Journal of laparoendoscopic & advanced surgical techniques. Part A · 2015
Laparoscopic Duhamel Procedure for Hirschsprung's Disease: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Scholfield Daniel W, Ram Ashok Daya
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Since its introduction in 1956, the Duhamel procedure has been and remains one of the most widely performed for Hirschsprung's disease (HD). The most significant modification to this procedure has been the incorporation of laparoscopy, while the original principles of the method have been retained. This study compared long-term outcomes for open Duhamel (OD) and laparoscopic Duhamel (LD) procedures for HD, to identify any added advantage of the laparoscopic technique.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We undertook a systematic review of all studies published over a period of 20 years (1994-2014) that assessed functional outcomes for OD and/or LD procedures. Odds ratios were calculated for dichotomous variables, and mean difference values were calculated for continuous variables.
RESULTS: From 11 articles 456 patients were included (253 OD, 203 LD), with no significant difference in age at surgery and length of follow-up (P > .05). The open group had a significantly greater incidence of soiling/incontinence (11% versus 4%; P = .02) and further surgery (25% versus 14%; P = .005), longer hospital stay (9.79 versus 7.3 days; P < .00001), and time to oral feed (4.05 versus 3.27 days; P < .00001). Operative time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group (3.83 versus 4.09 hours; P = .004). There was no significant difference in incidence of enterocolitis (15% versus 10%; P = .14) and constipation (23% versus 30%; P = .12).
CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis convincingly demonstrates the superiority of LD over OD pull-through for HD. Prospective, randomized control trials are required to overcome limitations in the current literature.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We undertook a systematic review of all studies published over a period of 20 years (1994-2014) that assessed functional outcomes for OD and/or LD procedures. Odds ratios were calculated for dichotomous variables, and mean difference values were calculated for continuous variables.
RESULTS: From 11 articles 456 patients were included (253 OD, 203 LD), with no significant difference in age at surgery and length of follow-up (P > .05). The open group had a significantly greater incidence of soiling/incontinence (11% versus 4%; P = .02) and further surgery (25% versus 14%; P = .005), longer hospital stay (9.79 versus 7.3 days; P < .00001), and time to oral feed (4.05 versus 3.27 days; P < .00001). Operative time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group (3.83 versus 4.09 hours; P = .004). There was no significant difference in incidence of enterocolitis (15% versus 10%; P = .14) and constipation (23% versus 30%; P = .12).
CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis convincingly demonstrates the superiority of LD over OD pull-through for HD. Prospective, randomized control trials are required to overcome limitations in the current literature.