Dataset Information

Systematic review and meta-analysis of modified facelift incision versus modified Blair incision in parotidectomy.

ABSTRACT: Surgical removal is the treatment of choice for many neoplasms of the parotid gland. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the differences between parotidectomy using a modified facelift incision (MFI) and parotidectomy using a modified Blair incision (MBI). A systematic search of the available literature in PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library was performed. Studies of adult patients who underwent open parotidectomy with presumed benign parotid neoplasms based on preoperative examinations were reviewed. The surgical outcomes of the MFI and MBI groups were collected. Intraoperative and postoperative parameters, including operative time, tumor size, cosmetic satisfaction, and incidences of facial palsy, Frey's syndrome and salivary complications, were compared. Dichotomous data and continuous data were analyzed by calculating the risk difference (RD) and the mean difference (MD) with the 95% confidence interval (CI), respectively. Seven studies were included in the final analysis. The pooled analysis demonstrated that the cosmetic satisfaction score was significantly higher in the MFI group (MD = 1.66; 95% CI 0.87-2.46). The operative duration in the MFI group was significantly longer than that in the MBI group (MD = 0.07; 95% CI 0.00-0.14). The MFI group exhibited a smaller tumor size (MD = - 2.27; 95% CI - 4.25 to - 0.30) and a lower incidence of Frey's syndrome (RD = - 0.18; 95% CI - 0.27 to - 0.10). The incidence of postoperative temporary facial palsy (RD = - 0.05; 95% CI - 0.12 to 0.03), permanent facial palsy (RD = - 0.01; 95% CI - 0.06 to 0.03) and salivary complications (RD = - 0.00; 95% CI - 0.05 to 0.05) was comparable between the two groups. Based on these results, MFI may be a feasible technique for improving the cosmetic results of patients who need parotidectomy when oncological safety can be ensured.

SUBMITTER: Lee YC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8677756 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThis network meta-analysis aimed to comprehensively compare the operative and postoperative outcomes of different parotidectomy incisions.MethodsEmbase, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched up to April 2022. A complete Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed using the Markov Monte Carlo method in OpenBUGS.ResultsSeventeen studies with 1609 patients were included. Thirteen were retrospective cohort studies, three were prospective cohort studies, and one was a randomized controlled study. The quality of evidence was rated as very low in most comparisons. The incision satisfaction score of the modified facelift incision (MFI), retroauricular hairline incision (RAHI), V-shaped incision (VI) were higher than that of the modified Blair incision (MBI) (MBI vs. MFI: mean difference [MD] -1.39; 95% credible interval [CrI] -2.23, -0.57) (MBI vs. RAHI: MD -2.25; 95% CrI -3.40, -1.12) (MBI vs. VI: MD -2.58; 95% CrI -3.71, -1.46); the tumor size treated by VI was smaller than that by MBI (MD 5.15; 95% CrI 0.76, 9.38) and MFI (MD 5.16; 95% CrI 0.34, 9.86); and the risk of transient facial palsy in the MFI was lower than that in the MBI (OR 2.13; 95% CrI 1.28, 3.64). There were no differences in operation time, drainage volume, wound infection, hematoma, salivary complications, Frey syndrome, or permanent facial palsy between incision types.ConclusionThe traditional MBI is frequently used for large tumor volumes, but the incision satisfaction score is low and postoperative complication control is poor. However, emerging incisions performed well in terms of incision satisfaction scores and control of complications. More randomized controlled trials are needed to compare the different parotidectomy incisions. Patients should be fully informed about the characteristics of each incision to make the most informed decision, along with the physician's advice.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO, identifier CRD42022331756.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Single-incision laparoscopic colectomy (SILC) requires only one umbilical port site and (depending on technique) a specimen extraction site. The aim of this study was the assessment of the available evidence for the comparison of SILC to conventional multi-port laparoscopic colectomy (MLC) in adult patients, in whom elective colectomy is indicated because of malignant or benign disease. First, previous meta-analyses on this topic were assessed. Secondly, a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials, was performed. METHODS:Electronic literature searches (CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE; up to March 2016) were performed. Additionally, we searched clinical trials registries and abstracts from surgical society meetings. For meta-analysis, risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD) with 95 % confidence intervals were calculated and pooled. The quality of previous meta-analyses was evaluated against established criteria (AMSTAR) and their reported results were investigated for consistency. RESULTS:We identified 6 previous meta-analyses of mostly low methodological quality (AMSTAR total score: 2 - 5 out of 11 items). To fill the evidence gaps, all these meta-analyses had included non-randomised studies, but usually without assessing their risk of bias. In our systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials exclusively, we included two randomised controlled trials with a total of 82 colorectal cancer patients. There was insufficient evidence to clarify whether SILC leads to less local complications (RR?=?0.52, 95 % CI 0.14 - 1.94) or lower mortality (1 death per treatment group). Length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the SILC group (MD?=?-1.20 days, 95 % CI -1.95 to -0.44). One of the two studies found postoperative pain intensity to be lower at the first day. We also identified 7 ongoing trials with a total sample size of over 1000 patients. CONCLUSION:The currently available study results are too sparse to detect (or rule out) relevant differences between SILC and MLC. The quality of the current evidence is low, and the additional analysis of non-randomised data attempts, but does not solve this problem. SILC should still be considered as an experimental procedure, since the evidence of well-designed randomised controlled trials is too sparse to allow any recommendation.

Project description:PurposeThe goal of this study was to compare small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) with femtosecond laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK) for treating myopia.MethodsThe CENTRAL, EMBASE, PubMed databases and a Chinese database (SinoMed) were searched in May of 2016. Twelve studies with 1,076 eyes, which included three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nine cohorts, met our inclusion criteria. The overall quality of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) working group framework. Data were extracted and analysed at three to six months postoperatively. Primary outcome measures included a loss of one or more lines of best spectacle corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) of 20/20 or better, mean logMAR UCVA, postoperative mean spherical equivalent (SE) and postoperative refraction within ±1.0 D of the target refraction. Secondary outcome measures included ocular surface disease index (OSDI), tear breakup time (TBUT) and Schirmer's 1 test (S1T) as dry eye parameters, along with corneal sensitivity.ResultsThe overall quality of evidence was considered to be low to very low. Pooled results revealed no significant differences between the two groups with regard to a loss of one or more lines in the BSCVA (OR 1.71; 95% CI: 0.81, 3.63; P = 0.16), UCVA of 20/20 or better (OR 0.71; 95% CI: 0.44, 1.15; P = 0.16), logMAR UCVA (MD 0.00; 95% CI: -0.03, 0.04; P = 0.87), postoperative refractive SE (MD -0.00; 95% CI: -0.05, 0.05; P = 0.97) or postoperative refraction within ±1.0 D of the target refraction (OR 0.78; 95% CI: 0.22, 2.77; P = 0.70) within six months postoperatively. The pooled analysis also indicated that the FS-LASIK group suffered more severely from dry eye symptoms (OSDI; MD -6.68; 95% CI: -11.76, -2.00; P = 0.006) and lower corneal sensitivity (MD 12.40; 95% CI: 10.23, 14.56; P < 0.00001) at six months postoperatively.ConclusionsIn conclusion, both FS-LASIK and SMILE are safe, effective and predictable surgical options for treating myopia. However, dry eye symptoms and loss of corneal sensitivity may occur less frequently after SMILE than after FS-LASIK.

Dataset Information

Systematic review and meta-analysis of modified facelift incision versus modified Blair incision in parotidectomy.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets