系统评价与meta分析腹腔镜结肠直肠癌切除术后横向与垂直中线提取切口疝的风险。

IF 3 4区 医学 Q1 Medicine Translational gastroenterology and hepatology Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.21037/tgh-22-75
Amiya Ahsan, Hussameldin M Nour, Dimitra V Peristeri, Sameh Abogabal, Christie Swaminathan, Muhammad S Sajid
{"title":"系统评价与meta分析腹腔镜结肠直肠癌切除术后横向与垂直中线提取切口疝的风险。","authors":"Amiya Ahsan,&nbsp;Hussameldin M Nour,&nbsp;Dimitra V Peristeri,&nbsp;Sameh Abogabal,&nbsp;Christie Swaminathan,&nbsp;Muhammad S Sajid","doi":"10.21037/tgh-22-75","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The aim of this article is to explore the risk of incisional hernia (IH) occurrence at the site of specimen extraction following laparoscopic colorectal resection (LCR), highlighting the comparison between transverse incision versus midline vertical abdominal incision.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Analysis was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Systematic search of medical databases, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed and Cochrane Library were performed to find all types of comparative studies reporting the incidence of IH at the specimen extraction site of transverse or vertical midline incision following LCR. The analysis of the pooled data was done using the RevMan statistical software.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-five comparative studies (including 2 randomised controlled trials) on 10,362 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. There were 4,944 patients in the transverse incision group and 5,418 patients in the vertical midline incision group. In the random effects model analysis, the use of transverse incision for specimen extraction following LCR reduced the risk of IH development (odds ratio =0.30, 95% CI: 0.19-0.49, Z=4.88, P=0.00001). However, there was significant heterogeneity (Tau<sup>2</sup>=0.97; Chi<sup>2</sup>=109.98, df=24, P=0.00004; I<sup>2</sup>=78%) among included studies. The limitation of the study is due to lack of RCTs, this study includes both prospective and retrospective studies along with 2 RCTs which makes the meta-analysis potentially biased in source of evidence.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Transverse incision used for specimen extraction following LCR seems to reduce the risk of postoperative IH incidence compared to vertical midline abdominal incisions.</p>","PeriodicalId":23267,"journal":{"name":"Translational gastroenterology and hepatology","volume":"8 ","pages":"16"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/5b/c2/tgh-08-22-75.PMC10184032.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Systematic review with meta-analysis of transverse <i>vs.</i> vertical midline extraction incisional hernia risk following laparoscopic colorectal resections.\",\"authors\":\"Amiya Ahsan,&nbsp;Hussameldin M Nour,&nbsp;Dimitra V Peristeri,&nbsp;Sameh Abogabal,&nbsp;Christie Swaminathan,&nbsp;Muhammad S Sajid\",\"doi\":\"10.21037/tgh-22-75\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The aim of this article is to explore the risk of incisional hernia (IH) occurrence at the site of specimen extraction following laparoscopic colorectal resection (LCR), highlighting the comparison between transverse incision versus midline vertical abdominal incision.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Analysis was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Systematic search of medical databases, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed and Cochrane Library were performed to find all types of comparative studies reporting the incidence of IH at the specimen extraction site of transverse or vertical midline incision following LCR. The analysis of the pooled data was done using the RevMan statistical software.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-five comparative studies (including 2 randomised controlled trials) on 10,362 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. There were 4,944 patients in the transverse incision group and 5,418 patients in the vertical midline incision group. In the random effects model analysis, the use of transverse incision for specimen extraction following LCR reduced the risk of IH development (odds ratio =0.30, 95% CI: 0.19-0.49, Z=4.88, P=0.00001). However, there was significant heterogeneity (Tau<sup>2</sup>=0.97; Chi<sup>2</sup>=109.98, df=24, P=0.00004; I<sup>2</sup>=78%) among included studies. The limitation of the study is due to lack of RCTs, this study includes both prospective and retrospective studies along with 2 RCTs which makes the meta-analysis potentially biased in source of evidence.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Transverse incision used for specimen extraction following LCR seems to reduce the risk of postoperative IH incidence compared to vertical midline abdominal incisions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23267,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Translational gastroenterology and hepatology\",\"volume\":\"8 \",\"pages\":\"16\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/5b/c2/tgh-08-22-75.PMC10184032.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Translational gastroenterology and hepatology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21037/tgh-22-75\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Translational gastroenterology and hepatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21037/tgh-22-75","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:本文的目的是探讨腹腔镜结肠直肠切除术(LCR)后标本提取部位发生切口疝(IH)的风险,重点介绍横向切口与腹部中线垂直切口的比较。方法:按照PRISMA指南进行分析。系统检索医学数据库EMBASE、MEDLINE、PubMed和Cochrane图书馆,查找LCR术后横切线或垂直中线切口取标本部位IH发生率的各类比较研究。使用RevMan统计软件对汇总数据进行分析。结果:25项比较研究(包括2项随机对照试验)10362例患者符合纳入标准。横向切口组4944例,垂直中线切口组5418例。在随机效应模型分析中,LCR术后采用横切口取标本降低了IH发生的风险(优势比=0.30,95% CI: 0.19-0.49, Z=4.88, P=0.00001)。然而,存在显著的异质性(Tau2=0.97;Chi2=109.98, df=24, P=0.00004;I2=78%)。本研究的局限性是由于缺乏随机对照试验,本研究包括前瞻性和回顾性研究以及2个随机对照试验,这使得荟萃分析在证据来源上可能存在偏差。结论:与垂直腹部中线切口相比,LCR术后采用横向切口取标本似乎降低了IH发生率。
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

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
Systematic review with meta-analysis of transverse vs. vertical midline extraction incisional hernia risk following laparoscopic colorectal resections.

Background: The aim of this article is to explore the risk of incisional hernia (IH) occurrence at the site of specimen extraction following laparoscopic colorectal resection (LCR), highlighting the comparison between transverse incision versus midline vertical abdominal incision.

Methods: Analysis was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Systematic search of medical databases, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed and Cochrane Library were performed to find all types of comparative studies reporting the incidence of IH at the specimen extraction site of transverse or vertical midline incision following LCR. The analysis of the pooled data was done using the RevMan statistical software.

Results: Twenty-five comparative studies (including 2 randomised controlled trials) on 10,362 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. There were 4,944 patients in the transverse incision group and 5,418 patients in the vertical midline incision group. In the random effects model analysis, the use of transverse incision for specimen extraction following LCR reduced the risk of IH development (odds ratio =0.30, 95% CI: 0.19-0.49, Z=4.88, P=0.00001). However, there was significant heterogeneity (Tau2=0.97; Chi2=109.98, df=24, P=0.00004; I2=78%) among included studies. The limitation of the study is due to lack of RCTs, this study includes both prospective and retrospective studies along with 2 RCTs which makes the meta-analysis potentially biased in source of evidence.

Conclusions: Transverse incision used for specimen extraction following LCR seems to reduce the risk of postoperative IH incidence compared to vertical midline abdominal incisions.

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
8.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
期刊介绍: Translational Gastroenterology and Hepatology (Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol; TGH; Online ISSN 2415-1289) is an open-access, peer-reviewed online journal that focuses on cutting-edge findings in the field of translational research in gastroenterology and hepatology and provides current and practical information on diagnosis, prevention and clinical investigations of gastrointestinal, pancreas, gallbladder and hepatic diseases. Specific areas of interest include, but not limited to, multimodality therapy, biomarkers, imaging, biology, pathology, and technical advances related to gastrointestinal and hepatic diseases. Contributions pertinent to gastroenterology and hepatology are also included from related fields such as nutrition, surgery, public health, human genetics, basic sciences, education, sociology, and nursing.
期刊最新文献
A fucoidan plant drink reduces Helicobacter pylori load in the stomach: a real-world study Risk of second cancer in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma survivors: a population-based analysis in SEER dataset Application and effectiveness of an improved endoscopically guided nasojejunal tube placement technique in critically ill patients: a retrospective cohort study The real efficacy of microbiota restoration following standard of care antimicrobial in patients with recurrent Clostridiodes difficile Therapeutic advancement in inflammatory bowel disease by incorporating plant-based diet
×
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