腹腔镜肝切除术中的全肝血流闭塞与半肝血流闭塞:系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q2 SURGERY Frontiers in Surgery Pub Date : 2024-09-26 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fsurg.2024.1428545
Ting An, Jie Liu, Liwei Feng
{"title":"腹腔镜肝切除术中的全肝血流闭塞与半肝血流闭塞:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Ting An, Jie Liu, Liwei Feng","doi":"10.3389/fsurg.2024.1428545","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The control of bleeding during laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is still a focus of research. However, the advantages of the main bleeding control methods, including total hepatic inflow occlusion (TIO) vs. hemihepatic inflow occlusion (HIO), during LLR remain controversial. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the clinical outcomes of patients who received TIO and patients who received HIO. This meta-analysis searched the Medline, PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Ovid, and Cochrane Library databases. The language of the studies was restricted to English, and comparative studies of patients treated with TIO and HIO during LLR were included. The primary outcome was to compare the intraoperative details, such as the operative time, occlusion time, and volume of blood loss, between the two groups. Secondary outcomes included conversion, overall complications, liver failure, biliary leakage, ascites, pleural effusion, and hospital stay. Five studies including 667 patients, 419 (62.82%) of whom received TIO and 248 (37.18%) of whom received HIO, were included in the analysis. The demographic data, including age, sex, hemoglobin, total bilirubin, albumin, and alpha-fetoprotein, were comparable. No significant differences noted in operative time, occlusion time, volume of blood loss, conversion, overall complications, liver failure, biliary leakage, hemorrhage, ascites, or pleural effusion. The hospital stay in patients who received HIO was significantly shorter than that for patients who received TIO [mean difference (MD), 0.60; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.33-0.87; <i>p</i> < 0.0001; <i>I</i> <sup>2</sup> = 54%]. The blood loss of patients with liver cirrhosis in the TIO group was significantly less than that in the HIO group (MD, -107.63; 95% CI, -152.63 to -62.63; <i>p</i> < 0.01; <i>I</i> <sup>2</sup> = 27%). Both the TIO and HIO methods are safe and feasible for LLR. Compared with HIO, TIO seems to have less blood loss in cirrhotic patients. However, this result demands further research, especially multicenter randomized controlled trials, for verification in the future. <b>Systematic Review Registration:</b> https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/, Identifier PROSPERO (CRD42022382334).</p>","PeriodicalId":12564,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Surgery","volume":"11 ","pages":"1428545"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11467754/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Total hepatic inflow occlusion vs. hemihepatic inflow occlusion for laparoscopic liver resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Ting An, Jie Liu, Liwei Feng\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/fsurg.2024.1428545\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The control of bleeding during laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is still a focus of research. However, the advantages of the main bleeding control methods, including total hepatic inflow occlusion (TIO) vs. hemihepatic inflow occlusion (HIO), during LLR remain controversial. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the clinical outcomes of patients who received TIO and patients who received HIO. This meta-analysis searched the Medline, PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Ovid, and Cochrane Library databases. The language of the studies was restricted to English, and comparative studies of patients treated with TIO and HIO during LLR were included. The primary outcome was to compare the intraoperative details, such as the operative time, occlusion time, and volume of blood loss, between the two groups. Secondary outcomes included conversion, overall complications, liver failure, biliary leakage, ascites, pleural effusion, and hospital stay. Five studies including 667 patients, 419 (62.82%) of whom received TIO and 248 (37.18%) of whom received HIO, were included in the analysis. The demographic data, including age, sex, hemoglobin, total bilirubin, albumin, and alpha-fetoprotein, were comparable. No significant differences noted in operative time, occlusion time, volume of blood loss, conversion, overall complications, liver failure, biliary leakage, hemorrhage, ascites, or pleural effusion. The hospital stay in patients who received HIO was significantly shorter than that for patients who received TIO [mean difference (MD), 0.60; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.33-0.87; <i>p</i> < 0.0001; <i>I</i> <sup>2</sup> = 54%]. The blood loss of patients with liver cirrhosis in the TIO group was significantly less than that in the HIO group (MD, -107.63; 95% CI, -152.63 to -62.63; <i>p</i> < 0.01; <i>I</i> <sup>2</sup> = 27%). Both the TIO and HIO methods are safe and feasible for LLR. Compared with HIO, TIO seems to have less blood loss in cirrhotic patients. However, this result demands further research, especially multicenter randomized controlled trials, for verification in the future. <b>Systematic Review Registration:</b> https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/, Identifier PROSPERO (CRD42022382334).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12564,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in Surgery\",\"volume\":\"11 \",\"pages\":\"1428545\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11467754/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2024.1428545\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2024.1428545","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

腹腔镜肝脏切除术(LLR)期间的出血控制仍是研究重点。然而,腹腔镜肝切除术中主要出血控制方法(包括全肝血流闭塞(TIO)与半肝血流闭塞(HIO))的优势仍存在争议。本荟萃分析旨在比较接受 TIO 和接受 HIO 患者的临床结果。该荟萃分析检索了 Medline、PubMed、Web of Science、Embase、Ovid 和 Cochrane Library 等数据库。研究语言仅限于英语,并纳入了在 LLR 期间接受 TIO 和 HIO 治疗的患者的对比研究。主要结果是比较两组患者的术中细节,如手术时间、闭塞时间和失血量。次要结果包括转归、总体并发症、肝衰竭、胆漏、腹水、胸腔积液和住院时间。五项研究共纳入了 667 名患者,其中 419 人(62.82%)接受了 TIO,248 人(37.18%)接受了 HIO。包括年龄、性别、血红蛋白、总胆红素、白蛋白和甲胎蛋白在内的人口统计学数据具有可比性。在手术时间、闭塞时间、失血量、转归、总体并发症、肝衰竭、胆漏、出血、腹水或胸腔积液等方面均无明显差异。接受 HIO 的患者的住院时间明显短于接受 TIO 的患者[平均差异 (MD),0.60;95% 置信区间 (CI),0.33-0.87;P I 2 = 54%]。TIO组肝硬化患者的失血量明显少于HIO组(MD,-107.63;95% CI,-152.63至-62.63;P I 2 = 27%)。TIO 和 HIO 方法对于 LLR 都是安全可行的。与 HIO 相比,TIO 在肝硬化患者中的失血量似乎更少。不过,这一结果还需要进一步研究,尤其是多中心随机对照试验,以便在未来进行验证。系统综述注册:https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/,标识符为 PROSPERO (CRD42022382334)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Total hepatic inflow occlusion vs. hemihepatic inflow occlusion for laparoscopic liver resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The control of bleeding during laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is still a focus of research. However, the advantages of the main bleeding control methods, including total hepatic inflow occlusion (TIO) vs. hemihepatic inflow occlusion (HIO), during LLR remain controversial. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the clinical outcomes of patients who received TIO and patients who received HIO. This meta-analysis searched the Medline, PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Ovid, and Cochrane Library databases. The language of the studies was restricted to English, and comparative studies of patients treated with TIO and HIO during LLR were included. The primary outcome was to compare the intraoperative details, such as the operative time, occlusion time, and volume of blood loss, between the two groups. Secondary outcomes included conversion, overall complications, liver failure, biliary leakage, ascites, pleural effusion, and hospital stay. Five studies including 667 patients, 419 (62.82%) of whom received TIO and 248 (37.18%) of whom received HIO, were included in the analysis. The demographic data, including age, sex, hemoglobin, total bilirubin, albumin, and alpha-fetoprotein, were comparable. No significant differences noted in operative time, occlusion time, volume of blood loss, conversion, overall complications, liver failure, biliary leakage, hemorrhage, ascites, or pleural effusion. The hospital stay in patients who received HIO was significantly shorter than that for patients who received TIO [mean difference (MD), 0.60; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.33-0.87; p < 0.0001; I 2 = 54%]. The blood loss of patients with liver cirrhosis in the TIO group was significantly less than that in the HIO group (MD, -107.63; 95% CI, -152.63 to -62.63; p < 0.01; I 2 = 27%). Both the TIO and HIO methods are safe and feasible for LLR. Compared with HIO, TIO seems to have less blood loss in cirrhotic patients. However, this result demands further research, especially multicenter randomized controlled trials, for verification in the future. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/, Identifier PROSPERO (CRD42022382334).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Frontiers in Surgery
Frontiers in Surgery Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
1872
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Evidence of surgical interventions go back to prehistoric times. Since then, the field of surgery has developed into a complex array of specialties and procedures, particularly with the advent of microsurgery, lasers and minimally invasive techniques. The advanced skills now required from surgeons has led to ever increasing specialization, though these still share important fundamental principles. Frontiers in Surgery is the umbrella journal representing the publication interests of all surgical specialties. It is divided into several “Specialty Sections” listed below. All these sections have their own Specialty Chief Editor, Editorial Board and homepage, but all articles carry the citation Frontiers in Surgery. Frontiers in Surgery calls upon medical professionals and scientists from all surgical specialties to publish their experimental and clinical studies in this journal. By assembling all surgical specialties, which nonetheless retain their independence, under the common umbrella of Frontiers in Surgery, a powerful publication venue is created. Since there is often overlap and common ground between the different surgical specialties, assembly of all surgical disciplines into a single journal will foster a collaborative dialogue amongst the surgical community. This means that publications, which are also of interest to other surgical specialties, will reach a wider audience and have greater impact. The aim of this multidisciplinary journal is to create a discussion and knowledge platform of advances and research findings in surgical practice today to continuously improve clinical management of patients and foster innovation in this field.
期刊最新文献
Innovative vaginal manipulator technique vs. traditional method for vaginal fornix deployment in robotic sacrocolpopexy. Open laminectomy vs. minimally invasive laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis: a review. Unilateral biportal endoscopic spine surgery: a meta-analysis unveiling the learning curve and clinical benefits. Compare three deep learning-based artificial intelligence models for classification of calcified lumbar disc herniation: a multicenter diagnostic study. Ureteroinguinal hernia: an added advantage for laparoscopy in the management of inguinal hernia-a case report.
×
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