Techniques in coloproctology · 2011
A systematic review comparing transanal haemorrhoidal de-arterialisation to stapled haemorrhoidopexy in the management of haemorrhoidal disease.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Sajid M S, Parampalli U, Whitehouse P, Sains P, McFall M R, Baig M K
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to systematically analyse the clinical trials on the effectiveness of transanal haemorrhoidal de-arterialisation (THD) and stapled haemorrhoidopexy (SH) in the management of haemorrhoidal disease (HD).
METHODS: Clinical trials on the effectiveness of THD and SH in the management of HD were analysed systematically using RevMan(®), and combined outcomes were expressed as risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD).
RESULTS: Three randomised, controlled trials encompassing 150 patients were analysed systematically. There were 80 THD patients and 70 SH patients. There was no significant heterogeneity (P = 0.40) among included trials. Therefore, in the fixed effects model, THD and SH were statistically equivalent in terms of treatment success rate (P = 0.19), operation time (P = 0.55), postoperative complications (P = 0.11) and recurrence (P = 0.46) of HD. THD was associated with significantly less postoperative pain (MD, -2.00; 95% CI, -2.06, -1.94; z = 63.59; P < 0.00001) compared to SH.
CONCLUSIONS: Both THD and SH are equally effective and can be attempted for the management of HD. However, THD is associated with significantly lesser postoperative pain and therefore may be considered a preferred procedure. This conclusion is based only on treating 150 patients by THD or SH in three moderate-quality randomised trials. A major, multicenter, randomised trial is required to validate this conclusion and investigate other variables like hospital stay, cost-effectiveness and health-related quality of life measurement.
METHODS: Clinical trials on the effectiveness of THD and SH in the management of HD were analysed systematically using RevMan(®), and combined outcomes were expressed as risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD).
RESULTS: Three randomised, controlled trials encompassing 150 patients were analysed systematically. There were 80 THD patients and 70 SH patients. There was no significant heterogeneity (P = 0.40) among included trials. Therefore, in the fixed effects model, THD and SH were statistically equivalent in terms of treatment success rate (P = 0.19), operation time (P = 0.55), postoperative complications (P = 0.11) and recurrence (P = 0.46) of HD. THD was associated with significantly less postoperative pain (MD, -2.00; 95% CI, -2.06, -1.94; z = 63.59; P < 0.00001) compared to SH.
CONCLUSIONS: Both THD and SH are equally effective and can be attempted for the management of HD. However, THD is associated with significantly lesser postoperative pain and therefore may be considered a preferred procedure. This conclusion is based only on treating 150 patients by THD or SH in three moderate-quality randomised trials. A major, multicenter, randomised trial is required to validate this conclusion and investigate other variables like hospital stay, cost-effectiveness and health-related quality of life measurement.