LigaSure small jaw versus conventional neck dissection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Neck dissection has a central role in the management of head and neck cancers. This systematic review aimed to compare the intraoperative and postoperative parameters between conventional and LigaSure Small Jaw (LSJ)-assisted neck dissection.Methods
PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched. independently by two authors for relevant articles comparing the outcomes of conventional and LSJ-assisted neck dissection. Data from each study were extracted, and a random-effects model was used in the pooled analysis.Results
Compared with conventional techniques, LSJ-assisted neck dissection was associated with a significantly reduced operative time. The rates of postoperative hematoma, infection, amount of intraoperative blood loss, the length of hospital stay and the drainage amount showed no significant intergroup differences.Conclusions
The meta-analysis provides evidence that properly using LSJ may reduce the operative time compared with that of conventional techniques. Surgeons may consider using LSJ in neck dissection according to personal experiences.
SUBMITTER: Chen TY
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8008542 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Surgery with parotidectomy is the preferable treatment for most parotid tumors. Our meta-analysis compared the differences between the use of the LigaSure (LS) device and the conventional suture ligation technique (CT) in parotidectomies. A literature search in databases including EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library was carried out. Studies including parotidectomy using LS and CT were included with the intraoperative and postoperative parameters collected. Continuous operative time data were measured by mean differences (MDs). Discrete data on postoperative complications, including facial palsy, postoperative bleeding, and salivary complications, were evaluated with risk differences (RDs). All values were reported with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Five studies were included in our meta-analysis. The pooled analysis demonstrated a significant reduction in operative time in the LS group (MD: -21.92; 95% CI, -30.18 to -13.66). In addition, the analysis indicated that the incidence of postoperative complications, including permanent facial palsy (RD, -0.01; 95% CI, -0.06 to 0.05), temporary facial palsy (RD, 0.00; 95% CI, -0.03 to 0.04), salivary complications (RD, -0.01; 95% CI, -0.08 to 0.06), and postoperative bleeding (RD, -0.02; 95% CI, -0.07 to 0.04), were all similar between the LS group and the CT group. According to the results, the LS device appears to be a safe and useful tool and could shorten the operative time in patients needing parotidectomy.
| S-EPMC9027715 | biostudies-literature
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:ObjectiveA meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was performed to compare the effects of miniaturized extracorporeal circulation (MECC) and conventional extracorporeal circulation (CECC) on morbidity and mortality rates after cardiac surgery.MethodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted using Ovid, PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane databases. Randomized controlled trials from the year 2000 with n > 40 patients were considered. Key search terms included variations of "mini," "cardiopulmonary," "bypass," "extracorporeal," "perfusion," and "circuit." Studies were assessed for bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. The primary outcomes were postoperative mortality and stroke. Secondary outcomes included arrhythmia, myocardial infarction, renal failure, blood loss, and a composite outcome comprised of mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction and renal failure. Duration of intensive care unit, and hospital stay was also recorded.ResultsThe 42 studies eligible for this study included a total of 2154 patients who underwent CECC and 2196 patients who underwent MECC. There were no significant differences in any preoperative or demographic characteristics. Compared with CECC, MECC did not reduce the incidence of mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, and renal failure but did significantly decrease the composite of these outcomes (odds ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50-0.81; P = .0002). MECC was also associated with reductions in arrhythmia (odds ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.54-0.83; P = .0003), blood loss (mean difference [MD], -96.37 mL; 95% CI, -152.70 to -40.05 mL; P = .0008), hospital stay (MD, -0.70 days; 95% CI, -1.21 to -0.20 days; P = .006), and intensive care unit stay (MD, -2.27 hours; 95% CI, -3.03 to -1.50 hours; P < .001).ConclusionsMECC demonstrates clinical benefits compared with CECC. Further studies are required to perform a cost-utility analysis and to assess the long-term outcomes of MECC. These should use standardized definitions of endpoints such as mortality and renal failure to reduce inconsistency in outcome reporting.
| S-EPMC9390465 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) combining minimally invasive grafting of the left internal mammary artery to the left anterior descending artery with percutaneous coronary intervention has become a viable option for treating coronary artery disease. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare HCR with conventional coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in a range of clinical outcomes and hospital costs.To identify potential studies, systematic searches were carried out in various databases. The key search terms included "hybrid revascularization" AND "coronary artery bypass grafting" OR "HCR" OR "CABG." This was followed by a meta-analysis investigating the need for blood transfusion, hospital costs, ventilation time, hospital stay, cerebrovascular accident, myocardial infarction, mortality, postoperative atrial fibrillation, renal failure, operation duration, and ICU stay.The requirement for blood transfusion was significantly lower for HCR: odds ratio 0.38 (95% confidence intervals [CIs] 0.31-0.46, P?<?.00001) as was the hospital stay: mean difference (MD) -1.48 days (95% CI, -2.61 to -0.36, P?=?0.01) and the ventilation time: MD -8.99?hours (95% CI, -15.85 to -2.13, P?=?.01). On the contrary, hospital costs were more expensive for HCR: MD $3970 (95% CI, 2570-5370, P?<?.00001). All other comparisons were insignificant.In the short-term, HCR is as safe as conventional CABG and may offer certain benefits such as a lower requirement for blood transfusion and shorter hospital stays. However, HCR is more expensive than conventional CABG.
| S-EPMC6112891 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the effects between computer-assisted and traditional cannulated screw internal fixation on treating femoral neck fracture.MethodsThe search was conducted in Embase, Pubmed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and Wanfang Database from the beginning to August 2020. RevMan5.4 software, which was provided by the International Cochrane Group, was used for the meta-analysis comparing the differences in operation time, intraoperative bleeding volume, fluoroscopy frequency, fracture healing time, total drilling times, Harris score, fracture healing rate, and femoral head necrosis rate between computer-assisted and traditional methods groups.ResultsA total of 1028 patients were included in 16 studies. Primary outcome indicators: Compared with the traditional method group, the computer-assisted group had less operative time (2RCTs, P < 0.00001; 8 non-RCTs, P = 0.009; Overall, P < 0.00001), intraoperative bleeding (1 RCTs, P < 0.00001; 9non-RCTs, P < 0.00001; Overall, P < 0.00001), femoral head necrosis rate (1 RCT, P = 0.11;7 non-RCTs, P = 0.09; Overall, P = 0.02) and higher Harris scores (1 RCT, P < 0.0001; 9 non-RCTs, P = 0.0002; Overall, P < 0.0001), and there were no significant differences in fracture healing rate between the two groups (5 non-RCTs, P = 0.17). Secondary outcomes indicators: The computer-assisted group had a lower frequency of intraoperative fluoroscopy and total number of drills compared with the traditional method group, while there was no significant difference in fracture healing time.ConclusionCompared with the traditional hollow screw internal fixation on the treatment of femoral neck fracture, computer-assisted percutaneous cannulated screw fixation can shorten the operation time and improve the operation efficiency and reduce the X-ray injury of medical staff and help patients obtain a better prognosis. Therefore, computer-assisted percutaneous cannulated screw fixation is a better choice for the treatment of femoral neck fracture. Study registration PROSPERO registration number CRD42020214493.
| S-EPMC8607593 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To assess the safety and effectiveness of LESS compared to conventional hysterectomy.The systematic review and meta-analysis was performed according to the MOOSE guideline, and quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Different databases were searched up to 4th of August 2016. Randomized controlled trials and cohort studies comparing LESS to the conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy were considered for inclusion.Of the 668 unique articles, 23 were found relevant. We investigated safety by analyzing the complication rate and found no significant differences between both groups [OR 0.94 (0.61, 1.44), I 2 = 19%]. We assessed effectiveness by analyzing conversion risk, postoperative pain, and patient satisfaction. For conversion rates to laparotomy, no differences were identified [OR 1.60 (0.40, 6.38), I 2 = 45%]. In 3.5% of the cases in the LESS group, an additional port was needed during LESS. For postoperative pain scores and patient satisfaction, some of the included studies reported favorable results for LESS, but the clinical relevance was non-significant. Concerning secondary outcomes, only a difference in operative time was found in favor of the conventional group [MD 11.3 min (5.45-17.17), I 2 = 89%]. The quality of evidence for our primary outcomes was low or very low due to the study designs and lack of power for the specified outcomes. Therefore, caution is urged when interpreting the results.The single-port technique for benign hysterectomy is feasible, safe, and equally effective compared to the conventional technique. No clinically relevant advantages were identified, and as no data on cost effectiveness are available, there are currently not enough valid arguments to broadly implement LESS for hysterectomy.
| S-EPMC5388711 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and study aims Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) for colorectal polyps has been reported to have good outcomes in recent studies. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the effectiveness and safety of UEMR to conventional EMR (CEMR). Methods A comprehensive search of multiple databases (through May 2020) was performed to identify studies that reported outcome of UEMR and CEMR for colorectal lesions. Outcomes assessed included incomplete resection, rate of recurrence, en bloc resection, adverse events (AEs) for UEMR and CEMR. Results A total of 1,651 patients with 1,704 polyps were included from nine studies. There was a significantly lower rate of incomplete resection (odds ratio [OR]: 0.19 (95 % confidence interval (CI), 0.05-0.78, P = 0.02) and polyp recurrence (OR: 0.41, 95 % CI, 0.24-0.72, P = 0.002) after UEMR. Compared to CEMR, rates overall complications (relative risk [RR]: 0.66 (95 % CI, 0.48-0.90) ( P = 0.008), and intra-procedural bleeding (RR: 0.59, 95 % CI, 0.41-0.84, P = 0.004) were significantly lower with UEMR. The recurrence rate was also lower for large non-pedunculated polyps ≥ 10 mm (OR 0.24, 95 % CI, 0.10-0.57, P = 0.001) and ≥ 20 mm (OR 0.14, 95 % CI, 0.02-0.72, P = 0.01). The rates of en bloc resection, delayed bleeding, perforation and post-polypectomy syndrome were similar in both groups ( P > 0.05). Conclusions In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we found that UEMR is more effective and safer than CEMR with lower rates of recurrence and AEs. UEMR use should be encouraged over CEMR.
| S-EPMC7695518 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLiposome bupivacaine (LB) is a long-acting anesthetic to enhance postoperative analgesia. Studies evaluating the efficacy of the LB against an active comparator (bupivacaine or placebo) on acute postoperative pain control in hemorrhoidectomy procedures are few and heterogeneous. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing LB's analgesic efficacy and side effects to conventional/placebo anesthetic in hemorrhoidectomy patients.MethodsWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials investigating the use of LB after haemorrhoidectomy. We searched the literature published from the time of inception of the datasets to August 19, 2022. The electronic databases included English publications in Ovid MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, and Scopus.ResultsA total of 338 patients who underwent a hemorrhoidectomy procedure enrolled in three randomized clinical trials were included. The overall mean age was 45.84 years (SD ± 11.43), and there was a male predominance (53.55% male). In total 194 patients (52.2%) received LB and 144 (47.8%) received either bupivacaine or placebo. Pain scores at 72 h in the LB (199, 266, and 300 mg) were significantly lower than in the bupivacaine HCl group (p = 0.002). Compared to the bupivacaine/placebo group, the time to first use of opioids in the LB group was significantly longer at LB 199 mg (11 h vs. 9 h), LB 266 mg (19 h vs. 9 h), and LB 300 mg (19 h vs. 8 h) (p < 0.05). Moreover, compared to the bupivacaine/epinephrine group, it was significantly lower in the LB 266 mg group (3.7 vs. 10.2 mg) and at LB 300 mg (13 vs. 33 mg) (p < 0.05). Finally, regarding adverse effects, the conventional anesthetic/placebo group reported more pain in bowel movement than LB groups (OR 2.60, 95% CI 1.31-5.16).ConclusionsComparing LB to conventional anesthetic/placebo anesthetic for hemorrhoidectomy, we found a statistically significant reduction in pain through 72 h, decreased opioid requirements, and delayed time to first opioid use. Moreover, the conventional anesthetic/placebo group reported more pain in bowel movement than LB groups.
| S-EPMC10830612 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10675920 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNecrotizing fasciitis is a rapid and severe soft tissue infection that targets subcutaneous fat tissue, muscle, and fascia. This study compares the clinical outcomes of vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) versus conventional dressing on necrotizing fasciitis.MethodsWe systematically searched Embase, Cochrane, and PubMed for clinical trials (published between January 1, 1995 and September 30, 2021), which compared VAC with conventional dressing for necrotizing fasciitis. The mortality rate of necrotizing fasciitis was the primary outcome of this study. The number of debridements, the total length of hospital stay, and the complication rate were secondary outcomes. A random effects model assessed all pooled data.ResultsA total of 230 identified studies and seven controlled clinical trials met the inclusion criteria and were included in this analysis (n = 249 participants). Compared to the conventional dressing, patients treated with VAC had a significantly lower mortality rate [OR = 0.27, 95% CI (0.09, 0.87)] (P = 0.03). Total length of hospital stays [MD = 8.46, 95% CI (- 0.53, 17.45)] (P = 0.07), number of debridements [MD = 0.86, 95% CI (- 0.58, 2.30)] (P = 0.24), and complication rate [OR = 0.64, 95% CI (0.07, 5.94)] (P = 0.69) were not significant. These results did not show significant differences between both groups treated with VAC or conventional treatment.ConclusionVAC could significantly decrease the death rate compared to conventional dressing. No significant impacts were found on the number of debridements, the total length of hospital stay, and the complication rate in this study. Level of evidence Level-III. Registration Research Registry (reviewregistry1246).
| S-EPMC9898985 | biostudies-literature