腹腔镜与开放式回肠切开术逆转的系统评价和荟萃分析

IF 0.6 Q4 SURGERY Surgery in practice and science Pub Date : 2023-06-01 DOI:10.1016/j.sipas.2023.100161
Tyler McKechnie , Léa Tessier , Tharani Anpalagan , Megan Chu , Yung Lee , Kathleen Logie , Aristithes Doumouras , Nalin Amin , Dennis Hong , Cagla Eskicioglu
{"title":"腹腔镜与开放式回肠切开术逆转的系统评价和荟萃分析","authors":"Tyler McKechnie ,&nbsp;Léa Tessier ,&nbsp;Tharani Anpalagan ,&nbsp;Megan Chu ,&nbsp;Yung Lee ,&nbsp;Kathleen Logie ,&nbsp;Aristithes Doumouras ,&nbsp;Nalin Amin ,&nbsp;Dennis Hong ,&nbsp;Cagla Eskicioglu","doi":"10.1016/j.sipas.2023.100161","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Loop ileostomies (LIs) are used for temporary fecal diversion to protect downstream colorectal anastomoses. Standard operative approach for LI reversal has been through an open technique. Recently, laparoscopic LI reversal has been employed and studied. The aim of this systematic review was to compare laparoscopic and open LI reversal.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL were systematically searched. Articles were included if they compared rate of postoperative morbidity and/or length of stay (LOS) in patients undergoing laparoscopic or open LI reversal. Pairwise meta-analyses using inverse variance random effects was performed. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evidence (GRADE) approach was conducted to assess quality of evidence.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>From 410 citations, four observational studies with 213 patients undergoing laparoscopic LI reversal and 176 patients undergoing open LI reversal met inclusion. Patients in the laparoscopic group had significantly shorter LOS (MD -0.39, 95%CI -0.73 to -0.04, <em>p</em> = 0.03). Laparoscopic and open LI reversal were comparable in postoperative morbidity, aside from a decrease of superficial surgical site infection (sSSI) with the use of laparoscopy (OR 0.22, 95%CI 0.07 to 0.71, <em>p</em> = 0.01). Operative time was not significantly different between groups (MD 11.91, 95%CI -1.87 to 25.70, <em>p</em> = 0.09). The GRADE quality of evidence was low to very low.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>This review presents low quality evidence that laparoscopic LI reversal is a feasible approach that may reduce postoperative LOS and sSSI compared to open LI reversal without increasing operative time. Future prospective comparative studies are required to confirm the findings of the present review.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":74890,"journal":{"name":"Surgery in practice and science","volume":"13 ","pages":"Article 100161"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Laparoscopic versus open loop ileostomy reversal: A systematic review and meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Tyler McKechnie ,&nbsp;Léa Tessier ,&nbsp;Tharani Anpalagan ,&nbsp;Megan Chu ,&nbsp;Yung Lee ,&nbsp;Kathleen Logie ,&nbsp;Aristithes Doumouras ,&nbsp;Nalin Amin ,&nbsp;Dennis Hong ,&nbsp;Cagla Eskicioglu\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.sipas.2023.100161\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Loop ileostomies (LIs) are used for temporary fecal diversion to protect downstream colorectal anastomoses. Standard operative approach for LI reversal has been through an open technique. Recently, laparoscopic LI reversal has been employed and studied. The aim of this systematic review was to compare laparoscopic and open LI reversal.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL were systematically searched. Articles were included if they compared rate of postoperative morbidity and/or length of stay (LOS) in patients undergoing laparoscopic or open LI reversal. Pairwise meta-analyses using inverse variance random effects was performed. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evidence (GRADE) approach was conducted to assess quality of evidence.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>From 410 citations, four observational studies with 213 patients undergoing laparoscopic LI reversal and 176 patients undergoing open LI reversal met inclusion. Patients in the laparoscopic group had significantly shorter LOS (MD -0.39, 95%CI -0.73 to -0.04, <em>p</em> = 0.03). Laparoscopic and open LI reversal were comparable in postoperative morbidity, aside from a decrease of superficial surgical site infection (sSSI) with the use of laparoscopy (OR 0.22, 95%CI 0.07 to 0.71, <em>p</em> = 0.01). Operative time was not significantly different between groups (MD 11.91, 95%CI -1.87 to 25.70, <em>p</em> = 0.09). The GRADE quality of evidence was low to very low.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>This review presents low quality evidence that laparoscopic LI reversal is a feasible approach that may reduce postoperative LOS and sSSI compared to open LI reversal without increasing operative time. Future prospective comparative studies are required to confirm the findings of the present review.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74890,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Surgery in practice and science\",\"volume\":\"13 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100161\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Surgery in practice and science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666262023000074\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgery in practice and science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666262023000074","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

回肠袢造口术(LIs)用于暂时性的粪便转移,以保护下游结肠直肠吻合器。LI逆转的标准手术方法是通过开放技术。近年来,腹腔镜LI反转已被应用和研究。本系统综述的目的是比较腹腔镜和开放式LI逆转。方法系统检索medline、Embase和CENTRAL数据库。比较腹腔镜或开放式LI逆转患者术后发病率和/或住院时间(LOS)的文章被纳入。采用反方差随机效应进行两两荟萃分析。采用推荐、评估、发展和证据分级(GRADE)方法评估证据质量。结果410篇文献中,4项观察性研究213例腹腔镜LI逆转患者和176例开放式LI逆转患者符合纳入标准。腹腔镜组患者LOS明显缩短(MD -0.39, 95%CI -0.73 ~ -0.04, p = 0.03)。除了腹腔镜下手术部位浅表感染(sSSI)的减少(OR 0.22, 95%CI 0.07 ~ 0.71, p = 0.01)外,腹腔镜和开放式LI反转在术后发病率方面具有可比性。两组手术时间差异无统计学意义(MD为11.91,95%CI为-1.87 ~ 25.70,p = 0.09)。GRADE证据质量为低至极低。结论本综述提供了低质量的证据,表明与开放式LI逆转相比,腹腔镜LI逆转是一种可行的方法,可以减少术后LOS和sSSI,而不会增加手术时间。需要未来的前瞻性比较研究来证实本综述的发现。
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
Laparoscopic versus open loop ileostomy reversal: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Loop ileostomies (LIs) are used for temporary fecal diversion to protect downstream colorectal anastomoses. Standard operative approach for LI reversal has been through an open technique. Recently, laparoscopic LI reversal has been employed and studied. The aim of this systematic review was to compare laparoscopic and open LI reversal.

Methods

Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL were systematically searched. Articles were included if they compared rate of postoperative morbidity and/or length of stay (LOS) in patients undergoing laparoscopic or open LI reversal. Pairwise meta-analyses using inverse variance random effects was performed. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evidence (GRADE) approach was conducted to assess quality of evidence.

Results

From 410 citations, four observational studies with 213 patients undergoing laparoscopic LI reversal and 176 patients undergoing open LI reversal met inclusion. Patients in the laparoscopic group had significantly shorter LOS (MD -0.39, 95%CI -0.73 to -0.04, p = 0.03). Laparoscopic and open LI reversal were comparable in postoperative morbidity, aside from a decrease of superficial surgical site infection (sSSI) with the use of laparoscopy (OR 0.22, 95%CI 0.07 to 0.71, p = 0.01). Operative time was not significantly different between groups (MD 11.91, 95%CI -1.87 to 25.70, p = 0.09). The GRADE quality of evidence was low to very low.

Conclusions

This review presents low quality evidence that laparoscopic LI reversal is a feasible approach that may reduce postoperative LOS and sSSI compared to open LI reversal without increasing operative time. Future prospective comparative studies are required to confirm the findings of the present review.

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
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
38 days
期刊最新文献
Emergency laparotomy preoperative risk assessment tool performance: A systematic review Letter to the Editor on “The pulmonary contusion score: Development of asimple scoring system for blunt lung injury” Prevalence and associated factors of acute postoperative pain in adult surgical patients: A prospective study Advances and results in omental patch repair of gastrointestinal perforations: A narrative review Practical evaluation of risk factors in patients with osteoporosis-induced thoracic and lumbar vertebral compression fractures requiring surgery
×
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