Updated Evaluation of Laparoscopic vs. Open Appendicectomy During Pregnancy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Zhang J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8495069 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundLaparoscopic appendicectomy has gained wide acceptance as an alternative to open appendicectomy during pregnancy. However, data regarding the safety and optimal surgical approach to appendicitis in pregnancy are still controversial.MethodsThis was a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing laparoscopic and open appendicectomy in pregnancy identified using PubMed and Scopus search engines from January 1990 to July 2011. Two reviewers independently extracted data on fetal loss, preterm delivery, wound infection, duration of operation, hospital stay, Apgar score and birth weight between laparoscopic and open appendicectomy groups.ResultsEleven studies with a total of 3415 women (599 in laparoscopic and 2816 in open group) were included in the analysis. Fetal loss was statistically significantly worse in those who underwent laparoscopy compared with open appendicectomy; the pooled relative risk (RR) was 1·91 (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 1·31 to 2·77) without heterogeneity. The pooled RR for preterm labour was 1·44 (0·68 to 3·06), but this risk was not statistically significant. The mean difference in length of hospital stay was - 0·49 (-1·76 to - 0·78) days, but this was not clinically significant. No significant difference was found for wound infection, birth weight, duration of operation or Apgar score.ConclusionThe available low-grade evidence suggests that laparoscopic appendicectomy in pregnant women might be associated with a greater risk of fetal loss.
| S-EPMC3494303 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The treatment of periampullary and pancreatic head neoplasms is evolving. While minimally invasive Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) has gained worldwide interest, there has been a debate on its related outcomes. The purpose of this paper was to provide an updated evidence comparing short-term surgical and oncologic outcomes within Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy (OpenPD), Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy (LapPD), and Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy (RobPD). MEDLINE, Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Central Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were referred for systematic search. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was executed. Forty-one articles (56,440 patients) were included; 48,382 (85.7%) underwent OpenPD, 5570 (9.8%) LapPD, and 2488 (4.5%) RobPD. Compared to OpenPD, LapPD and RobPD had similar postoperative mortality [Risk Ratio (RR) = 1.26; 95%CrI 0.91-1.61 and RR = 0.78; 95%CrI 0.54-1.12)], clinically relevant (grade B/C) postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) (RR = 1.12; 95%CrI 0.82-1.43 and RR = 0.87; 95%CrI 0.64-1.14, respectively), and severe (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3) postoperative complications (RR = 1.03; 95%CrI 0.80-1.46 and RR = 0.93; 95%CrI 0.65-1.14, respectively). Compared to OpenPD, both LapPD and RobPD had significantly reduced hospital length-of-stay, estimated blood loss, infectious, pulmonary, overall complications, postoperative bleeding, and hospital readmission. No differences were found in the number of retrieved lymph nodes and R0. OpenPD, LapPD, and RobPD seem to be comparable across clinically relevant POPF, severe complications, postoperative mortality, retrieved lymphnodes, and R0. LapPD and RobPD appears to be safer in terms of infectious, pulmonary, and overall complications with reduced hospital readmission We advocate surgeons to choose their preferred surgical approach according to their expertise, however, the adoption of minimally invasive techniques may possibly improve patients' outcomes.
| S-EPMC8184540 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There is ongoing debate regarding the usefulness of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy. This study aimed to analyze all the randomized control trials published including the most recent one. The study was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement and MOOSE guidelines. Heterogeneity was measured using Q tests and I 2. The random-effects models were used to summarize the relative risks, odds ratios, and mean differences as appropriate. Four RCTs were included consisting of 818 patients. Four hundred eleven patients were in the laparoscopic group and 407 in the open pancreaticoduodenectomy group. Weighted baseline patient characteristics were similar except more patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma and more males were there in the open pancreaticoduodenectomy group. There was no difference in-hospital stay, 90-day complication rate, 90-day mortality, R1 resection, postoperative pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, and bile leak between the two groups. Operative time was more in the laparoscopic group. Blood loss [mean difference - 132.12 ml (- 172.60, - 91.65)] and surgical site infection [risk ratio 0.41 (0.17-1.0)] were significantly lesser in laparoscopic group. There was no benefit in-hospital stay or clinical outcomes after laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Blood loss and surgical site infection were lesser in laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13193-022-01572-0.
| S-EPMC9845471 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of right hemicolectomy with CME performed with laparoscopic and open surgery.MethodsPubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data, Google Scholar and the ClinicalTrials.gov register were searched. Primary outcome was the overall number of harvested lymph nodes. Secondary outcomes were short and long-term course variables. A meta-analysis was performed to calculate risk ratios.ResultsTwenty-one studies were identified with 5038 patients enrolled. The difference in number of harvested lymph nodes was not statistically significant (MD 0.68, - 0.41-1.76, P = 0.22). The only RCT shows a significant advantage in favour of laparoscopy (MD 3.30, 95% CI - 0.20-6.40, P = 0.04). The analysis of CCTs showed an advantage in favour of the laparoscopic group, but the result was not statically significantly (MD - 0.55, 95% CI - 0.57-1.67, P = 0.33). The overall incidence of local recurrence was not different between the groups, while systemic recurrence at 5 years was lower in laparoscopic group. Laparoscopy showed better short-term outcomes including overall complications, lower estimated blood loss, lower wound infections and shorter hospital stay, despite a longer operative time. The rate of anastomotic and chyle leak was similar in the two groups.ConclusionsDespite the several limitations of this study, we found that the median number of lymph node harvested in the laparoscopic group is not different compared to open surgery. Laparoscopy was associated with a lower incidence of systemic recurrence.
| S-EPMC8280018 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The feasible of minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) remains controversial when compared with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). We conducted a systemic review and meta-analysis to summarise the available evidence to compare MIPD vs OPD. We systemically searched PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science for studies published through February 2016. The primary endpoint was postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF, grade B/C). A total of 27 studies involving 14,231 patients (2,377 MIPD and 11,854 OPD) were included. MIPD was associated with longer operative times (P?<?0.01) and increased mortality (P?<?0.01), but decreased estimated blood loss (P?<?0.01), decreased delayed gastric emptying (P?<?0.01), increased R0 resection rate (P?<?0.01), decreased wound infection (P?=?0.03) and shorter hospital stays (P?<?0.01). There were no significant differences in BMI (P?=?0.43), tumor size (P?=?0.17), lymph nodes harvest (P?=?0.57), POPF (P?=?0.84), reoperation (P?=?0.25) and 5-year survival rates (P?=?0.82) for MIPD compared with OPD. Although there was an increased operative cost (P?<?0.01) for MIPD compared with OPD, the postoperative cost was less (P?<?0.01) with the similar total costs (P?=?0.28). MIPD can be a reasonable alternative to OPD with the potential advantage of being minimally invasive. However, MIPD should be performed in high-volume centers and more randomized-controlled trials are needed to evaluate the appropriate indications of MIPD.
| S-EPMC5440387 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:To analyze pathologic and perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic vs. open resections for rectal cancer performed over the last 10 years. METHODS:A systematic literature search of the following databases was conducted: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE (through PubMed), EMBASE, and Scopus. Only articles published in English from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2018 (i.e. the last 10 years), which met inclusion criteria were considered. The review only included articles which compared Laparoscopic rectal resection (LRR) and Open Rectal Resection (ORR) for rectal cancer and reported at least one of the outcomes of interest. The analyses followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement checklist. Only prospective randomized studies were considered. The body of evidence emerging from this study was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Outcome measures (mean and median values, standard deviations, and interquartile ranges) were extracted for each surgical treatment. Pooled estimates of the mean differences were calculated using random effects models to consider potential inter-study heterogeneity and to adopt a more conservative approach. The pooled effect was considered significant if p <0.05. RESULTS:Five clinical trials were found eligible for the analyses. A positive involvement of CRM was found in 49 LRRs (8.5%) out of 574 patients and in 30 ORRs out of 557 patients (5.4%) RR was 1.55 (95% CI, 0.99-2.41; p = 0.05) with no heterogeneity (I2 = 0%). Incorrect mesorectal excision was observed in 56 out of 507 (11%) patients who underwent LRR and in 41 (8.4%) out of 484 patients who underwent ORR; RR was 1.30 (95% CI, 0.89-1.91; p = 0.18) with no heterogeneity (I2 = 0%). Regarding other pathologic outcomes, no significant difference between LRR and ORR was observed in the number of lymph nodes harvested or concerning the distance to the distal margin. As expected, a significant difference was found in the operating time for ORR with a mean difference of 41.99 (95% CI, 24.18, 59.81; p <0.00001; heterogeneity: I2 = 25%). However, no difference was found for blood loss. Additionally, no significant differences were found in postoperative outcomes such as postoperative hospital stay and postoperative complications. The overall quality of the evidence was rated as high. CONCLUSION:Despite the spread of laparoscopy with dedicated surgeons and the development of even more precise surgical tools and technologies, the pathological results of laparoscopic surgery are still comparable to those of open ones. Additionally, concerning the pathological data (and particularly CRM), open surgery guarantees better results as compared to laparoscopic surgery. These results must be a starting point for future evaluations which consider the association between ''successful resection" and long-term oncologic outcomes. The introduction of other minimally invasive techniques for rectal cancer surgery, such as robotic resection or transanal TME (taTME), has revealed new scenarios and made open and even laparoscopic surgery obsolete.
| S-EPMC7386630 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) with those of open distal gastrectomy (ODG) for patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC) who exclusively underwent distal gastrectomy and D2 lymphadenectomy in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).BackgroundData in published meta-analyses that included different gastrectomy types and mixed tumor stages prevented an accurate comparison between LDG and ODG. Recently, several RCTs that compared LDG with ODG included AGC patients specifically for distal gastrectomy, with D2 lymphadenectomy being reported and updated with the long-term outcomes.MethodsPubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched to identify RCTs for comparing LDG with ODG for advanced distal gastric cancer. Short-term surgical outcomes and mortality, morbidity, and long-term survival were compared. The Cochrane tool and GRADE approach were used for evaluating the quality of evidence (Prospero registration ID: CRD42022301155).ResultsFive RCTs consisting of a total of 2,746 patients were included. Meta-analyses showed no significant differences in terms of intraoperative complications, overall morbidity, severe postoperative complications, R0 resection, D2 lymphadenectomy, recurrence, 3-year disease-free survival, intraoperative blood transfusion, time to first liquid diet, time to first ambulation, distal margin, reoperation, mortality, or readmission between LDG and ODG. Operative times were significantly longer for LDG [weighted mean difference (WMD) 49.2 min, p < 0.05], whereas harvested lymph nodes, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, time to first flatus, and proximal margin were lower for LDG (WMD -1.3, p < 0.05; WMD -33.6 mL, p < 0.05; WMD -0.7 day, p < 0.05; WMD -0.2 day, p < 0.05; WMD -0.4 mm, p < 0.05). Intra-abdominal fluid collection and bleeding were found to be less after LDG. Certainty of evidence ranged from moderate to very low.ConclusionsData from five RCTs suggest that LDG with D2 lymphadenectomy for AGC has similar short-term surgical outcomes and long-term survival to ODG when performed by experienced surgeons in hospitals contending with high patient volumes. It can be concluded that RCTs should highlight the potential advantages of LDG for AGC.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO, registration number CRD42022301155.
| S-EPMC9982133 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo critically review the currently available evidence of studies comparing robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) with open radical cystectomy (ORC).MethodsA comprehensive review of the literature from Pubmed, Web of Science and Scopus was performed in April 2014. All relevant studies comparing RARC with ORC were included for further screening. A pooled meta-analysis of all comparative studies was performed and publication bias was assessed by a funnel plot.ResultsNineteen studies were included for the analysis, including a total of 1779 patients (787 patients in the RARC group and 992 patients in the ORC group). Although RARC was associated with longer operative time (p <0.0001), patients in this group might benefit from significantly lower overall perioperative complication rates within 30 days and 90 days (p = 0.005 and 0.0002, respectively), more lymph node yields (p = 0.009), less estimated blood loss (p <0.00001), lower need for perioperative and intraoperative transfusions (p <0.0001 and <0.0001, respectively), and shorter postoperative length of stay (p = 0.0002). There was no difference between two groups regarding positive surgical margin rates (p = 0.19).ConclusionsRARC appears to be an efficient alternative to ORC with advantages of less perioperative complications, more lymph node yields, less estimated blood loss, lower need for transfusions, and shorter postoperative length of stay. Further studies should be performed to compare the long-term oncologic outcomes between RARC and ORC.
| S-EPMC4380496 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction and aimsThe optimal approach for nephroureterectomy in patients with suspected UTUC remains a point of debate. In this review, we compare the oncological outcomes of robotic nephroureterectomy (RNU) with open (ONU) or laparoscopic nephroureterectomy (LNU).MethodsAll randomized trials and observational studies comparing RNU with ONU and/or LNU for suspected non-metastatic UTUC are included in this review. The systematic review was performed in accordance with the Cochrane Guidelines and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The primary outcome measures were overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), disease-free survival (DFS), and intravesical recurrence-free survival (IV-RFS). The secondary outcome measures were the lymph node dissection (LND) rates, positive margin rates, and the proportion of patients receiving bladder intravesical chemotherapy.ResultsWe identified 8172 references through our electronic searches and 8 studies through manual searching. A total of 15 studies met the inclusion criteria. The total number of patients in the review was 18,964. RNU had superior OS compared to LNU (HR: 0.81 (95% CI: 0.71, 0.93), p-0.002 (very low certainty)). RNU and ONU had similar OS (HR: 0.83 (95% CI: 0.52, 1.34), p-0.44 (very low certainty)). One study reported an independent association of RNU as a worse predictor of IV-RFS when compared to ONU (HR-1.73 (95% CI: 1.22, 2.45)). The LND rates were higher in the RNU cohort when compared to the LNU cohort (RR 1.24 (95% CI: 1.03, 1.51), p-0.03 (low certainty)). The positive margin rate was lower in the RNU cohort when compared to the ONU cohort (RR 0.29 (95% CI: 0.08, 0.86), p-0.03 (low certainty)).ConclusionRNU offers comparable oncological efficacy to ONU, except for intravesical recurrence-free survival (IV-RFS). RNU has fewer positive surgical margin rates compared to ONU in well-balanced studies. RNU appears to outperform LNU for certain oncological parameters, such as OS and the proportion of patients who receive lymph node dissections. The quality of evidence comparing surgical techniques for UTUC has remained poor in the last decade.
| S-EPMC10605607 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Laparoscopic repair (LR) for perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) has been introduced since 1990. Although many studies comparing LR with open repair (OR) have been published, controversy remains regarding the clinical utility of laparoscopic techniques for the treatment of PPU. Thus, it is necessary for us to broaden our knowledge on this subject with the newly published articles. Twenty-four nonrandomized controlled studies (NRS) and five randomized controlled trails (RCTs) were included in our meta-analyses, which comprised 5,268 patients (1,890 in the LR group and 3,378 in the OR group). In the analysis of high quality NRS and RCTs, compared with OR, high quality evidence suggested that LR was associated with a lower incidence of overall postoperative complications; moderate evidence showed that the two procedures had the similar reoperation rate; based on the low quality evidence, LR had reduced hospital mortality and similar operative time; Moreover, LR was observed having the advantages of earlier resumption of oral intake, shorter hospital stay and less analgesic use, which were supported by very low evidence. All the evidences suggest that LR is better than OR for PPU, but more high-quality RCTs are still needed for further validation.
| S-EPMC4563564 | biostudies-other