International journal of colorectal disease · 2019
Lymph node yield, survival benefit, and safety of high and low ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery in colorectal cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический 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.
Si Mou-Bo, Yan Pei-Jing, Du Zhen-Ying, Li Lai-Yuan, Tian Hong-Wei, Jiang Wen-Jie, Jing Wu-Tang, Yang Jia, Han Cai-Wen, Shi Xiu-E, Yang Ke-Hu, Guo Tian-Kang
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare high inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) ligation (HL) with low IMA ligation (LL) for the treatment of colorectal cancer and to evaluate the lymph node yield, survival benefit, and safety of these surgeries.
METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and China Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) were systematically searched for relevant articles that compared HL and LL for sigmoid or rectal cancer. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes and the weighted mean difference (WMD) for continuous outcomes.
RESULTS: In total, 30 studies were included in this analysis. There were significantly higher odds of anastomotic leakage and urethral dysfunction in patients treated with HL compared to those treated with LL (OR = 1.29; 95% CI = 1.08 to 1.55; OR = 2.45; 95% CI = 1.39 to 4.33, respectively). There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of the total number of harvested lymph nodes, the number of harvested lymph nodes around root of the IMA, local recurrence rate, and operation time. Further, no statistically significant group differences in 5-year overall survival rates and 5-year disease-free survival rates were detected among all patients nor among subgroups of stage II patients and stage III patients, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: LL can achieve equivalent lymph node yield to HL, and both procedures have similar survival benefits. However, LL is associated with a lower incidence of leakage and urethral dysfunction. Thus, LL is recommended for colorectal cancer surgery.
METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and China Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) were systematically searched for relevant articles that compared HL and LL for sigmoid or rectal cancer. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes and the weighted mean difference (WMD) for continuous outcomes.
RESULTS: In total, 30 studies were included in this analysis. There were significantly higher odds of anastomotic leakage and urethral dysfunction in patients treated with HL compared to those treated with LL (OR = 1.29; 95% CI = 1.08 to 1.55; OR = 2.45; 95% CI = 1.39 to 4.33, respectively). There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of the total number of harvested lymph nodes, the number of harvested lymph nodes around root of the IMA, local recurrence rate, and operation time. Further, no statistically significant group differences in 5-year overall survival rates and 5-year disease-free survival rates were detected among all patients nor among subgroups of stage II patients and stage III patients, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: LL can achieve equivalent lymph node yield to HL, and both procedures have similar survival benefits. However, LL is associated with a lower incidence of leakage and urethral dysfunction. Thus, LL is recommended for colorectal cancer surgery.