Dataset Information

Complete Versus Incomplete Surgical Resection in Intramedullary Ependymomas: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Study design

Systematic review.

Objective

To compare outcomes of complete versus incomplete resection in primary intramedullary spinal cord ependymoma.

Methods

A comprehensive search of the MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and Embase databases was conducted by 2 independent investigators. Random-effect meta-analysis and meta-regression with seven covariates were performed to evaluate the reason for the heterogeneity among studies. We also used individual patient data in the integrative analysis to compare complete and incomplete resection based on 4 outcomes: progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), postoperative neurological improvement (PNI), and follow-up neurological improvement (FNI).

Results

A total of 23 studies were identified, including 407 cases. Significant heterogeneity among included studies was observed in risk estimates (I² for PFS, FNI, and PNI were 49.5%, 78.3%, and 87.2%, respectively). The mean follow-up time across cases was 48.6 ± 2.35 months. Cox proportional multivariable analysis revealed that the complete resection can prolong PFS (model, hazard ratio = 0.18, CI 0.05-0.54, P = .004,) and improve the FNI (binary logistic regression, adjusted odds ratio = 16.5, CI 1.6-171, P = .019). However, PNI and OS were similar in patients with incomplete resected spinal cord ependymoma compared with complete resection (binary logistic regression respectively and Cox multivariable analysis, P > .5).

Conclusion

The data presented in this study showed that OS was not significantly affected by the degree of surgery. However, complete resection of intramedullary ependymomas provides the optimal outcomes with longer PFS and better long-term neurological outcomes than incomplete resection.

SUBMITTER: Salari F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8165927 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Surgical and non-surgical interventions are the two categories for treatment of vertebral compression fractures (VCFs). However, there is clinical uncertainty over optimal management. This study aimed to examine the safety and effectiveness of surgical management for treatment of VCFs with osteopenia compared with non-surgical treatment. METHODS:We conducted a systematic search through electronic databases from inception to June 2014, with no limits on study data or language. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating surgical versus non-surgical interventions for treatment of patients with VCFs due to osteopenia were considered. Primary outcomes were pain and adverse effects. A random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled mean difference (MD) or risk ratios with 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS:Sixteen reports (11 studies) met the inclusion criteria, and provided data for the meta-analysis with a total of 1,401 participants. Compared with conservative treatment, surgical treatment was more effective in reducing pain (short-term: MD -2.05, 95% CI -3.55 to -0.56, P=0.007; mid-term: MD -1.70, 95% CI -2.78 to -0.62, P=0.002; long-term: MD -1.24, 95% CI -2.20 to -0.29, P=0.01) and disability on the Roland-Morris Disability score (short-term: MD -4.97, 95% CI -8.71 to -1.23, P=0.009), as well as improving quality of life on the Short-Form 36 Physical Component Summary score (short-term: MD 5.53, 95% CI 1.45 to 9.61, P=0.008) and the Quality of Life Questionnaire of the European Foundation for Osteoporosis score (short-term: MD -5.01, 95% CI -8.11 to -1.91, P=0.002). Indirect comparisons between vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty found no evidence that the treatment effect differed across the two interventions for any outcomes assessed. Compared with the sham procedure, surgical treatment showed no evidence of improvement in pain relief and physical function. Based on these two comparisons, no significant difference between groups was noted in the pooled results for adverse events. CONCLUSION:Compared to conservative treatment, surgical treatment was more effective in decreasing pain in the short,mid and long terms. However, no significant mid- and long-term differences in physical function and quality of life was observed. Little good evidence is available for surgical treatment compared with that for sham procedure. PV and BK are currently used to treat VCFs with osteopenia, with little difference in treatment effects. Evidence of better quality and from a larger sample size is required before a recommendation can be made. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO PROSPERO registration number: CRD42013005142.

Project description:Surgical resection is crucial for curative treatment of rectal cancer. Through multidisciplinary treatment, including radiochemotherapy and total mesorectal excision, survival has improved substantially. Consequently, more patients have to deal with side effects of treatment. The most recently introduced surgical technique is robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) which seems equally effective in terms of oncological control compared to laparoscopy. However, RAS enables further advantages which maximize the precision of surgery, thus providing better functional outcomes such as sexual function or contience without compromising oncological results. This review was done according to the PRISMA and AMSTAR-II guidelines and registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018104519). The search was planned with PICO criteria and conducted on Medline, Web of Science and CENTRAL. All screening steps were performed by two independent reviewers. Inclusion criteria were original, comparative studies for laparoscopy vs. RAS for rectal cancer and reporting of functional outcomes. Quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The search retrieved 9703 hits, of which 51 studies with 24,319 patients were included. There was a lower rate of urinary retention (non-RCTs: Odds ratio (OR) [95% Confidence Interval (CI)] 0.65 [0.46, 0.92]; RCTs: OR[CI] 1.29[0.08, 21.47]), ileus (non-RCTs: OR[CI] 0.86[0.75, 0.98]; RCTs: OR[CI] 0.80[0.33, 1.93]), less urinary symptoms (non-RCTs mean difference (MD) [CI] - 0.60 [- 1.17, - 0.03]; RCTs: - 1.37 [- 4.18, 1.44]), and higher quality of life for RAS (only non-RCTs: MD[CI]: 2.99 [2.02, 3.95]). No significant differences were found for sexual function (non-RCTs: standardized MD[CI]: 0.46[- 0.13, 1.04]; RCTs: SMD[CI]: 0.09[- 0.14, 0.31]). The current meta-analysis suggests potential benefits for RAS over laparoscopy in terms of functional outcomes after rectal cancer resection. The current evidence is limited due to non-randomized controlled trials and reporting of functional outcomes as secondary endpoints.

Project description:BackgroundHome-based peritoneal dialysis (PD) is an alternative to facility-based hemodialysis and has lower costs and greater freedom for patients with kidney failure. For a patient to undergo PD, a safe and reliable method of accessing the peritoneum is needed. However, different catheter insertion techniques may affect patient health outcomes.ObjectiveTo compare the risk of infectious and mechanical complications between surgical (open and laparoscopic) PD catheter insertion and percutaneous catheter insertion.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.SettingWe searched for observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, and SCOPUS from inception until June 2018. Data were extracted by 2 independent reviewers based on a preformed template.PatientsAdult (aged 18+) patients with kidney failure who underwent a PD catheter insertion procedure.MeasurementsWe analyzed leak, malfunction, and bleed as early complications (occurring within 1 month of catheter insertion). Infectious complications (exit-site infections, tunnel infections, and peritonitis) were presented as both early complications and with the longest duration of follow-up.MethodsRandom effects meta-analyses with the generic inverse variance method to estimate pooled rate ratios and 95% confidence intervals. We quantified heterogeneity by using the I2 statistic for inconsistency and assessed heterogeneity using the χ2 test. Sensitivity analysis was performed by removing studies at high risk of bias as measured with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool.ResultsTwenty-four studies (22 observational, 2 RCTs) with 3108 patients and 3777 catheter insertions were selected. Data from 2 studies were unable to be extracted and were qualitatively assessed. In the remaining 22 studies, percutaneous insertion was associated with a lower risk of both exit-site infections (risk ratio [RR] = 0.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.24-0.53, I2 = 0%) and peritonitis (RR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.36-0.77, I2 = 3%) within 1 month of the procedure. There was no difference in mechanical complication rates between the 2 techniques.LimitationsLack of consistency in the time periods for the various outcomes reported, risk of bias concerns with respect to population comparability, and the inability to analyze individual component causes of primary nonfunction (catheter obstruction, catheter migration, and leak).ConclusionsOur meta-analysis suggests differences in early infectious complications in favor of percutaneous insertion and no significant differences in mechanical complications compared with surgical insertion. These findings have implications on the direction of PD programs in terms of maximizing operating room resources.