scholarly journals Short and long-term post-operative outcomes of duodenum preserving pancreatic head resection for painful chronic pancreatitis affecting the head of pancreas: A systematic review and meta-analysis

HPB ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 18 ◽  
pp. e83-e84
Author(s):  
Z. Jawad ◽  
N. Tsim ◽  
M. Pai ◽  
D. Westaby ◽  
P. Vlavianos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Chronic Pancreatitis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Pancreatic Head ◽  
Pancreatic Head Resection ◽  
Operative Outcomes ◽  
Short And Long Term ◽  
Head Of Pancreas

Short- and Long-Term Complications of Intraoperative Benign Ovarian Cyst Spillage: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neta Eisenberg ◽  
Alexander Volodarsky-Perel ◽  
Ian Brochu ◽  
Catherine Tremblay ◽  
Emilie Gorak ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Ovarian Cyst ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Short And Long Term

scholarly journals Comparison of Prognostic Accuracy of the quick Sepsis-Related Organ Failure Assessment between Short- & Long-term Mortality in Patients Presenting Outside of The Intensive Care Unit - A Systematic Review & Meta-analysis

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
TOH LEONG TAN ◽  
Ying Jing Tang ◽  
Ling Jing Ching ◽  
Noraidatulakma Abdullah ◽  
Hui-min Neoh
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Suspected Infection ◽  
Failure Assessment ◽  
Short Term Mortality ◽  
Short And Long Term ◽  
Qsofa Score ◽  
Long Term Mortality

Objective: In year 2016, quick Sepsis-Related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) was introduced as a better sepsis screening tool compared to systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS). The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the ability of the qSOFA in predicting short- and long-term mortality among patients outside the intensive care unit setting. Method: Studies reporting on the qSOFA and mortality from MEDLINE (published between 1946 and 15th December 2017) and SCOPUS (published before 15th December 2017). Hand-checking of the references of relevant articles was carried out. Studies were included if they involved inclusion of patients presenting to the ED; usage of Sepsis-3 definition with suspected infection; usage of qSOFA score for mortality prognostication; and written in English. Study details, patient demographics, qSOFA scores, short-term (<30 days) and long-term (≥30 days) mortality were extracted. Two reviewers conducted all reviews and data extraction independently. Results and Discussion: A total of 39 studies met the selection criteria for full text review and only 36 studies were inclided. Data on qSOFA scores and mortality rate were extracted from 36 studies from 15 countries. The pooled odds ratio was 5.5 and 4.7 for short-term and long-term mortality respectively. The overall pooled sensitivity and specificity for the qSOFA was 48% and 85% for short-term mortality and 32% and 92% for long-term mortality, respectively. Studies reporting on short-term mortality were heterogeneous (Tau=24%, I2=94%, P<0.001), while long-term mortality studies were homogenous (Tau=0%, I2<0.001, P=0.52). The factors contributing to heterogeneity may be wide age group, various clinical settings, variation in the timing of qSOFA scoring, and broad range of clinical diagnosis and criteria. There was no publication bias for short-term mortality analysis. Conclusion: qSOFA score showed a poor sensitivity but moderate specificity for both short and long-term mortality prediction in patients with suspected infection. qSOFA score may be a cost-effective tool for sepsis prognostication outside of the ICU setting.

Does Conversion to Open of Laparoscopically Attempted Rectal Cancer Cases Affect Short- and Long-Term Outcomes? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 117-126 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nikolaos Gouvas ◽  
Panagiotis A. Georgiou ◽  
Christos Agalianos ◽  
Georgios Tzovaras ◽  
Paris Tekkis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Rectal Cancer ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Long Term Outcomes ◽  
Short And Long Term

723 TWO- VS. THREE-FIELD LYMPHADENECTOMY FOR ESOPHAGEAL CANCER. A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS OF SHORT- AND LONG-TERM OUTCOMES.

2021 ◽  
Vol 34 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Letícia Nogueira Datrino ◽  
Clara Lucato Santos ◽  
Guilherme Tavares ◽  
Luca Schiliró Tristão ◽  
Maria Carolina Andrade Serafim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Extended Lymphadenectomy ◽  
Long Term Outcomes ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Long Term Survival ◽  
Short And Long Term

Abstract   Nowadays, there is still no consensus about the benefits of adding neck lymphadenectomy to the traditional two-fields esophagectomy. An extended lymphadenectomy could potentially increase operation time and the risks for postoperative complications. However, extended lymphadenectomy allows resection of cervical nodes at risk for metastases, potentially increasing long-term survival rates. This study aims to estimate whether cervical prophylactic lymphadenectomy for esophageal cancer influences short- and long-term outcomes through a systematic review of literature and meta-analysis. Methods A systematic review was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library Central, and Lilacs (BVS). The inclusion criteria were: (1) studies that compare two-field vs. three-field esophagectomy; (2) adults (&gt;18 years); (3) articles that analyze short- or long-term outcomes; and (4) clinical trials or cohort studies. The results were summarized by forest plots, with effect size (ES) or risk difference (RD) and 95% CI. Results Twenty-five articles were selected, comprising 8,954 patients. Three-field lymphadenectomy was associated to higher operation time (ES: -1.51; 95%CI -1.84, −1.18) and higher blood loss (ES: -0.24; 95%CI: −0.37, −0.11). Also, neck lymphadenectomy inputs additional risk for pulmonary complications (RD: 0.03; 95%CI: 0.01, 0.05). No difference was noted for morbidity (RD: 0.01; 95%CI: −0.01, 0.03); leak (−0.02; 95%CI: −0.07, 0.03); postoperative mortality (RD: 0.00; 95%CI: −0.00, 0.01), and hospital stay (ES: -0.05; 95%CI -0.20, 0.10). Three-field lymphadenectomy allowed higher number of retrieved lymph nodes (MD: -1.51; 95%CI -1.84, −1.18), but did not increase the overall survival (HR: 1.11; 95%CI: 0.96, 1.26). Conclusion Prophylactic neck lymphadenectomy for esophageal cancer should be performed with caution once it is associated with poorer short-term outcomes compared to traditional two-field lymphadenectomy and does not improve long-term survival. Future esophageal cancer studies should determine the subgroup of patients who could benefit from prophylactic neck lymphadenectomy in long-term outcomes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document