Minimally Invasive versus Open Cervical Foraminotomy: A Systematic Review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Clark JG
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3864482 | biostudies-other | 2011 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionMinimally invasive surgery for discectomy may accelerate recovery and reduce pain, but it also requires technical expertise and is associated with increased risks. We performed a meta-analysis to determine the effects of minimally invasive versus open surgery on functional outcomes, pain, complications and reoperations among patients undergoing cervical or lumbar discectomy.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library for reports of relevant randomized controlled trials published to Jan. 12, 2014. Two reviewers assessed the eligibility of potential reports and the risk of bias of included trials. We analyzed functional outcomes and pain using standardized mean differences (SMDs) that were weighted and pooled using a random-effects model.ResultsWe included 4 trials in the cervical discectomy group (n = 431) and 10 in the lumbar discectomy group (n = 1159). Evidence overall was of low to moderate quality. We found that minimally invasive surgery did not improve long-term function (cervical: SMD 0.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.09 to 0.31; lumbar: SMD 0.04, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.20) or reduce long-term extremity pain (cervical: SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.52 to 0.10; lumbar: SMD 0.08, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.32) compared with open surgery. The evidence suggested overall higher rates of nerve-root injury (risk ratio [RR] 1.62, 95% CI 0.45 to 5.84), incidental durotomy (RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.80 to 3.05) and reoperation (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.26) with minimally invasive surgery than with open surgery. Infections were more common with open surgery than with minimally invasive surgery (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.38), although the difference was not statistically significant.InterpretationCurrent evidence does not support the routine use of minimally invasive surgery for cervical or lumbar discectomy. Well-designed trials are needed given the lack of high-quality evidence.
| S-EPMC4251505 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe purpose of this systematic review was to compare minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) versus open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) by using meta-analytical techniques.MethodologyMedline, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched for eligible studies. Data from included studies were extracted for the following outcomes: operative time, overall morbidity, pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, blood loss, postoperative hemorrhage, yield of harvested lymph nodes, R1 rate, length of hospital stay, and readmissions. Random and fix effect meta-analyses were undertaken.ResultsInitial reference search yielded 747 articles. Thorough evaluation resulted in 12 papers, which were analyzed. The total number of patients was 2186 (705 in MIPD group and 1481 in OPD). Although there were no differences in overall morbidity between groups, we noticed reduced blood loss, delayed gastric emptying, and length of hospital stay in favor of MIPD. In contrary, meta-analysis of operative time revealed significant differences in favor of open procedures. Remaining parameters did not differ among groups.ConclusionOur review suggests that although MIPD takes longer, it may be associated with reduced blood loss, shortened LOS, and comparable rate of perioperative complications. Due to heterogeneity of included studies and differences in baseline characteristics between analyzed groups, the analysis of short-term oncological outcomes does not allow drawing unequivocal conclusions.
| S-EPMC5506213 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Minimally invasive esophagectomy is increasingly performed for the treatment of esophageal cancer, but it is unclear whether hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (HMIE) or totally minimally invasive esophagectomy (TMIE) should be preferred. The objective of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of studies comparing HMIE with TMIE. A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Articles comparing HMIE and TMIE were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used for critical appraisal of methodological quality. The primary outcome was pneumonia. Sensitivity analysis was performed by analyzing outcome for open chest hybrid MIE versus total TMIE and open abdomen MIE versus TMIE separately. Therefore, subgroup analysis was performed for laparoscopy-assisted HMIE versus TMIE, thoracoscopy-assisted HMIE versus TMIE, Ivor Lewis HMIE versus Ivor Lewis TMIE, and McKeown HMIE versus McKeown TMIE. There were no randomized controlled trials. Twenty-nine studies with a total of 3732 patients were included. Studies had a low to moderate risk of bias. In the main analysis, the pooled incidence of pneumonia was 19.0% after HMIE and 9.8% after TMIE which was not significantly different between the groups (RR: 1.46, 95% CI: 0.97-2.20). TMIE was associated with a lower incidence of wound infections (RR: 1.81, 95% CI: 1.13-2.90) and less blood loss (SMD: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.34-1.22) but with longer operative time (SMD:-0.33, 95% CI: -0.59--0.08). In subgroup analysis, laparoscopy-assisted HMIE was associated with a higher lymph node count than TMIE, and Ivor Lewis HMIE was associated with a lower anastomotic leakage rate than Ivor Lewis TMIE. In general, TMIE was associated with moderately lower morbidity compared to HMIE, but randomized controlled evidence is lacking. The higher leakage rate and lower lymph node count that was found after TMIE in sensitivity analysis indicate that TMIE can also have disadvantages. The findings of this meta-analysis should be considered carefully by surgeons when moving from HMIE to TMIE.
| S-EPMC7455468 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) was introduced as a further development of the conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy, aiming to further improve the high morbidity and mortality associated with open esophagectomy. We aimed to compare the outcomes between RAMIE and open esophagectomy, which remains a popular approach for resectable esophageal cancer. Ten studies meeting our inclusion criteria were identified, including five retrospective cohort, four prospective cohort, and one randomized controlled trial. RAMIE was associated with significantly lower rates of overall pulmonary complications (odds ratio (OR): 0.38, 95% confidence interval (CI): [0.26, 0.56]), pneumonia (OR: 0.39, 95% CI: [0.26, 0.57]), atrial fibrillation (OR: 0.53, 95% CI: [0.29, 0.98]), and wound infections (OR: 0.20, 95% CI: [0.07, 0.57]) and resulted in less blood loss (weighted mean difference (WMD): -187.08 mL, 95% CI: [-283.81, -90.35]) and shorter hospital stays (WMD: -9.22 days, 95% CI: [-14.39, -4.06]) but longer operative times (WMD: 69.45 min, 95% CI: [34.39, 104.42]). No other statistically significant difference was observed regarding surgical and short-term oncological outcomes. Similar findings were observed when comparing totally robotic procedures only to OE. RAMIE is a safe and feasible procedure, resulting in decreased cardiopulmonary morbidity, wound infections, blood loss, and shorter hospital stays compared to open esophagectomy.
| S-EPMC9264782 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe efficacy and safety of open distal pancreatectomy (DP), laparoscopic DP, robot-assisted laparoscopic DP, and robotic DP have not been established. The authors aimed to comprehensively compare these 4 surgical methods using a network meta-analysis.Materials and methodsThe authors systematically searched MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies that evaluated at least 2 of the following pancreatectomy techniques: robot-assisted DP, laparoscopic DP, open DP, and robotic DP. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was applied to show the probability that each method would be the best for each outcome.ResultsAltogether, 46 trials with 8377 patients were included in this network meta-analysis. Robotic DP showed the highest probability of having the least estimated blood loss (SUCRA, 90.9%), the lowest incidences of postoperative pancreatic fistula (SUCRA, 94.5%), clinically related postoperative pancreatic fistula (SUCRA, 94.6%), postoperative bleeding (SUCRA, 75.3%), reoperation (SUCRA, 96.4%), overall complications (SUCRA, 86.9%), and major complications (SUCRA, 99.3%), and the lowest mortality (SUCRA, 83.4%). Robotic DP also proved to be the best approach regarding the attainment of R0 resection (SUCRA, 75.4%) and the number of lymph nodes harvested (SUCRA, 64.1%).ConclusionRobotic DP seems to offer clinical and oncological advantages compared with other DP methods for addressing diseases of the pancreatic body and tail, although it may require a longer operation time and learning curve. The present results require confirmation in future head-to-head randomized controlled trials.
| S-EPMC8096312 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceMinimally invasive techniques are increasingly common in cancer surgery. A recent randomized clinical trial has brought into question the safety of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer.ObjectiveTo quantify the risk of recurrence and death associated with minimally invasive vs open radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer reported in observational studies optimized to control for confounding.Data sourcesOvid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science (inception to March 26, 2020) performed in an academic medical setting.Study selectionIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, observational studies were abstracted that used survival analyses to compare outcomes after minimally invasive (laparoscopic or robot-assisted) and open radical hysterectomy in patients with early-stage (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2009 stage IA1-IIA) cervical cancer. Study quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and included studies with scores of at least 7 points that controlled for confounding by tumor size or stage.Data extraction and synthesisThe Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) checklist was used to abstract data independently by multiple observers. Random-effects models were used to pool associations and to analyze the association between surgical approach and oncologic outcomes.Main outcomes and measuresRisk of recurrence or death and risk of all-cause mortality.ResultsForty-nine studies were identified, of which 15 were included in the meta-analysis. Of 9499 patients who underwent radical hysterectomy, 49% (n = 4684) received minimally invasive surgery; of these, 57% (n = 2675) received robot-assisted laparoscopy. There were 530 recurrences and 451 deaths reported. The pooled hazard of recurrence or death was 71% higher among patients who underwent minimally invasive radical hysterectomy compared with those who underwent open surgery (hazard ratio [HR], 1.71; 95% CI, 1.36-2.15; P < .001), and the hazard of death was 56% higher (HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.16-2.11; P = .004). Heterogeneity of associations was low to moderate. No association was found between the prevalence of robot-assisted surgery and the magnitude of association between minimally invasive radical hysterectomy and hazard of recurrence or death (2.0% increase in the HR for each 10-percentage point increase in prevalence of robot-assisted surgery [95% CI, -3.4% to 7.7%]) or all-cause mortality (3.7% increase in the HR for each 10-percentage point increase in prevalence of robot-assisted surgery [95% CI, -4.5% to 12.6%]).Conclusions and relevanceThis systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies found that among patients undergoing radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer, minimally invasive radical hysterectomy was associated with an elevated risk of recurrence and death compared with open surgery.
| S-EPMC7290695 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLocally advanced colon cancer is considered a relative contraindication for minimally invasive proctectomy (MIP), and minimally invasive versus conventional open proctectomy (COP) for locally advanced colon cancer has not been studied.MethodsWe have searched the Embase, Cochrane Library, PubMed, Medline, and Web of Science for articles on minimally invasive (robotic and laparoscopic) and COP. We calculated pooled standard mean difference (SMD), relative risk (RR), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The protocol for this review has been registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023407029).ResultsThere are 10132 participants including 21 articles. Compared with COP, patients who underwent MIP had less operation time (SMD 0.48; CI 0.32 to 0.65; I2 = 0%, P = .000), estimated blood loss (MD -1.23; CI -1.90 to -0.56; I2 = 95%, P < .0001), the median time to semi-liquid diet (SMD -0.43; CI -0.70 to -0.15; I2 = 0%, P = .002), time to the first flatus (SMD -0.97; CI -1.30 to -0.63; I2 = 7%, P < .0001), intraoperative blood transfusion (RR 0.33; CI 0.24 to 0.46; I2 = 0%, P < .0001) in perioperative outcomes. Compared with COP, patients who underwent MIP had fewer overall complications (RR 0.85; CI 0.73 to 0.98; I2 = 22.4%, P = .023), postoperative complications (RR 0.79; CI 0.69 to 0.90; I2 = 0%, P = .001), and urinary retention (RR 0.63; CI 0.44 to 0.90; I2 = 0%, P = .011) in perioperative outcomes.ConclusionThis study comprehensively and systematically evaluated the difference between the safety and effectiveness of minimally invasive and open treatment of locally advanced colon cancer through meta-analysis. Minimally invasive proctectomy is better than COP in postoperative and perioperative outcomes. However, there is no difference in oncological outcomes. This also provides an evidence-based reference for clinical practice. Of course, multi-center RCT research is also needed to draw more scientific and rigorous conclusions in the future.
| S-EPMC10939686 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The safety of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) regarding oncological outcomes of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains inconclusive. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine the oncological safety of MIDP and ODP for PDAC. Major databases including PubMed, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies comparing outcomes in patients undergoing MIDP and ODP for PDAC from January 1994 to August 2018. In total, 11 retrospective comparative studies with 4829 patients (MIDP: 1076, ODP: 3753) were included. The primary outcome was long-term survival, including 3-year overall survival (OS) and 5-year OS. The 3-year OS (hazard ratio (HR): 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.89, 1.21; P?=?0.66) and 5-year OS (HR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.65, 1.28; P?=?0.59) showed no significant differences between the two groups. Furthermore, the positive surgical margin rate (weighted mean difference (WMD): 0.71, 95% CI: 0.56, 0.89, P?=?0.003) was lower in the MIDP group. However, patients in the MIDP group had less intraoperative blood loss (WMD: -250.03, 95% CI: -359.68, -140.39; P?<?0.00001), a shorter hospital stay (WMD: -2.76, 95% CI: -3.73, -1.78; P?<?0.00001) and lower morbidity (OR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.46, 0.71; P?<?0.00001) and mortality (OR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.31, 0.81, P?=?0.005) than patients in the ODP group. The limited evidence suggested that MIDP might be safer with regard to oncological outcomes in PDAC patients. Therefore, future high-quality studies are needed to examine the oncological safety of MIDP.
| S-EPMC6362067 | biostudies-other
Project description:Adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC) is a rare malignancy with a poor prognosis. Although laparoscopy has been widely adopted for management of benign adrenal tumors, minimally invasive surgery for ACC remains controversial. Retrospective analyses, frequently with fewer than one hundred participants, comprise the majority of the literature. High-quality data regarding the optimal surgical approach for ACC are lacking due to the rarity of the disease and the fact that determination of tumor type (e.g., adenoma or carcinoma) is determined after adrenalectomy, since adrenal tumors are generally not biopsied. While the benefits of minimally invasive surgery including lower intra-operative blood loss and decreased hospital length-of-stay have been consistently demonstrated, clinical equipoise for long-term survival and recurrence outcomes between open and minimally invasive adrenalectomy (MIA) remains. This review examines retrospective studies that directly compare patients with ACC who underwent either open or laparoscopic adrenalectomy, and considers these findings in the context of current guideline recommendations for surgical management of ACC.
| S-EPMC8185676 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The aim of the study was to perform a systematic assessment of disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival, and morbidity rates after open radical hysterectomy (ORH) and minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for early-stage cervical cancer and discuss with experts the consequences of the LACC trial (published by Ramirez et al. in 2018) on clinical routine. A total of 5428 records were retrieved. After exclusion based on text screening, four records were identified for inclusion. Five experts from three independent large-volume medical centers in Europe were interviewed for their interpretation of the LACC trial. The LACC trial showed a significantly higher risk of disease progression with MIS compared to ORH (HR 3.74, 95% CI 1.63 to 8.58). This was not seen in one epidemiological study and was contradicted by one prospective cohort study reported by Greggi et al. A systematic review by Zhang et al. mentioned a similar DFS for robot-assisted radical hysterectomy (RRH) and LRH. Recurrence rates were significantly higher with MIS compared to ORH in the LACC trial (HR 4.26, 95% CI 1.44 to 12.60). In contrast, four studies presented by Greggi reported no significant difference in recurrence rates between LRH/RRH and ORH, which concurred with the systematic reviews of Zhang and Zhao. The experts mentioned various limitations of the LACC trial and stated that clinicians were obliged to provide patients with detailed information and ensure a shared decision-making process. The surgical treatment of early-stage cervical cancer remains a debated issue. More randomized controlled trials (RCT) will be needed to establish the most suitable treatment for this condition.
| S-EPMC8432133 | biostudies-literature