肝切除术中超声装置和夹钳的效果比较:一项荟萃分析。

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q3 ONCOLOGY World Journal of Surgical Oncology Pub Date : 2024-11-16 DOI:10.1186/s12957-024-03575-3
Zhang-Neng Yu, Liang-Liang Xu, Lian Li, Hua Zhang, Yong-Yuan Ma, Liang Wang, Jin-Ting Jiang, Ming Zhang
{"title":"肝切除术中超声装置和夹钳的效果比较:一项荟萃分析。","authors":"Zhang-Neng Yu, Liang-Liang Xu, Lian Li, Hua Zhang, Yong-Yuan Ma, Liang Wang, Jin-Ting Jiang, Ming Zhang","doi":"10.1186/s12957-024-03575-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Recent advances in ultrasound technology have led to widespread adoption of ultrasonic energy devices in liver resections. While various studies have assessed the comparative advantages of ultrasonic devices and traditional clamp-crushing, their findings vary. Moreover, a specific systematic review on this topic has not yet been conducted.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aims to present a comprehensive, up-to-date analysis comparing outcomes between ultrasonic devices and conventional clamp-crushing methods in liver resection, based on currently available literature.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic literature search in databases such as PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and CNKI up to November 2023. Studies that compared the efficacy or safety of ultrasonic devices against traditional clamp-crushing methods in hepatectomy were included. The analysis covered intraoperative outcomes like operating time, blood loss, and transfusion rate, as well as postoperative outcomes such as complication rate, mortality, postoperative bleeding, and bile leakage. Review Manager version 5.3 (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK) and Stata 17.0 (Stata Corp, College Station, TX, USA) were used for data analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirteen studies, involving a total of 1,417 patients (630 using ultrasonic devices and 787 using clamp-crushing methods), were included. The clamp-crush method resulted in a shorter operation time. Contrarily, the ultrasonic device group experienced reduced blood loss and lower transfusion rates. Postoperatively, there was no significant difference in mortality or postoperative bleeding between the groups. However, the ultrasonic group had a lower overall complication rate, particularly a reduced incidence of bile leakage. Overall, the ultrasonic devices were associated with improved perioperative outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The findings suggest that ultrasonic devices provide better outcomes in hepatectomy compared to traditional clamp-crushing techniques. Nonetheless, large-scale randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these results due to potential heterogeneity and biases. The choice of using ultrasonic devices should consider the surgeon's experience and individual patient circumstances.</p>","PeriodicalId":23856,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Surgical Oncology","volume":"22 1","pages":"304"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11568570/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of the outcomes between ultrasonic devices and clamping in hepatectomy: a meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Zhang-Neng Yu, Liang-Liang Xu, Lian Li, Hua Zhang, Yong-Yuan Ma, Liang Wang, Jin-Ting Jiang, Ming Zhang\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12957-024-03575-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Recent advances in ultrasound technology have led to widespread adoption of ultrasonic energy devices in liver resections. While various studies have assessed the comparative advantages of ultrasonic devices and traditional clamp-crushing, their findings vary. Moreover, a specific systematic review on this topic has not yet been conducted.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aims to present a comprehensive, up-to-date analysis comparing outcomes between ultrasonic devices and conventional clamp-crushing methods in liver resection, based on currently available literature.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic literature search in databases such as PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and CNKI up to November 2023. Studies that compared the efficacy or safety of ultrasonic devices against traditional clamp-crushing methods in hepatectomy were included. The analysis covered intraoperative outcomes like operating time, blood loss, and transfusion rate, as well as postoperative outcomes such as complication rate, mortality, postoperative bleeding, and bile leakage. Review Manager version 5.3 (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK) and Stata 17.0 (Stata Corp, College Station, TX, USA) were used for data analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirteen studies, involving a total of 1,417 patients (630 using ultrasonic devices and 787 using clamp-crushing methods), were included. The clamp-crush method resulted in a shorter operation time. Contrarily, the ultrasonic device group experienced reduced blood loss and lower transfusion rates. Postoperatively, there was no significant difference in mortality or postoperative bleeding between the groups. However, the ultrasonic group had a lower overall complication rate, particularly a reduced incidence of bile leakage. Overall, the ultrasonic devices were associated with improved perioperative outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The findings suggest that ultrasonic devices provide better outcomes in hepatectomy compared to traditional clamp-crushing techniques. Nonetheless, large-scale randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these results due to potential heterogeneity and biases. The choice of using ultrasonic devices should consider the surgeon's experience and individual patient circumstances.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23856,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"World Journal of Surgical Oncology\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"304\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11568570/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"World Journal of Surgical Oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-024-03575-3\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Surgical Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-024-03575-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:近来超声技术的进步使得超声波能量设备在肝脏切除术中得到广泛应用。虽然已有多项研究评估了超声波设备与传统钳夹法的比较优势,但研究结果各不相同。此外,有关这一主题的专门系统性综述尚未开展:本研究旨在根据现有文献,对超声波设备和传统钳夹法在肝脏切除术中的效果进行全面、最新的分析比较:我们在 PubMed、Embase、Web of Science 和 CNKI 等数据库中对截至 2023 年 11 月的文献进行了系统检索。纳入了在肝切除术中比较超声设备与传统钳夹法的有效性或安全性的研究。分析涵盖术中结果,如手术时间、失血量和输血率,以及术后结果,如并发症发生率、死亡率、术后出血量和胆汁渗漏。数据分析使用了 Review Manager 5.3 版(Cochrane Collaboration,牛津,英国)和 Stata 17.0(Stata Corp,College Station,德克萨斯,美国):共纳入 13 项研究,涉及 1,417 名患者(630 人使用超声波装置,787 人使用钳夹法)。钳夹-挤压法的手术时间更短。相反,超声波装置组的失血量减少,输血率降低。术后,两组的死亡率和术后出血量没有明显差异。不过,超声波组的总体并发症发生率较低,尤其是胆汁渗漏的发生率较低。总体而言,超声波设备改善了围手术期的预后:结论:研究结果表明,与传统的钳夹-粉碎技术相比,超声波装置在肝切除术中能提供更好的疗效。然而,由于潜在的异质性和偏差,还需要大规模随机对照试验来证实这些结果。选择使用超声波装置应考虑外科医生的经验和患者的具体情况。
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
Comparison of the outcomes between ultrasonic devices and clamping in hepatectomy: a meta-analysis.

Background: Recent advances in ultrasound technology have led to widespread adoption of ultrasonic energy devices in liver resections. While various studies have assessed the comparative advantages of ultrasonic devices and traditional clamp-crushing, their findings vary. Moreover, a specific systematic review on this topic has not yet been conducted.

Objectives: This study aims to present a comprehensive, up-to-date analysis comparing outcomes between ultrasonic devices and conventional clamp-crushing methods in liver resection, based on currently available literature.

Patients and methods: We conducted a systematic literature search in databases such as PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and CNKI up to November 2023. Studies that compared the efficacy or safety of ultrasonic devices against traditional clamp-crushing methods in hepatectomy were included. The analysis covered intraoperative outcomes like operating time, blood loss, and transfusion rate, as well as postoperative outcomes such as complication rate, mortality, postoperative bleeding, and bile leakage. Review Manager version 5.3 (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK) and Stata 17.0 (Stata Corp, College Station, TX, USA) were used for data analysis.

Results: Thirteen studies, involving a total of 1,417 patients (630 using ultrasonic devices and 787 using clamp-crushing methods), were included. The clamp-crush method resulted in a shorter operation time. Contrarily, the ultrasonic device group experienced reduced blood loss and lower transfusion rates. Postoperatively, there was no significant difference in mortality or postoperative bleeding between the groups. However, the ultrasonic group had a lower overall complication rate, particularly a reduced incidence of bile leakage. Overall, the ultrasonic devices were associated with improved perioperative outcomes.

Conclusions: The findings suggest that ultrasonic devices provide better outcomes in hepatectomy compared to traditional clamp-crushing techniques. Nonetheless, large-scale randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these results due to potential heterogeneity and biases. The choice of using ultrasonic devices should consider the surgeon's experience and individual patient circumstances.

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
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
15.60%
发文量
362
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: World Journal of Surgical Oncology publishes articles related to surgical oncology and its allied subjects, such as epidemiology, cancer research, biomarkers, prevention, pathology, radiology, cancer treatment, clinical trials, multimodality treatment and molecular biology. Emphasis is placed on original research articles. The journal also publishes significant clinical case reports, as well as balanced and timely reviews on selected topics. Oncology is a multidisciplinary super-speciality of which surgical oncology forms an integral component, especially with solid tumors. Surgical oncologists around the world are involved in research extending from detecting the mechanisms underlying the causation of cancer, to its treatment and prevention. The role of a surgical oncologist extends across the whole continuum of care. With continued developments in diagnosis and treatment, the role of a surgical oncologist is ever-changing. Hence, World Journal of Surgical Oncology aims to keep readers abreast with latest developments that will ultimately influence the work of surgical oncologists.
期刊最新文献
Efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant bevacizumab plus chemotherapy in locally advanced gastric cancer patients: a retrospective, comparative study. Establishing a preoperative predictive model for gallbladder adenoma and cholesterol polyps based on machine learning: a multicentre retrospective study. Division of the inferior pulmonary ligament during upper lobectomy does not improve postoperative pulmonary function: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies and randomized controlled trials. Risk factors for lymphatic leakage following radical cystectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Efficacy comparison of optimal natural orifice specimen extraction for robotic middle rectal cancer resection in women: transanal or transvaginal orifice.
×
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