European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery · 2020
A meta-analysis of preoperative bronchoscopic marking for pulmonary nodules.
СтатьяМетаанализПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАСистематический 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.
Yanagiya Masahiro, Kawahara Takuya, Ueda Keiko, Yoshida Daisuke, Yamaguchi Hirokazu, Sato Masaaki
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Recent studies have suggested the usefulness of preoperative bronchoscopic marking techniques for the localization of pulmonary nodules in thoracic surgery. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of preoperative bronchoscopic marking.
METHODS: The PubMed and Cochrane Library databases were searched for clinical studies evaluating preoperative bronchoscopic marking for pulmonary resection. Non-comparative and random effects model-based meta-analyses were conducted to calculate the pooled success and complication rates of bronchoscopic marking.
RESULTS: Twenty-five eligible studies were included. Among these, 15 studies conducted dye marking under electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy, 4 used virtual-assisted lung mapping and 7 used other marking methods. The overall pooled successful marking rate, successful resection rate and complete resection rate were 0.97 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95-0.99], 0.98 (95% CI 0.96-1.00) and 1.00 (95% CI 1.00-1.00), respectively. The overall pooled rates of pleural injury and pulmonary haemorrhage were 0.02 (95% CI 0.01-0.05) and 0.00 (95% CI 0.00-0.00), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis demonstrated that bronchoscopic marking is very safe and effective. Bronchoscopic marking should be considered, especially if there are concerns about the safety of other localization methods.
METHODS: The PubMed and Cochrane Library databases were searched for clinical studies evaluating preoperative bronchoscopic marking for pulmonary resection. Non-comparative and random effects model-based meta-analyses were conducted to calculate the pooled success and complication rates of bronchoscopic marking.
RESULTS: Twenty-five eligible studies were included. Among these, 15 studies conducted dye marking under electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy, 4 used virtual-assisted lung mapping and 7 used other marking methods. The overall pooled successful marking rate, successful resection rate and complete resection rate were 0.97 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95-0.99], 0.98 (95% CI 0.96-1.00) and 1.00 (95% CI 1.00-1.00), respectively. The overall pooled rates of pleural injury and pulmonary haemorrhage were 0.02 (95% CI 0.01-0.05) and 0.00 (95% CI 0.00-0.00), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis demonstrated that bronchoscopic marking is very safe and effective. Bronchoscopic marking should be considered, especially if there are concerns about the safety of other localization methods.