A Meta-analysis of the Efficacy of Different Surgical Methods in the Treatment of Uterine Prolapse.

IF 0.9 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY Annali italiani di chirurgia Pub Date : 2024-01-01 DOI:10.62713/aic.3385
Hongxiang Chen, Xiumei Wei, Nuerbiya Kurexi, Shuang Yang
{"title":"A Meta-analysis of the Efficacy of Different Surgical Methods in the Treatment of Uterine Prolapse.","authors":"Hongxiang Chen, Xiumei Wei, Nuerbiya Kurexi, Shuang Yang","doi":"10.62713/aic.3385","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>The management of uterine prolapse poses a significant clinical challenge, with surgical intervention often necessary for symptom relief and restoration of pelvic floor function. However, the optimal surgical approach for uterine prolapse remains uncertain, prompting a comprehensive meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of various surgical methods. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of different surgical methods for treating uterine prolapse.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used computer search to retrieve relevant literature to compare the therapeutic effects of different surgical methods for treating uterine prolapse. The search was conducted in the Web of Science and PubMed databases, and articles published until October 2023 were obtained. We employed random effects and fixed effects models and performed a meta-analysis using the R software.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This study included 40 standard papers covering 25,896 patients with uterine prolapse. We used random and fixed effects models to conduct a meta-analysis of hysterectomy and uterine fixation procedures. The findings indicated that different surgical approaches had no significant impact on surgical success rates (I2 = 69%, p < 0.01; risk ratio (RR) (95% confidence intervals (CI)): 1.00 [0.98; 1.03]) or postoperative adverse reactions (I2 = 54%, p < 0.01; RR (95% CI), 1.10 [0.83; 1.45]). However, the durations of the surgical procedure for hysterectomy (I2 = 91%, p < 0.01; standardized mean difference (SMD) (95% CI), 0.78 [0.49; 1.07]), surgical blood loss (I2 = 97%, p < 0.01, SMD (95% CI): 1.14 [0.21; 2.07]), and intraoperative adverse reactions (I2 = 0%, p = 0.61, RR (95% CI): 1.37 [1.10; 1.71]) were statistically significant between hysterectomy and uterine fixation procedures. Additionally, publication bias and sensitivity tests showed no publication bias in this meta-analysis and no literature causing significant sensitivity.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In the treatment of uterine prolapse, both hysterectomy and uterine fixation are similar in terms of surgical success rates and postoperative adverse reactions. However, hysterectomy is associated with longer duration of the surgical procedure, increased blood loss and higher incidence of intraoperative adverse reactions compared to uterine fixation.</p>","PeriodicalId":8210,"journal":{"name":"Annali italiani di chirurgia","volume":"95 3","pages":"257-274"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annali italiani di chirurgia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.62713/aic.3385","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: The management of uterine prolapse poses a significant clinical challenge, with surgical intervention often necessary for symptom relief and restoration of pelvic floor function. However, the optimal surgical approach for uterine prolapse remains uncertain, prompting a comprehensive meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of various surgical methods. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of different surgical methods for treating uterine prolapse.

Methods: We used computer search to retrieve relevant literature to compare the therapeutic effects of different surgical methods for treating uterine prolapse. The search was conducted in the Web of Science and PubMed databases, and articles published until October 2023 were obtained. We employed random effects and fixed effects models and performed a meta-analysis using the R software.

Results: This study included 40 standard papers covering 25,896 patients with uterine prolapse. We used random and fixed effects models to conduct a meta-analysis of hysterectomy and uterine fixation procedures. The findings indicated that different surgical approaches had no significant impact on surgical success rates (I2 = 69%, p < 0.01; risk ratio (RR) (95% confidence intervals (CI)): 1.00 [0.98; 1.03]) or postoperative adverse reactions (I2 = 54%, p < 0.01; RR (95% CI), 1.10 [0.83; 1.45]). However, the durations of the surgical procedure for hysterectomy (I2 = 91%, p < 0.01; standardized mean difference (SMD) (95% CI), 0.78 [0.49; 1.07]), surgical blood loss (I2 = 97%, p < 0.01, SMD (95% CI): 1.14 [0.21; 2.07]), and intraoperative adverse reactions (I2 = 0%, p = 0.61, RR (95% CI): 1.37 [1.10; 1.71]) were statistically significant between hysterectomy and uterine fixation procedures. Additionally, publication bias and sensitivity tests showed no publication bias in this meta-analysis and no literature causing significant sensitivity.

Conclusions: In the treatment of uterine prolapse, both hysterectomy and uterine fixation are similar in terms of surgical success rates and postoperative adverse reactions. However, hysterectomy is associated with longer duration of the surgical procedure, increased blood loss and higher incidence of intraoperative adverse reactions compared to uterine fixation.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
不同手术方法治疗子宫脱垂疗效的 Meta 分析。
目的:子宫脱垂的治疗是一项重大的临床挑战,通常需要通过手术干预来缓解症状和恢复盆底功能。然而,子宫脱垂的最佳手术方法仍不确定,这促使我们进行一项综合荟萃分析,以比较各种手术方法的疗效。本研究旨在评估不同手术方法治疗子宫脱垂的效果:我们利用计算机检索相关文献,比较不同手术方法治疗子宫脱垂的疗效。检索在 Web of Science 和 PubMed 数据库中进行,获得了截至 2023 年 10 月发表的文章。我们采用了随机效应和固定效应模型,并使用 R 软件进行了荟萃分析:本研究共收录了40篇标准论文,涉及25896名子宫脱垂患者。我们采用随机效应和固定效应模型对子宫切除术和子宫固定术进行了荟萃分析。结果表明,不同的手术方法对手术成功率没有显著影响(I2 = 69%,P < 0.01;风险比 (RR) (95% 置信区间 (CI)):1.00 [0.98; 1.03])或术后不良反应(I2 = 54%,p < 0.01;风险比(95% 置信区间,RR):1.10 [0.83; 1.45])没有明显影响。然而,子宫切除术的手术持续时间(I2 = 91%,P < 0.01;标准化平均差(SMD)(95% CI),0.78 [0.49; 1.07])、手术失血量(I2 = 97%,P < 0.01,SMD(95% CI):1.14 [0.21; 2.07])和术中不良反应(I2 = 0%,P = 0.61,RR (95% CI):1.37 [1.10; 1.71])在子宫切除术和子宫固定术之间具有统计学意义。此外,发表偏倚和敏感性测试表明,该荟萃分析中没有发表偏倚,也没有文献导致显著的敏感性:结论:在治疗子宫脱垂方面,子宫切除术和子宫固定术在手术成功率和术后不良反应方面相似。然而,与子宫固定术相比,子宫切除术的手术时间更长,失血量更多,术中不良反应发生率更高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
12.50%
发文量
116
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Annali Italiani di Chirurgia is a bimonthly journal and covers all aspects of surgery:elective, emergency and experimental surgery, as well as problems involving technology, teaching, organization and forensic medicine. The articles are published in Italian or English, though English is preferred because it facilitates the international diffusion of the journal (v.Guidelines for Authors and Norme per gli Autori). The articles published are divided into three main sections:editorials, original articles, and case reports and innovations.
期刊最新文献
Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma of Esophagus with Lung Metastasis: Case Report. Adrenocortical Adenoma Arising from Adrenohepatic Fusion: A Mimic of Hepatocellular Carcinoma-Case Report. Application Evaluation of Fluorouracil Intraperitoneal Perfusion Chemotherapy in Combination with Intravenous Chemotherapy in Patients after Radical Resection of Colorectal Cancer. Comparison of Hem-o-lok and Endoloop for Appendiceal Stump Closure in Laparoscopic Appendectomy: An Observational Retrospective Study. Comparison of Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Decompression and Full Endoscopic Lamina Fenestration Decompression in the Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis with Unilateral Radicular Pain: A Retrospective Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1