Patient-Specific or Conventional Instrumentations: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Lin Y
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7085852 | biostudies-literature | 2020
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Patient-Specific or Conventional Instrumentations: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Lin Yipeng Y Cai Wufeng W Xu Baoyun B Li Jian J Yang Yuan Y Pan Xuelin X Fu Weili W
BioMed research international 20200310
<h4>Objective</h4>To conduct a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare knee arthroplasty with patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) with the conventional instrumentation (CI).<h4>Methods</h4>RCTs were selected in PubMed and Embase from 2012 to 2018. Key data extracted included malalignment of mechanical axis, blood loss, surgical time, Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Knee Society Score (KSS), length of stay, and complications. Subgroup analysis was also performed regarding diff ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BACKGROUND: To compare the surgical outcome of haemorrhoidectomy performed using LigaSure bipolar diathermy with conventional haemorrhoidectomy. METHODS: Only randomized and alternate allocated studies were included from the major electronic databases using the search terms "ligasure" and "haemorrhoids". Duration of operation, blood loss during operation, postoperative pain score, wound healing, in-hospital stay, time to return to normal activities and complications were assessed. RESULTS: The 11 trials contained a total of 1,046 patients; the largest study was based on 273 patients and two earlier studies were based on 34 patients. No significant gender mismatch between the groups was reported in any of the studies. The patients' ages were similar between groups in the studies, as was disease severity. All 11 studies reported a shorter duration of the operation when using LigaSure compared to the conventional technique (p<0.001). The postoperative pain score (p=0.001) and blood loss during operation (p=0.001) were significantly reduced. After LigaSure haemorrhoidectomy wound healing (p=0.004) and the return to normal activities (p=0.001) were significantly faster than after conventional haemorrhoidectomy. However, the overall incidence of complications reported was not significantly different (p=0.056). CONCLUSIONS: LigaSure is an effective instrument for haemorrhoidectomy which results in less blood loss, quicker wound healing and earlier return to work.
| S-EPMC2799011 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundAlthough 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsForty-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).ConclusionLA 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.
| S-EPMC2988072 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AIMS:Previous trials on the effectiveness of genotype-guided warfarin dosing vs. conventional dosing have been inconclusive. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing genotype-guided to conventional dosing strategies. METHODS:PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched up to 23 October 2017. RESULTS:A total of 76 and 94 entries were retrieved were retrieved from PubMed and the Cochrane Library, respectively. A total of 2626 subjects in the genotype-guided dosing (mean age 63.3 ± 5.8 years; 46% male) and 2604 subjects in the conventional dosing (mean age 64.7 ± 6.1 years; 46% male) groups (mean follow-up duration 64 days) from 18 trials were included. Compared with conventional dosing, genotype-guided dosing significantly shortened the time to first therapeutic international normalized ratio (INR) (mean difference 2.6 days, standard error 0.3 days; P < 0.0001; I2 0%) and time to first stable INR (mean difference 5.9 days, standard error 2.0 days; P < 0.01; I2 94%). Genotype-guided dosing also increased the time in therapeutic range (mean difference 3.1%, standard error 1.2%; P < 0.01; I2 80%) and reduced the risks of both excessive anticoagulation, defined as INR ≥4 [risk ratio (RR) 0.87; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78, 0.98; P < 0.05; I2 : 0%), and bleeding (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.69, 0.98; P < 0.05; I2 31%). No difference in thromboembolism (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.56, 1.26; P = 0.40; I2 0%) or mortality (RR 1.16; 95% CI 0.46, 2.91; P = 0.76; I2 0%) was observed between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS:Genotype-guided warfarin dosing offers better safety with less bleeding compared with conventional dosing strategies. No significant benefit on thromboembolism or mortality was evident.
| S-EPMC6089819 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundPrevious meta-analyses that compared the outcome of SILC and CLC have not presented consistent conclusions. This meta-analysis was performed after adding many recent RCTs, to clarify this issue.MethodsRelevant articles published in English were identified by searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Knowledge, and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register from January 1997 to February 2013. Reference lists of the retrieved articles were reviewed to identify additional articles. Primary outcomes (postoperative pain scores, cosmetic score, and length of incision) and secondary outcomes (operating time, blood loss, conversion rates, postoperative complications, postoperative hospital stay, time to initial oral intake, and time to resume work) were pooled. Quantitative variables were calculated using the weighted mean difference (WMD), and qualitative variables were pooled using odds ratios (OR).Results25 appropriate RCTs were identified from 2128 published articles. 1841 patients were treated, 944 with SILC and 897 with CLC. SILC was superior to CLC in cosmetic score (WMD = 1.155, P<0.001), shorter length of incision (WMD = -3.285, P = 0.029), and postoperative pain within 12 h (VAS in 3-4 h, WMD = -0.704, P = 0.026; VAS in 6-8 h, WMD = -0.613, P = 0.010). CLC was superior to SILC in operating time (OT) (WMD = 13.613, P<0.001) and need of additional instruments (OR = 7.448, P<0.001). Other secondary outcomes were similar.ConclusionsSILC offered a better cosmetic result and less postoperative pain for patients with uncomplicated cholelithiasis or polypoid lesions of the gallbladder. However, SILC was associated with a longer OT and required additional instruments.
| S-EPMC3788730 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC4682655 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We conducted meta-analyses of findings from randomized, placebo-controlled, short-term trials for acute mania in manic or mixed states of DSM (III-IV) bipolar I disorder in 56 drug-placebo comparisons of 17 agents from 38 studies involving 10,800 patients. Of drugs tested, 13 (76%) were more effective than placebo: aripiprazole, asenapine, carbamazepine, cariprazine, haloperidol, lithium, olanzapine, paliperdone, quetiapine, risperidone, tamoxifen, valproate, and ziprasidone. Their pooled effect size for mania improvement (Hedges' g in 48 trials) was 0.42 (confidence interval (CI): 0.36-0.48); pooled responder risk ratio (46 trials) was 1.52 (CI: 1.42-1.62); responder rate difference (RD) was 17% (drug: 48%, placebo: 31%), yielding an estimated number-needed-to-treat of 6 (all p<0.0001). In several direct comparisons, responses to various antipsychotics were somewhat greater or more rapid than lithium, valproate, or carbamazepine; lithium did not differ from valproate, nor did second generation antipsychotics differ from haloperidol. Meta-regression associated higher study site counts, as well as subject number with greater placebo (not drug) response; and higher baseline mania score with greater drug (not placebo) response. Most effective agents had moderate effect-sizes (Hedges' g=0.26-0.46); limited data indicated large effect sizes (Hedges' g=0.51-2.32) for: carbamazepine, cariprazine, haloperidol, risperidone, and tamoxifen. The findings support the efficacy of most clinically used antimanic treatments, but encourage more head-to-head studies and development of agents with even greater efficacy.
| S-EPMC3055677 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectiveNeck dissection is the most definitive and effective treatment for head and neck cancer. This systematic review aims to compare the efficacy and surgical outcomes of neck dissection between the harmonic scalpel and conventional surgical techniques and conduct a quantitative meta-analysis of the randomized trials.MethodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified from the major electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library) using the keywords ''harmonic scalpel'' and ''neck dissection,'' and a quantitative meta-analysis was conducted. The operative time and intraoperative bleeding were the primary outcome measures, and other parameters assessed included the drainage fluid volume and length of hospital stay.ResultsSeven trials that met the inclusion criteria included 406 neck dissection cases (201 in the harmonic scalpel group). Compared with conventional surgical techniques, the HS group had an operative time that was significantly reduced by 29.3 minutes [mean difference: -29.29; 95% CI = (-44.26, -14.32); P=0.0001], a reduction in intraoperative bleeding by 141.1 milliliters [mean difference: -141.13; 95% CI = (-314.99, 32.73); P=0.11], and a reduction in drainage fluid volume by 64.9 milliliters [mean difference: -64.86; 95% CI = (-110.40, -19.32); P=0.005] , but it is not significant after removal of studies driving heterogeneity. There was no significant difference in the length of the hospital stay [mean difference: -0.21; 95% CI = (-0.48, 0.07); P=0.14].ConclusionThis systematic review showed that using the harmonic scalpel for neck dissection significantly reduces the operative time and drainage fluid volume and that it is not associated with an increased length of hospital stay or perioperative complications. Therefore, the harmonic scalpel method is safe and effective for neck dissection. However, the statistical heterogeneity was high. Further studies are required to substantiate our findings.
| S-EPMC4498925 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and study aims Colorectal malignancy is a leading cause of death. Conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR) is a strategy used to resect precancerous lesions that involves injecting fluid beneath a polyp to create a gap for resection. Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is a newer method that forgoes injection, instead filling the intestinal cavity with water to facilitate polyp resection. Our aim was to compare the safety and efficacy of these approaches by synthesizing the most contemporary evidence. Methods PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane libraries were searched from inception through November 11, 2022 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing UEMR and CEMR for resection of colorectal lesions. The primary outcome was the rate of en bloc resection and secondary outcomes included recurrence, procedure time, and adverse events (AEs). Results A total of 2539 studies were identified through our systematic literature search. After screening, seven RCTs with a total of 1581 polyps were included. UEMR was associated with significantly increased rates of en bloc resection (RR 1.18 [1.03, 1.35]; I 2 = 76.6%) versus conventional approaches. No significant differences were found in procedure time, recurrence, or AEs. Conclusions UEMR is a promising effective technique for removal of colorectal lesions. The most contemporary literature indicates that it improves en bloc resection rate without increasing procedure time, recurrence, or AEs (PROSPERO ID CRD42022374935).
| S-EPMC10562051 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe role of inflammation in OA is controversial and it is unclear whether suppressing inflammation with conventional or biologic DMARDs is effective. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted to compare DMARDs with placebo in participants with symptomatic OA.MethodsDatabases (Medline, Embase, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, Web of Science and Cochrane Library), conference abstracts and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched to end of November 2017 for placebo-controlled RCTs of DMARDs, including biologics, in symptomatic OA. Pain data at treatment peak time point were extracted and combined using a random-effects meta-analysis. Markers of inflammation and adverse events were extracted and reviewed. Risk of bias assessment was conducted using Cochrane's tool.ResultsEleven RCTs (1205 participants) were meta-analysed, including six for conventional DMARDs (757 participants) and five for biologics (448 participants). Overall, DMARDs were statistically superior to placebo [effect size (ES) = 0.18, 95% CI: 0.03, 0.34], although the difference was not clinically significant (0.5 ES threshold). Furthermore, no statistically significant differences were observed in sub-analysis of high-quality trials (ES = 0.11, 95% CI : -0.06, 0.28), biologics (ES = 0.16, 95% CI: -0.02, 0.34) or conventional DMARDs (ES = 0.24, 95% CI: -0.05, 0.54). No difference was found between erosive vs non-erosive hand OA, hand vs knee OA or anti-IL1 vs anti-TNF biologics.ConclusionDMARDs did not offer clinically significant pain relief above placebo in OA. This poor efficacy indicates that inflammation may not be a prime driver for OA pain.
| S-EPMC6199417 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC4317413 | biostudies-other