Four reconstruction methods after laparoscopic distal gastrectomy: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Ma Y
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6940138 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background/aimsTotal gastrectomy (TG) has shown to be superior regarding low risk of recurrence and readmission to distal subtotal gastrectomy (DG) for treatment of distal stomach cancer, but the incidence of postoperative morbidity and mortality in TG cannot be ignored. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness between TG and DG for distal stomach cancer.MethodologyA search in PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Chinese Biomedical Database through January 2016 was performed. Eligible studies in comparing of TG and DG for distal gastric cancer were included in this meta-analysis. Review Manager 5.2 software from the Cochrane Collaboration was used for the performance of meta-analysis and STATA 12.0 software for meta-regression analysis.ResultsTen retrospective cohort studies and one randomized control trial involving 5447 patients were included. The meta-analysis showed no significant difference of postoperative mortality (RR = 1.48, 95%CI = 0. 90-2.44,p = 0.12), intraoperative blood loss (MD = 24.34, 95%CI = -3.31-51.99, p = 0.08) and length of hospital stay(MD = 0.76, 95%CI:-0.26-1.79, p = 0.15). TG procedure could retrieve more lymph nodes than DG(MD = 4.33, 95% CI = 2.34-6.31, p<0.0001). According to different postoperative complications, we performed subgroup analysis, subgroup analysis revealed that patients in TG group tended to have a higher rate of postoperative intra-abdominal abscess than DG procedure (RR = 3.41, 95% CI = 1.21-9.63,p<0.05). No statistical differences were found in leakage, intestinal obstruction, postoperative bleeding, anastomotic stricture and wound infection between the two groups (p>0.05). We pooled the data together, the accumulated 5-year Overall Survival rates of TG and DG groups were 49.6% (919/1852) vs.55.9%(721/1290) respectively. Meta-analysis revealed a favoring trend to DG procedure and there was a statistical difference between the two groups (RR = 0.91,95% CI = 0.85-0.97,p = 0.006).ConclusionBased on current retrospective evidences, we found that in spite of similar postoperative mortality, TG for distal gastric cancer provided a high risk of five-year Overall Survival rate. DG procedure can be a recommendation for distal gastric cancer, whereas due to lack of high quality RCTs in multicenter and the relatively small sample size of long-term outcomes, further comparative studies are still needed.
| S-EPMC5082689 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionA meta-analysis was conducted in order to provide an up-to-date comparison of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and laparoscopic gastric plication (LGP) for morbid obesity.Materials and methodsThe PRISMA guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions were used for the conduction of this study. A systematic literature search was performed in the electronic databases (MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and Web of Science and Scopus). The fixed effects or random effects model was used according to the Cochran Q test.ResultsTotally, 12 eligible studies were extracted. LSG displayed a statistically significant lower rate of overall complications (OR: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.17, 0.68; p=0.002) and a sustainable higher %EWL through all time endpoints (OR: 4.86, p=0.04; OR: 7.57, p < 0.00001; and OR: 13.74; p < 0.00001). There was no difference between the two techniques in terms of length of hospital stay (p=0.16), operative duration (p=0.81), reoperation rate (p=0.51), and cost (p=0.06).ConclusionsLSG was demonstrated to have a lower overall complications and a higher weight loss rate, when compared to LGP. Further RCTs of a higher methodological quality level, with a larger sample size, are required in order to validate these findings.
| S-EPMC6198571 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:To date, robotic surgery has been widely used worldwide. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate short-term and long-term outcomes of robotic gastrectomy (RG) in gastric cancer patients to determine whether RG can replace laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG). METHODS:The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was applied to perform the study. Pubmed, Cochrane Library, WanFang, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and VIP databases were comprehensively searched for studies published before May 2020 that compared RG with LG. Next, two independent reviewers conducted literature screening and data extraction. The quality of the literature was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), and the data analyzed using the Review Manager 5.3 software. Random effects or fixed effects models were applied according to heterogeneity. RESULTS:A total of 19 studies including 7275 patients were included in the meta-analyses, of which 4598 patients were in the LG group and 2677 in the RG group. Compared with LG, RG was associated with longer operative time (WMD = -32.96, 95% CI -42.08 ~ -23.84, P < 0.001), less blood loss (WMD = 28.66, 95% CI 18.59 ~ 38.73, P < 0.001), and shorter time to first flatus (WMD = 0.16 95% CI 0.06 ~ 0.27, P = 0.003). There was no significant difference between RG and LG in terms of the hospital stay (WMD = 0.23, 95% CI -0.53 ~ 0.98, P = 0.560), overall postoperative complication (OR = 1.07, 95% CI 0.91 ~ 1.25, P = 0.430), mortality (OR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.24 ~ 1.90, P = 0.450), the number of harvested lymph nodes (WMD = -0.96, 95% CI -2.12 ~ 0.20, P = 0.100), proximal resection margin (WMD = -0.10, 95% CI -0.29 ~ 0.09, P = 0.300), and distal resection margin (WMD = 0.15, 95% CI -0.21 ~ 0.52, P = 0.410). No significant differences were found between the two treatments in overall survival (OS) (HR = 0.95, 95% CI 0.76 ~ 1.18, P = 0.640), recurrence-free survival (RFS) (HR = 0.91, 95% CI 0.69 ~ 1.21, P = 0.530), and recurrence rate (OR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.67 ~ 1.21, P = 0.500). CONCLUSIONS:The results of this study suggested that RG is as acceptable as LG in terms of short-term and long-term outcomes. RG can be performed as effectively and safely as LG. Moreover, more randomized controlled trials comparing the two techniques with rigorous study designs are still essential to evaluate the value of the robotic surgery for gastric cancer.
| S-EPMC7688002 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The standard size of bougie for laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is not yet established. Therefore, a systematic review and network meta-analysis were conducted to assess the weight loss effects and associated complications of LSG for patients with morbid obesity, based on different bougie sizes. A total of 15 studies were reviewed in this systemic review and network meta-analysis (2,848 participants), including RCTs and retrospective studies in PubMed, and Embase until September 1, 2020. The effectiveness of different bougie calibration sizes was assessed based on excess weight loss (EWL), total complications, and staple line leak. Within this network meta-analysis, S-sized (≤ 32 Fr.) and M-sized (33-36 Fr.) bougies had similar effects and were associated with the highest EWL improvement among all different bougie sizes (S-sized: standardized mean difference [SMD], 10.52; 95% confidence interval [CI] - 5.59 to - 26.63, surface under the cumulative ranking curve [SUCRA], 0.78; and M-sized: SMD, 10.16; 95% CI - 3.04-23.37; SUCRA, 0.75). M-sized bougie was associated with the lowest incidence of total complications (M-sized: odds ratio, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.16-1.11; SUCRA, 0.92). Based on our network meta-analysis, using M-sized bougie (33-36 Fr.) is an optimal choice to balance the effectiveness and perioperative safety of LSG in the clinical practice.
| S-EPMC8313581 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Billroth I, Billroth II, Roux-en-Y, and Un-cut Roux-en-Y are common reconstruction techniques of distal gastrectomy. Which of these techniques is better has yet to be established. We performed an indirect comparison to evaluate which technique was optimal for preventing reflux symptoms. Methods: The PubMed, Cochrane Collaboration, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and Web of Science databases were searched to identify clinical trials that compared at least two of the reconstruction skills among Billroth I, Billroth II, Roux-en-Y, and Un-cut Roux-en-Y. Data on reflux gastritis, intraoperative blood loss, bile reflux and postoperative hospital stays were extracted from the included clinical trials for meta-analysis using a random-effects model. Results: Twenty-four articles that included 5419 individuals were assessed as eligible for meta-analysis. The indirect comparison suggested that Roux-en-Y reconstruction significantly reduces reflux gastritis, and it tended to rank first and had the highest probability of preventing bile reflux. No significant differences were found in intraoperative blood loss and postoperative hospital stays. Conclusion: This indirect comparison suggested some superiority of Roux-en-Y reconstruction after distal gastrectomy. Further perspective clinical trials are required to provide evidence for the optimal reconstruction skill.
| S-EPMC6400796 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe efficacy and safety of open distal pancreatectomy (DP), laparoscopic DP, robot-assisted laparoscopic DP, and robotic DP have not been established. The authors aimed to comprehensively compare these 4 surgical methods using a network meta-analysis.Materials and methodsThe authors systematically searched MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies that evaluated at least 2 of the following pancreatectomy techniques: robot-assisted DP, laparoscopic DP, open DP, and robotic DP. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was applied to show the probability that each method would be the best for each outcome.ResultsAltogether, 46 trials with 8377 patients were included in this network meta-analysis. Robotic DP showed the highest probability of having the least estimated blood loss (SUCRA, 90.9%), the lowest incidences of postoperative pancreatic fistula (SUCRA, 94.5%), clinically related postoperative pancreatic fistula (SUCRA, 94.6%), postoperative bleeding (SUCRA, 75.3%), reoperation (SUCRA, 96.4%), overall complications (SUCRA, 86.9%), and major complications (SUCRA, 99.3%), and the lowest mortality (SUCRA, 83.4%). Robotic DP also proved to be the best approach regarding the attainment of R0 resection (SUCRA, 75.4%) and the number of lymph nodes harvested (SUCRA, 64.1%).ConclusionRobotic DP seems to offer clinical and oncological advantages compared with other DP methods for addressing diseases of the pancreatic body and tail, although it may require a longer operation time and learning curve. The present results require confirmation in future head-to-head randomized controlled trials.
| S-EPMC8096312 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSurgical treatment is advised for unstable distal clavicle fractures (UDCFs). Various kinds of internal fixation methods have been used, but the best fixation is still controversial.MethodsWe systematically searched all studies comparing postoperative outcomes of coracoclavicular (CC) reconstruction (TightRope, EndoButton, Mersilene tape, suture anchor or suture), fracture osteosynthesis (clavicular hook plate (HP), locking compression plate (LCP), Kirschner wire and tension band (KWTB), Kirschner wire (KW)), and a combination of the two methods (LCP + CC or KWTB + CC) for UDCF in PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection via Ovid, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and China Biology Medicine (CBM) databases up to September 16, 2021, with no language restrictions. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to integrate direct and indirect evidence and assess the relative effects of the internal fixation methods. The probability of being the best treatment was assessed by the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA).ResultsA total of 41 studies were included, involving 1969 patients and seven internal fixation methods. The NMA showed that LCP + CC fixation was associated with better efficacy (odds ratio (OR) 0.60, 95% CI 0.19-1.02, probability rank = 0.93) and fewer complications (odds ratio (OR) 0.22, 95% CI 0.09-0.51, probability rank = 0.69) than any other internal fixation method for UDCFs. The SUCRA probabilities of LCP + CC fixation were 98.6% for the Constant-Murley score and 93.9% for total complications.ConclusionsThe results of this study indicate that LCP + CC appears to be the best internal fixation method for UDCF. Limited to the quality and quantity of the included studies, much larger and higher-quality RCTs are required to confirm these conclusions.
| S-EPMC8785604 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There is scarce evidence on the comparison between different methods for the drainage of distal malignant biliary obstruction (DMBO) after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) failure. Therefore, we performed a network meta-analysis to compare the outcomes of these techniques. We searched main databases through September 2021 and identified five randomized controlled trials. The primary outcome was clinical success. The secondary outcomes were technical success, overall and serious adverse event rate. Percutaneous trans-hepatic biliary drainage was found to be inferior to other interventions (PTBD: RR 1.01, 0.88-1.17 with EUS-choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CD); RR 1.03, 0.86-1.22 with EUS-hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HG); RR 1.42, 0.90-2.24 with surgical hepaticojejunostomy). The comparison between EUS-HG and EUS-CD was not significant (RR 1.01, 0.87-1.17). Surgery was not superior to other interventions (RR 1.40, 0.91-2.13 with EUS-CD and RR 1.38, 0.88-2.16 with EUS-HG). No difference in any of the comparisons concerning adverse event rate was detected, although PTBD showed a slightly poorer performance on ranking analysis (SUCRA score 0.13). In conclusion, all interventions seem to be effective for the drainage of DMBO, although PTBD showed a trend towards higher rates of adverse events.
| S-EPMC9266204 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundReduced-port laparoscopic gastrectomy is currently widely performed for patients with gastric cancer. However, its safety in obese patients has not yet been verified. This is the first study on reduced-port laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (RpLDG) in obese patients with gastric cancer. This study aimed to evaluate the short-term surgical outcomes and investigate the feasibility and safety of RpLDG in obese patients with gastric carcinoma.Material and methodsA total of 271 gastric cancer patients who underwent RpLDG at our institution were divided into two groups: non-obese [body mass index (BMI) <30 kg/m2, n = 251; NOG] and obese (BMI ≥30 kg/m2, n = 20; OG). The mean age of the enrolled patients was 64.8 ± 11.4 years, with 72.0% being men and 28.0% women. Operative details and short-term surgical outcomes, including hospital course and postoperative complications, were compared by retrospectively reviewing the medical records.ResultsNo significant difference in operation time was found between the NOG and OG (205.9 ± 40.0 vs. 211.3 ± 37.3 minutes, P = 0.563). Other operative outcomes in the OG, including estimated blood loss (54.1 ± 86.1 vs. 54.0 ± 39.0 mL, P = 0.995) and retrieved lymph nodes (36.2 ± 16.4 vs. 35.5 ± 18.2, P = 0.875), were not inferior to those in the NOG. There were also no statistical differences in short-term surgical outcomes, including the incidence of surgical complications (13.9% vs. 10.0%, P = 1).ConclusionRpLDG can be performed safely in obese gastric cancer patients by an experienced surgeon. It should be considered a feasible alternative to conventional port distal gastrectomy.
| S-EPMC8341504 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the safety and relative benefits of delta-shape anastomosis (DA) by comparing to conventional laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy with Billroth I gastroduodenostomy (LADG BI). METHODS:Studies and relevant literature regarding DA versus LADG BI were searched in the electronic databases. Operation time, postoperative complications, estimated blood loss, number of retrieved lymph nodes, time to first flatus, time to oral intake, length of postoperative hospitalization in DA and LADG BI were pooled and compared using meta-analysis. Weighted mean differences (WMDs) and odds ratios (ORs) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to evaluate the effect of DA. RESULTS:Eight studies of 1739 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with LADG BI, DA had shorter postoperative hospitalization (WMD = -0.47, 95%CI: -0.69 to -0.25, P<0.01), less blood loss (WMD = - 25.90, 95%CI: -43.11 to -8.70, P<0.01), shorter time to oral intake (WMD = -0.25, 95%CI: -0.49 to -0.01, P = 0.04), and more retrieved lymph nodes (WMD = 1.36, 95%CI: 0.30 to 2.43, P = 0.01). Operation time (WMD = -0.07, 95%CI -15.58 to 15.43, P = 0.99), overall postoperative complication rate (OR = 1.05, 95%CI: 0.74 to 1.49, P = 0.63), surgical complication rate (OR = 1.02, 95%CI: 0.70 to 1.49, P = 0.90), nonsurgical complication rate (OR = 1.21, 95%CI: 0.54 to 2.72, P = 0.64), leakage rate (OR = 2.54, 95%CI: 0.92 to 7.01, P = 0.07), stricture rate (OR = 0.36, 95%CI: 0.09 to 1.44, P = 0.15), wound complication rate (OR = 0.71, 95%CI: 0.33 to 1.55, P = 0.39), time to first flatus (WMD = -0.10, 95%CI: -0.27 to 0.07, P = 0.26), and proximal surgical margin (WMD = -0.25, 95%CI: -1.14 to 0.65, P = 0.59) was not statistically different. CONCLUSION:Compared with LADG BI, DA is a safe and feasible procedure, with significantly reduced blood loss, time to oral intake, and postoperative hospitalization.
| S-EPMC5025198 | biostudies-literature