自膨胀金属支架与减压管作为癌症所致结直肠癌梗阻患者手术的桥梁:一项系统综述和荟萃分析。

IF 6 1区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE World Journal of Emergency Surgery Pub Date : 2023-09-27 DOI:10.1186/s13017-023-00515-6
Wei Ma, Jian-Cheng Zhang, Kun Luo, Lu Wang, Chi Zhang, Bin Cai, Hua Jiang
{"title":"自膨胀金属支架与减压管作为癌症所致结直肠癌梗阻患者手术的桥梁:一项系统综述和荟萃分析。","authors":"Wei Ma, Jian-Cheng Zhang, Kun Luo, Lu Wang, Chi Zhang, Bin Cai, Hua Jiang","doi":"10.1186/s13017-023-00515-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Using self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) and decompression tubes (DT) as a bridge-to-surgery (BTS) treatment may avoid emergency operations for patients with colorectal cancer-caused obstructions. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the two approaches.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We systematically retrieved literature from January 1, 2000, to May 30, 2023, from the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, SinoMed, Wanfang Data, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials databases. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or cohort studies of SEMS versus DT as BTS in colorectal cancer obstruction were selected. Risks of bias were assessed for RCTs and cohort studies using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool version 2 and Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions. Certainty of evidence was determined using the Graded Recommendation Assessment. Odds ratio (OR), mean difference (MD), and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were used to analyze measurement data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included eight RCTs and eighteen cohort studies involving 2,061 patients (SEMS, 1,044; DT, 1,017). Pooled RCT and cohort data indicated the SEMS group had a significantly higher clinical success rate than the DT group (OR = 1.99, 95% CI 1.04, 3.81, P = 0.04), but no significant difference regarding technical success (OR = 1.29, 95% CI 0.56, 2.96, P = 0.55). SEMS had a shorter postoperative length of hospital stays (MD = - 4.47, 95% CI - 6.26, - 2.69, P < 0.00001), a lower rates of operation-related abdominal pain (OR = 0.16, 95% CI 0.05, 0.50, P = 0.002), intraoperative bleeding (MD = - 37.67, 95% CI - 62.73, - 12.60, P = 0.003), stoma creation (OR = 0.41, 95% CI 0.23, 0.73, P = 0.002) and long-term tumor recurrence rate than DT (OR = 0.47, 95% CI 0.22, 0.99, P = 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>SEMS and DT are both safe as BTS to avoid emergency surgery for patients with colorectal cancer obstruction. SEMS is preferable because of higher clinical success rates, lower rates of operation-related abdominal pain, intraoperative bleeding, stoma creation, and long-term tumor recurrence, as well as a shorter postoperative length of hospital stays. Trial registration CRD42022365951 .</p>","PeriodicalId":48867,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Emergency Surgery","volume":"18 1","pages":"46"},"PeriodicalIF":6.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10536785/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Self-expanding metal stents versus decompression tubes as a bridge to surgery for patients with obstruction caused by colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Wei Ma, Jian-Cheng Zhang, Kun Luo, Lu Wang, Chi Zhang, Bin Cai, Hua Jiang\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13017-023-00515-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Using self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) and decompression tubes (DT) as a bridge-to-surgery (BTS) treatment may avoid emergency operations for patients with colorectal cancer-caused obstructions. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the two approaches.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We systematically retrieved literature from January 1, 2000, to May 30, 2023, from the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, SinoMed, Wanfang Data, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials databases. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or cohort studies of SEMS versus DT as BTS in colorectal cancer obstruction were selected. Risks of bias were assessed for RCTs and cohort studies using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool version 2 and Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions. Certainty of evidence was determined using the Graded Recommendation Assessment. Odds ratio (OR), mean difference (MD), and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were used to analyze measurement data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included eight RCTs and eighteen cohort studies involving 2,061 patients (SEMS, 1,044; DT, 1,017). Pooled RCT and cohort data indicated the SEMS group had a significantly higher clinical success rate than the DT group (OR = 1.99, 95% CI 1.04, 3.81, P = 0.04), but no significant difference regarding technical success (OR = 1.29, 95% CI 0.56, 2.96, P = 0.55). SEMS had a shorter postoperative length of hospital stays (MD = - 4.47, 95% CI - 6.26, - 2.69, P < 0.00001), a lower rates of operation-related abdominal pain (OR = 0.16, 95% CI 0.05, 0.50, P = 0.002), intraoperative bleeding (MD = - 37.67, 95% CI - 62.73, - 12.60, P = 0.003), stoma creation (OR = 0.41, 95% CI 0.23, 0.73, P = 0.002) and long-term tumor recurrence rate than DT (OR = 0.47, 95% CI 0.22, 0.99, P = 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>SEMS and DT are both safe as BTS to avoid emergency surgery for patients with colorectal cancer obstruction. SEMS is preferable because of higher clinical success rates, lower rates of operation-related abdominal pain, intraoperative bleeding, stoma creation, and long-term tumor recurrence, as well as a shorter postoperative length of hospital stays. Trial registration CRD42022365951 .</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48867,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"World Journal of Emergency Surgery\",\"volume\":\"18 1\",\"pages\":\"46\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10536785/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"World Journal of Emergency Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13017-023-00515-6\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Emergency Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13017-023-00515-6","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:使用自扩金属支架(SEMS)和减压管(DT)作为桥-手术(BTS)治疗可以避免结直肠癌引起的障碍患者的紧急手术。本研究旨在评估这两种方法的有效性和安全性。方法:我们系统地检索了2000年1月1日至2023年5月30日的文献,这些文献来自PubMed、Embase、Web of Science、SinoMed、万方数据、中国国家知识基础设施和Cochrane临床试验中心注册数据库。选择随机对照试验(RCTs)或队列研究,研究结直肠癌癌症梗阻中SEMS与DT作为BTS。使用Cochrane偏倚风险工具版本2和非随机干预研究中的偏倚风险评估随机对照试验和队列研究的偏倚危险。使用分级推荐评估来确定证据的确定性。比值比(OR)、平均差(MD)和95%置信区间(95%CI)用于分析测量数据。结果:我们纳入了8项随机对照试验和18项队列研究,涉及2061名患者(SEMS,1044;DT,1017)。综合随机对照试验和队列数据表明,SEMS组的临床成功率明显高于DT组(OR = 1.99,95%置信区间1.04,3.81,P = 0.04),但在技术成功方面没有显著差异(OR = 1.29,95%置信区间0.56,2.96,P = 0.55)。SEMS术后住院时间较短(MD = -4.47,95%置信区间-6.26,-2.69,P 结论:SEMS和DT作为BTS对癌症梗阻患者避免急诊手术是安全的。SEMS更可取,因为它具有更高的临床成功率、更低的手术相关腹痛、术中出血、造瘘和长期肿瘤复发率,以及更短的术后住院时间。试用注册CRD42022365951。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
Self-expanding metal stents versus decompression tubes as a bridge to surgery for patients with obstruction caused by colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Using self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) and decompression tubes (DT) as a bridge-to-surgery (BTS) treatment may avoid emergency operations for patients with colorectal cancer-caused obstructions. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the two approaches.

Methods: We systematically retrieved literature from January 1, 2000, to May 30, 2023, from the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, SinoMed, Wanfang Data, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials databases. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or cohort studies of SEMS versus DT as BTS in colorectal cancer obstruction were selected. Risks of bias were assessed for RCTs and cohort studies using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool version 2 and Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions. Certainty of evidence was determined using the Graded Recommendation Assessment. Odds ratio (OR), mean difference (MD), and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were used to analyze measurement data.

Results: We included eight RCTs and eighteen cohort studies involving 2,061 patients (SEMS, 1,044; DT, 1,017). Pooled RCT and cohort data indicated the SEMS group had a significantly higher clinical success rate than the DT group (OR = 1.99, 95% CI 1.04, 3.81, P = 0.04), but no significant difference regarding technical success (OR = 1.29, 95% CI 0.56, 2.96, P = 0.55). SEMS had a shorter postoperative length of hospital stays (MD = - 4.47, 95% CI - 6.26, - 2.69, P < 0.00001), a lower rates of operation-related abdominal pain (OR = 0.16, 95% CI 0.05, 0.50, P = 0.002), intraoperative bleeding (MD = - 37.67, 95% CI - 62.73, - 12.60, P = 0.003), stoma creation (OR = 0.41, 95% CI 0.23, 0.73, P = 0.002) and long-term tumor recurrence rate than DT (OR = 0.47, 95% CI 0.22, 0.99, P = 0.05).

Conclusion: SEMS and DT are both safe as BTS to avoid emergency surgery for patients with colorectal cancer obstruction. SEMS is preferable because of higher clinical success rates, lower rates of operation-related abdominal pain, intraoperative bleeding, stoma creation, and long-term tumor recurrence, as well as a shorter postoperative length of hospital stays. Trial registration CRD42022365951 .

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
World Journal of Emergency Surgery
World Journal of Emergency Surgery EMERGENCY MEDICINE-SURGERY
CiteScore
14.50
自引率
5.00%
发文量
60
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊介绍: The World Journal of Emergency Surgery is an open access, peer-reviewed journal covering all facets of clinical and basic research in traumatic and non-traumatic emergency surgery and related fields. Topics include emergency surgery, acute care surgery, trauma surgery, intensive care, trauma management, and resuscitation, among others.
期刊最新文献
Prophylactic PICO◊ dressing shortens wound dressing requirements post emergency laparotomy (EL-PICO◊ trial) A new technology for medical and surgical data organisation: the WSES-WJES Decentralised Knowledge Graph Erector spinae plane block (ESPB) enhances hemodynamic stability decreasing analgesic requirements in surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRFs) Ultra minimally invasive surgical stabilization of Rib fractures (uMI-SSRF): reduction and fixation techniques to minimize the surgical wound Ultrasonic dissection versus electrocautery dissection in laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis: a randomized controlled trial (SONOCHOL-trial)
×
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