either surgical or conservative intervention for CTS patients is needed to choose. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the clinical efficacy, safety, and cost of surgical versus nonsurgical intervention.MethodsThe eligible studies were acquired from PubMed, Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Google, and Cochrane Library. The data were extracted by 2 of the coauthors independently and were analyzed by RevMan5.3. Standardized mean differences (SMDs), odds ratios (ORs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to assess risk of bias.ResultsThirteen studies including 9 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 4 observational studies were assessed. The methodological quality of the trials ranged from moderate to high. The difference of clinical efficacy was statistically significant between surgical and nonsurgical intervention, and nonsurgical treatment was more effective (OR = 2.35, 95%CI = 1.18-4.67, P = 0.01). Meanwhile, different results were discovered by subgroup analysis. The pooled results of function improvement, symptom improvement, neurophysiological parameters improvement, and cost of care at different follow-up times showed that the differences were not statistically significant between the 2 interventions. The difference of complications and side-effects was statistically significant and conservative treatment achieved better result than surgery (OR = 2.03, 95%CI = 1.28-3.22, P = 0.003). Sensitivity analysis proved the stability of the pooled results.ConclusionBoth surgical and conservative interventions had benefits in CTS. Nonsurgical treatment was more effective and safety than surgical treatment, but there were no significant differences in function improvement, symptom improvement, neurophysiological parameters improvement, and cost of care. Nonsurgical treatment is recommended as the optical choice for CTS. If conservative treatment fails, surgical release can be taken.

Project description:Vancomycin and teicoplanin are the glycopeptides currently in use for the treatment of infections caused by invasive beta-lactam-resistant gram-positive organisms. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that have compared vancomycin and teicoplanin administered systemically for the treatment of suspected or proven infections. A comprehensive search of trials without year, language, or publication status restrictions was performed. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Two reviewers independently extracted the data. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled by using the fixed-effect model (RRs of >1 favor vancomycin). Twenty-four trials were included. All-cause mortality was similar overall (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.21), and there was no significant heterogeneity. In trials that used adequate allocation concealment, the results favored teicoplanin (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.06), while in trials with unknown methods or inadequate concealment, the results favored vancomycin (RR, 3.61; 95% CI, 1.27 to 10.30). The latter trials might have recruited more severely ill patients. No other variable affected the RRs for mortality, including the assessment of glycopeptides administered empirically or for proven infections, neutropenia, the participant's age, and drug dosing. There were no significant differences between teicoplanin and vancomycin with regard to clinical failure (RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.05), microbiological failure (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.65), and other efficacy outcomes. Lower RRs (in favor of teicoplanin) for clinical failure were observed with a lower risk of bias and when treatment was initiated for infections caused by gram-positive organisms rather than empirically. Total adverse events (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.74), nephrotoxicity (RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.61), and red man syndrome were significantly less frequent with teicoplanin. Teicoplanin is not inferior to vancomycin with regard to efficacy and is associated with a lower adverse event rate than vancomycin.

Project description:IntroductionTechnological advancements in treatment planning and delivery have propelled the use of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). This review compares IMRT with conventional two-dimensional (2D) and/or three-dimensional (3D) radiotherapy (RT) in curative-intent management of HNSCC.MethodsOnly randomized controlled trials (RCTs) offering curative-intent RT in patients with non-metastatic HNSCC were included. Outcome data was extracted independently by two reviewers, pooled using the Cochrane methodology, and expressed as risk ratio (RR) or hazard ratio (HR) as appropriate with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Xerostomia was the primary outcome of interest whereas loco-regional control, overall survival and quality-of-life (QOL) were secondary endpoints.ResultsSeven RCTs involving 1155 patients directly comparing IMRT with 2D/3D-RT in HNSCC were included. The primary objective in five of seven index RCTs was reduction in xerostomia, with only one trial each using loco-regional control and overall survival as primary endpoints for sample size calculation. The use of IMRT was associated with a 36% relative risk reduction in ≥grade 2 acute xerostomia (RR = 0.64, 95%CI = 0.49-0.84; p = 0.001) compared to 2D/3D-RT. More importantly, IMRT significantly reduced the risk of ≥grade 2 late xerostomia (RR = 0.44, 95%CI = 0.34-0.57; p = 0.00001) compared to non-IMRT techniques at all time-points. Within the limitations of inadequate sample size and low statistical power, IMRT also resulted in 24% relative reduction in the risk of loco-regional relapse (HR = 0.76, 0.57-1.01; p = 0.06) and 30% relative reduction in risk of death (HR = 0.70, 95%CI = 0.57-0.88; p = 0.002) compared to 2D/3D-RT. However, this benefit of IMRT for loco-regional control and overall survival was limited to nasopharyngeal cancer patients alone, with no significant difference in efficacy between the two techniques in patients with cancers of the laryngo-pharynx in this analysis, highlighting the inconsistency in results of subgroup analyses stratified by primary site. Inadequate reporting of data precluded statistically pooling of results for QOL outcomes.ConclusionsThere is consistent moderate-quality evidence that IMRT significantly reduces the risk of moderate to severe acute and late xerostomia compared to 2D/3D-RT in curative-intent radiotherapeutic management of HNSCC. However, the quality of evidence regarding the superiority of IMRT over conventional techniques for disease-related endpoints is rather low due to relative lack of power and inconsistency of results precluding robust conclusions.

Dataset Information

Two-dimensional versus three-dimensional laparoscopy in surgical efficacy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Two-dimensional versus three-dimensional laparoscopy in surgical efficacy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets