Effectiveness of different appendiceal stump closure methods in laparoscopic appendectomy a network meta-analysis.

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Pub Date : 2024-09-05 DOI:10.1007/s00423-024-03452-3
Qasi Najah, Hamdy A Makhlouf, Mariam A Abusalah, Menna M Aboelkhier, Mohamed Abdalla Rashed, Muataz Kashbour, Sara Adel Awwad, Fatmaelzahraa Yasser Ali, Nada Ibrahim Hendi, Sherein Diab, Fatima Abdallh, Ahmed Mohamed Abozaid, Yasmeen Jamal Alabdallat
{"title":"Effectiveness of different appendiceal stump closure methods in laparoscopic appendectomy a network meta-analysis.","authors":"Qasi Najah, Hamdy A Makhlouf, Mariam A Abusalah, Menna M Aboelkhier, Mohamed Abdalla Rashed, Muataz Kashbour, Sara Adel Awwad, Fatmaelzahraa Yasser Ali, Nada Ibrahim Hendi, Sherein Diab, Fatima Abdallh, Ahmed Mohamed Abozaid, Yasmeen Jamal Alabdallat","doi":"10.1007/s00423-024-03452-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Choosing the best stump closure method for laparoscopic appendectomy has been a debated issue, especially for patients with acute appendicitis. The lack of consensus in the literature and the diverse techniques available have prompted the need for a comprehensive evaluation to guide surgeons in selecting the most optimal appendiceal stump closure method.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive search was conducted on multiple databases from inception until December 2023 to find relevant studies according to eligibility criteria. The primary outcome was the incidence of total complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>25 studies with a total of 3308 patients were included in this study, overall complications did not reveal a significant advantage for any intervention (RR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.53; 1.01), Superficial and deep infection risks were similar across all methods, Operative time was significantly longer with endoloop and Intracorporeal sutures (MD = 7.07, 95% CI: 3.28; 10.85) (MD = 26.1, 95% CI: 20.9; 31.29).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There are no significant differences in overall complications among closure methods. However, Intracorporeal sutures and endoloop techniques were associated with extended operative durations.</p>","PeriodicalId":17983,"journal":{"name":"Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-024-03452-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Choosing the best stump closure method for laparoscopic appendectomy has been a debated issue, especially for patients with acute appendicitis. The lack of consensus in the literature and the diverse techniques available have prompted the need for a comprehensive evaluation to guide surgeons in selecting the most optimal appendiceal stump closure method.

Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted on multiple databases from inception until December 2023 to find relevant studies according to eligibility criteria. The primary outcome was the incidence of total complications.

Results: 25 studies with a total of 3308 patients were included in this study, overall complications did not reveal a significant advantage for any intervention (RR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.53; 1.01), Superficial and deep infection risks were similar across all methods, Operative time was significantly longer with endoloop and Intracorporeal sutures (MD = 7.07, 95% CI: 3.28; 10.85) (MD = 26.1, 95% CI: 20.9; 31.29).

Conclusions: There are no significant differences in overall complications among closure methods. However, Intracorporeal sutures and endoloop techniques were associated with extended operative durations.

Abstract Image

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
腹腔镜阑尾切除术中不同阑尾残端闭合方法的有效性网络荟萃分析。
目的:选择腹腔镜阑尾切除术的最佳残端闭合方法一直是一个备受争议的问题,尤其是对急性阑尾炎患者而言。文献中缺乏共识以及现有技术的多样性促使人们需要进行全面评估,以指导外科医生选择最理想的阑尾残端闭合方法:方法:从开始到 2023 年 12 月,我们在多个数据库中进行了全面检索,以根据资格标准找到相关研究。结果:25 项研究共纳入了 3308 名患者,总体并发症并未显示任何干预措施具有显著优势(RR = 0.72,95% CI:0.内环缝合和体外缝合的手术时间明显更长(MD = 7.07,95% CI:3.28;10.85)(MD = 26.1,95% CI:20.9;31.29):不同闭合方法的总体并发症无明显差异。结论:不同闭合方法的总体并发症无明显差异,但体外缝合和内环技术与手术时间延长有关。
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
3.30
自引率
8.70%
发文量
342
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Langenbeck''s Archives of Surgery aims to publish the best results in the field of clinical surgery and basic surgical research. The main focus is on providing the highest level of clinical research and clinically relevant basic research. The journal, published exclusively in English, will provide an international discussion forum for the controlled results of clinical surgery. The majority of published contributions will be original articles reporting on clinical data from general and visceral surgery, while endocrine surgery will also be covered. Papers on basic surgical principles from the fields of traumatology, vascular and thoracic surgery are also welcome. Evidence-based medicine is an important criterion for the acceptance of papers.
期刊最新文献
Intensified outpatient nutrition management improves body weight and skeletal muscle loss after esophageal cancer surgery: a single-center, retrospective, single-arm clinical study. Assessment of first-touch skills in robotic surgical training using hi-Sim and the hinotori surgical robot system among surgeons and novices. Comparing surgical outcomes of powered versus manual surgical staplers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. 3D vs. 2D-4 K: Performance and self-perception of laparoscopic novices in a randomized prospective teaching intervention using standard tasks and box trainers. Research methodologies for eliciting patients' preferences in invasive procedures: a scoping review.
×
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