Pediatric surgery international · 2021
Meso-Rex bypass versus portosystemic shunt for the management of extrahepatic portal vein obstruction in children: systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический 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.
Yamoto Masaya, Chusilp Sinobol, Alganabi Mashriq, Sayed Blayne Amir, Pierro Agostino
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Extrahepatic portal vein obstruction (EHPVO) is a major cause of non-cirrhotic portal hypertension in children. Surgical procedures for EHPVO include portosystemic shunts (PSS) and meso-Rex bypass (MRB). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness of MRB versus PSS in EHPVO patients.
METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed using four databases. Articles reporting EHPVO and comparing patients who received MRB and PSS were included in the analysis.
RESULTS: We retrieved 851 papers, of which five observational studies met the inclusion criteria. There was no difference in shunt complications, mortality, or gastrointestinal bleeding after surgery between MRB and PSS in the meta-analysis. MRB had increased shunt complications compared with PSS in the non-comparative studies. MRB had a potential advantage over PSS in long-term prognosis in one comparative study. Overall, the quality of the evidence was low.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on available data, our meta-analysis indicates that MRB does not increase shunt complications, mortality, or gastrointestinal bleeding after surgery. The present study did not reveal superiority for either MRB or PSS. The paucity of well conducted trials in this area justifies future multicenter studies and studies that examine long-term outcomes.
METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed using four databases. Articles reporting EHPVO and comparing patients who received MRB and PSS were included in the analysis.
RESULTS: We retrieved 851 papers, of which five observational studies met the inclusion criteria. There was no difference in shunt complications, mortality, or gastrointestinal bleeding after surgery between MRB and PSS in the meta-analysis. MRB had increased shunt complications compared with PSS in the non-comparative studies. MRB had a potential advantage over PSS in long-term prognosis in one comparative study. Overall, the quality of the evidence was low.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on available data, our meta-analysis indicates that MRB does not increase shunt complications, mortality, or gastrointestinal bleeding after surgery. The present study did not reveal superiority for either MRB or PSS. The paucity of well conducted trials in this area justifies future multicenter studies and studies that examine long-term outcomes.