American journal of surgery · 2012
Laparoscopic versus open adhesiolysis in patients with adhesive small bowel obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
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.
Li Ming-Zhe, Lian Lei, Xiao Long-bin, Wu Wen-hui, He Yu-long, Song Xin-ming
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to evaluate whether surgical outcomes differ between laparoscopy versus the open approach for adhesive small bowel obstruction.
METHODS: PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were electronically searched from 1985 to 2010. The study pooled the effects of outcomes of a total of 334 patients enrolled into 4 retrospective comparative studies using meta-analytic methods.
RESULTS: Laparoscopic adhesiolysis was associated with a reduced overall complication rate (odds ratio = .42, .25-.70, P < .01), prolonged ileus rate (odds ratio = .28, .10-.73, P = .01) and pulmonary complication rate (odds ratio = .20, .04-.94, P = .04) compared with the open approach. No significant differences were noted for intraoperative injury to bowel rates (odds ratio = 1.93, .76-4.89, P = .17), wound infection rates (odds ratio = .44, .17-1.12, P = .08), and mortality (odds ratio = .81, .12-5.49, P = .83).
CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic adhesiolysis is advantageous in most of the analyzed outcomes. Laparoscopic treatment of small bowel obstruction is recommended by experienced laparoscopic surgeons in selected patients.
METHODS: PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were electronically searched from 1985 to 2010. The study pooled the effects of outcomes of a total of 334 patients enrolled into 4 retrospective comparative studies using meta-analytic methods.
RESULTS: Laparoscopic adhesiolysis was associated with a reduced overall complication rate (odds ratio = .42, .25-.70, P < .01), prolonged ileus rate (odds ratio = .28, .10-.73, P = .01) and pulmonary complication rate (odds ratio = .20, .04-.94, P = .04) compared with the open approach. No significant differences were noted for intraoperative injury to bowel rates (odds ratio = 1.93, .76-4.89, P = .17), wound infection rates (odds ratio = .44, .17-1.12, P = .08), and mortality (odds ratio = .81, .12-5.49, P = .83).
CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic adhesiolysis is advantageous in most of the analyzed outcomes. Laparoscopic treatment of small bowel obstruction is recommended by experienced laparoscopic surgeons in selected patients.