scholarly journals Robotic Esophagectomy. A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis of Clinical Outcomes

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (7) ◽  
pp. 640
Author(s):  
Michele Manigrasso ◽  
Sara Vertaldi ◽  
Alessandra Marello ◽  
Stavros Athanasios Antoniou ◽  
Nader Kamal Francis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Robotic Surgery ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Wound Infection ◽  
Open Surgery ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Conventional Laparoscopy ◽  
R0 Resection ◽  
Robotic Approach ◽  
Robotic Esophagectomy

Background: Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy is demonstrated to be related with a facilitation in thoracoscopic procedure. To give an update on the state of art of robotic esophagectomy for cancr a systematic review with meta-analysis has been performed. Methods: a search of the studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic or open esophagectomy was performed trough the medical libraries, with the search string “robotic and (oesophagus OR esophagus OR esophagectomy OR oesophagectomy)”. Outcomes were: postoperative complications rate (anastomotic leakage, bleeding, wound infection, pneumonia, recurrent laryngeal nerves paralysis, chylotorax, mortality), intraoperative outcomes (mean blood loss, operative time and conversion), oncologic outcomes (harvested nodes, R0 resection, recurrence) and recovery outcomes (length of hospital stay). Results: Robotic approach is superior to open surgery in terms of blood loss p = 0.001, wound infection rate, p = 0.002, pneumonia rate, p = 0.030 and mean number of harvested nodes, p < 0.0001 and R0 resection rate, p = 0.043. Similarly, robotic approach is superior to conventional laparoscopy in terms of mean number of harvested nodes, p = 0.001 pneumonia rate, p = 0.003. Conclusions: robotic surgery could be considered superior to both open surgery and conventional laparoscopy. These encouraging results should promote the diffusion of the robotic surgery, with the creation of randomized trials to overcome selection bias.

scholarly journals Open versus arthroscopic ankle arthrodesis: A systemic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tsz Ngai Mok ◽  
Qiyu He ◽  
SOUNDARYA PANNEERSELVAM ◽  
Huajun Wang ◽  
Huige Hou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Cohort Studies ◽  
Open Surgery ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Fusion Rate ◽  
Ankle Arthritis ◽  
Tourniquet Time ◽  
Pooled Data ◽  
Estimated Blood Loss

Abstract Background: Osteoarthritis (OA) is a growing health concern that affects approximately 27 million people in the USA and is associated with a $185 billion annual cost burden. Choosing between open surgery and arthroscopic arthrodesis for ankle arthritis is still controversial. This study compared arthroscopic arthrodesis and open surgery by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: For the systematic review, a literature search was conducted in four English databases (PubMed, Embase, Medline and the Cochrane Library) from inception to February 2020. Two prospective cohort studies and 8 retrospective cohort studies, enrolling a total of 548 patients with ankle arthritis, were included. Result: For fusion rate, the pooled data showed a significantly higher rate of fusion during arthroscopic arthrodesis compared with open surgery (odds ratio 0.25, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.57, p = 0.0010). Regarding estimated blood loss, the pooled data showed significantly less blood loss during arthroscopic arthrodesis compared with open surgery (WMD 52.04, 95% CI 14.14 to 89.94, p = 0.007). For tourniquet time, the pooled data showed a shorter tourniquet time during arthroscopic arthrodesis compared with open surgery (WMD 22.68, 95% CI 1.92 to 43.43, p = 0.03). For length of hospital stay, the pooled data showed less hospitalisation time for patients undergoing arthroscopic arthrodesis compared with open surgery (WMD 1.62, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.26, p < 0.00001). The pooled data showed better recovery for the patients who underwent arthroscopic arthrodesis compared with open surgery at 1 year (WMD 14.73, 95% CI 6.66 to 22.80, p = 0.0003). Conclusion: In conclusion, arthroscopic arthrodesis was associated with a higher fusion rate, smaller estimated blood loss, shorter tourniquet time, shorter length of hospitalisation and better functional improvement at 1 year than open surgery.

scholarly journals Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy Versus Conventional Open Approach for Patients With Pancreatic Duct Adenocarcinoma: An Up-to-Date Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qingbo Feng ◽  
Wenwei Liao ◽  
Zechang Xin ◽  
Hongyu Jin ◽  
Jinpeng Du ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Lymph Node ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Survival Time ◽  
Pancreatic Duct ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
R0 Resection ◽  
Node Dissection ◽  
Pancreatic Duct Adenocarcinoma

BackgroundTo compare perioperative and oncological outcomes of pancreatic duct adenocarcinoma (PDAC) after laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD vs. OPD), we performed a meta-analysis of currently available propensity score matching studies and large-scale retrospective cohorts to compare the safety and overall effect of LPD to OPD for patients with PDAC.MethodsA meta-analysis was registered at PROSPERO and the registration number is CRD42021250395. PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched based on a defined search strategy to identify eligible studies before March 2021. Data on operative times, blood loss, 30-day mortality, reoperation, length of hospital stay (LOS), overall morbidity, Clavien–Dindo ≥3 complications, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), blood transfusion, delayed gastric emptying (DGE), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), and oncologic outcomes (R0 resection, lymph node dissection, overall survival, and long-term survival) were subjected to meta-analysis.ResultsOverall, we identified 10 retrospective studies enrolling a total of 11,535 patients (1,514 and 10,021 patients underwent LPD and OPD, respectively). The present meta-analysis showed that there were no significant differences in overall survival time, 1-year survival, 2-year survival, 30-day mortality, Clavien-Dindo ≥3 complications, POPF, DGE, PPH, and lymph node dissection between the LPD and OPD groups. Nevertheless, compared with the OPD group, LPD resulted in significantly higher rate of R0 resection (OR: 1.22; 95% CI 1.06–1.40; p = 0.005), longer operative time (WMD: 60.01 min; 95% CI 23.23–96.79; p = 0.001), lower Clavien–Dindo grade ≥III rate (p = 0.02), less blood loss (WMD: −96.49 ml; 95% CI −165.14 to −27.83; p = 0.006), lower overall morbidity rate (OR: 0.65; 95% CI 0.50 to 0.85; p = 0.002), shorter LOS (MD = −2.73; 95% CI −4.44 to −1.03; p = 0.002), higher 4-year survival time (p = 0.04), 5-year survival time (p = 0.001), and earlier time to starting adjuvant chemotherapy after surgery (OR: −10.86; 95% CI −19.42 to −2.30; p = 0.01).ConclusionsLPD is a safe and feasible alternative to OPD for patients with PDAC, and compared with OPD, LPD seemed to provide a similar OS.Systematic Review Registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails.

Open versus arthroscopic ankle arthrodesis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tsz Ngai Mok ◽  
Qiyu He ◽  
Soundarya Panneerselvam ◽  
Huajun Wang ◽  
Huige Hou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Cohort Studies ◽  
Open Surgery ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Fusion Rate ◽  
Ankle Arthritis ◽  
Tourniquet Time ◽  
Pooled Data ◽  
Estimated Blood Loss

Abstract Background: Osteoarthritis (OA) is a growing health concern that affects approximately 27 million people in the USA and is associated with a $185 billion annual cost burden . Choosing between open surgery and arthroscopic arthrodesis for ankle arthritis is still controversial. This study compared arthroscopic arthrodesis and open surgery by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: For the systematic review, a literature search was conducted in four English databases (PubMed, Embase, Medline and the Cochrane Library) from inception to February 2020. Two prospective cohort studies and 8 retrospective cohort studies, enrolling a total of 548 patients with ankle arthritis, were included. Result: For fusion rate, the pooled data showed a significantly higher rate of fusion during arthroscopic arthrodesis compared with open surgery (odds ratio 0.25, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.57, p = 0.0010). Regarding estimated blood loss, the pooled data showed significantly less blood loss during arthroscopic arthrodesis compared with open surgery (WMD 52.04, 95% CI 14.14 to 89.94, p = 0.007). For tourniquet time, the pooled data showed a shorter tourniquet time during arthroscopic arthrodesis compared with open surgery (WMD 22.68, 95% CI 1.92 to 43.43, p = 0.03). For length of hospital stay, the pooled data showed less hospitalisation time for patients undergoing arthroscopic arthrodesis compared with open surgery (WMD 1.62, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.26, p < 0.00001). The pooled data showed better recovery for the patients who underwent arthroscopic arthrodesis compared with open surgery at 1 year (WMD 14.73, 95% CI 6.66 to 22.80, p = 0.0003). Conclusion: In conclusion, arthroscopic arthrodesis was associated with a higher fusion rate, smaller estimated blood loss, shorter tourniquet time, shorter length of hospitalisation and better functional improvement at 1 year than open surgery.

scholarly journals A systematic review and meta-analysis of endoscopic versus open treatment of craniosynostosis. Part 1: the sagittal suture

2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 352-360 ◽  
Author(s):  
Han Yan ◽  
Taylor J. Abel ◽  
Naif M. Alotaibi ◽  
Melanie Anderson ◽  
Toba N. Niazi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Length Of Stay ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Open Surgery ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Operating Time ◽  
Transfusion Rate ◽  
Endoscopic Procedures ◽  
Estimated Blood Loss ◽  
Cosmetic Outcomes

OBJECTIVEIn this systematic review and meta-analysis the authors aimed to directly compare open surgical and endoscope-assisted techniques for the treatment of sagittal craniosynostosis, focusing on the outcomes of blood loss, transfusion rate, length of stay, operating time, complication rate, cost, and cosmetic outcome.METHODSA literature search was performed in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Relevant articles were identified from 3 electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL [Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials]) from their inception to August 2017. The quality of methodology and bias risk were assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies. Effect estimates between groups were calculated as standardized mean differences with 95% CIs. Random and fixed effects models were used to estimate the overall effect.RESULTSOf 316 screened records, 10 met the inclusion criteria, of which 3 were included in the meta-analysis. These studies reported on 303 patients treated endoscopically and 385 patients treated with open surgery. Endoscopic surgery was associated with lower estimated blood loss (p < 0.001), shorter length of stay (p < 0.001), and shorter operating time (p < 0.001). From the literature review of the 10 studies, transfusion rates for endoscopic procedures were consistently lower, with significant differences in 4 of 6 studies; the cost was lower, with differences ranging from $11,603 to $31,744 in 3 of 3 studies; and the cosmetic outcomes were equivocal (p > 0.05) in 3 of 3 studies. Finally, endoscopic techniques demonstrated complication rates similar to or lower than those of open surgery in 8 of 8 studies.CONCLUSIONSEndoscopic procedures are associated with lower estimated blood loss, operating time, and days in hospital. Future long-term prospective registries may establish advantages with respect to complications and cost, with equivalent cosmetic outcomes. Larger studies evaluating patient- or parent-reported satisfaction and optimal timing of intervention as well as heterogeneity in outcomes are indicated.

Robotic surgery versus open surgery for thyroid neoplasms: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 146 (12) ◽  
pp. 3297-3312
Author(s):  
Hanghang Liu ◽  
Yue Wang ◽  
Chenzhou Wu ◽  
Wei Fei ◽  
En Luo
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Robotic Surgery ◽  
Open Surgery ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Thyroid Neoplasms

scholarly journals Robotic Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Liver Resections: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
pp. 145749692092563 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. K. Kamarajah ◽  
J. Bundred ◽  
D. Manas ◽  
L. R. Jiao ◽  
M. A. Hilal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Laparoscopic Surgery ◽  
Liver Resection ◽  
Robotic Surgery ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Laparoscopic Liver Resection ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery ◽  
Robotic Liver Resection ◽  
Conventional Laparoscopic

Background: Theoretical advantages of robotic surgery compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery include improved instrument dexterity, 3D visualization, and better ergonomics. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine advantages of robotic surgery over laparoscopic surgery in patients undergoing liver resections. Method: A systematic literature search was conducted for studies comparing robotic assisted or totally laparoscopic liver resection. Meta-analysis of intraoperative (operative time, blood loss, transfusion rate, conversion rate), oncological (R0 resection rates), and postoperative (bile leak, surgical site infection, pulmonary complications, 30-day and 90-day mortality, length of stay, 90-day readmission and reoperation rates) outcomes was performed using a random effects model. Result: Twenty-six non-randomized studies including 2630 patients (950 robotic and 1680 laparoscopic) were included, of which 20% had major robotic liver resection and 14% had major laparoscopic liver resection. Intraoperatively, robotic liver resection was associated with significantly less blood loss (mean: 286 vs 301 mL, p < 0.001) but longer operating time (mean: 281 vs 221 min, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in conversion rates or transfusion rates between robotic liver resection and laparoscopic liver resection. Postoperatively, there were no significant differences in overall complications, bile leaks, and length of hospital stay between robotic liver resection and laparoscopic liver resection. However, robotic liver resection was associated with significantly lower readmission rates than laparoscopic liver resection (odds ratio: 0.43, p = 0.005). Conclusion: Robotic liver resection appears to offer some advantages compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery, although both techniques appear equivalent. Importantly, the quality of evidence is generally limited to cohort studies and a high-quality randomized trial comparing both techniques is needed.

scholarly journals Clinical effectiveness of gasless laparoscopic surgery for abdominal conditions: systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. Aruparayil ◽  
W. Bolton ◽  
A. Mishra ◽  
L. Bains ◽  
J. Gnanaraj ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
General Surgery ◽  
Open Surgery ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Intraoperative Complications ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Conventional Laparoscopy ◽  
Gynaecological Surgery ◽  
Gasless Laparoscopy ◽  
Conversion Rates

Abstract Background In high-income countries, laparoscopic surgery is the preferred approach for many abdominal conditions. Conventional laparoscopy is a complex intervention that is challenging to adopt and implement in low resource settings. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluate the clinical effectiveness of gasless laparoscopy compared to conventional laparoscopy with CO2 pneumoperitoneum and open surgery for general surgery and gynaecological procedures. Methods A search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Global Health, AJOL databases and Cochrane Library was performed from inception to January 2021. All randomised (RCTs) and comparative cohort (non-RCTs) studies comparing gasless laparoscopy with open surgery or conventional laparoscopy were included. The primary outcomes were mortality, conversion rates and intraoperative complications. Secondary outcomes: operative times and length of stay. The inverse variance random-effects model was used to synthesise data. Results 63 studies were included: 41 RCTs and 22 non-RCTs (3,620 patients). No procedure-related deaths were reported in the studies. For gasless vs conventional laparoscopy there was no difference in intraoperative complications for general RR 1.04 [CI 0.45–2.40] or gynaecological surgery RR 0.66 [0.14–3.13]. In the gasless laparoscopy group, the conversion rates for gynaecological surgery were high RR 11.72 [CI 2.26–60.87] when compared to conventional laparoscopy. For gasless vs open surgery, the operative times were longer for gasless surgery in general surgery RCT group MD (mean difference) 10 [CI 0.64, 19.36], but significantly shorter in the gynaecology RCT group MD − 18.74 [CI − 29.23, − 8.26]. For gasless laparoscopy vs open surgery non-RCT, the length of stay was shorter for gasless laparoscopy in general surgery MD − 3.94 [CI − 5.93, − 1.95] and gynaecology MD − 1.75 [CI − 2.64, − 0.86]. Overall GRADE assessment for RCTs and Non-RCTs was very low. Conclusion Gasless laparoscopy has advantages for selective general and gynaecological procedures and may have a vital role to play in low resource settings.

Antifibrinolytics reduces blood loss in thoracic surgery: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lowell Leow ◽  
Josiah Ng ◽  
Hai Dong Luo ◽  
Andrew M. T. L. Choong ◽  
Harish Mithiran ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Thoracic Surgery ◽  
Meta Analysis

scholarly journals Posterolateral Fusion Versus Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2021 ◽  
pp. 219256822110164
Author(s):  
Elsayed Said ◽  
Mohamed E. Abdel-Wanis ◽  
Mohamed Ameen ◽  
Ali A. Sayed ◽  
Khaled H. Mosallam ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Revision Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Objectives: Arthrodesis has been a valid treatment option for spinal diseases, including spondylolisthesis and lumbar spinal stenosis. Posterolateral and posterior lumbar interbody fusion are amongst the most used fusion techniques. Previous reports comparing both methods have been contradictory. Thus, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to establish substantial evidence on which fusion method would achieve better outcomes. Methods: Major databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and CENTRAL were searched to identify studies comparing outcomes of interest between posterolateral fusion (PLF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). We extracted data on clinical outcome, complication rate, revision rate, fusion rate, operation time, and blood loss. We calculated the mean differences (MDs) for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each outcome and the odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for binary outcomes. P < 0.05 was considered significant. Results: We retrieved 8 studies meeting our inclusion criteria, with a total of 616 patients (308 PLF, 308 PLIF). The results of our analysis revealed that patients who underwent PLIF had significantly higher fusion rates. No statistically significant difference was identified in terms of clinical outcomes, complication rates, revision rates, operation time or blood loss. Conclusions: This systematic review and meta-analysis provide a comparison between PLF and PLIF based on RCTs. Although PLIF had higher fusion rates, both fusion methods achieve similar clinical outcomes with equal complication rate, revision rate, operation time and blood loss at 1-year minimum follow-up.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document