MedElevator
Войти в исследования Chinese medical sciences journal = Chung-kuo i hsueh k'o hsueh tsa chih · 2015
Retroperitoneal Versus Transperitoneal Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМетаанализПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАСистематический 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.
Lewandowska Eliza, Wierzba-Bobrowicz Teresa, Rola Rafał, Modzelewska Joanna, Stepień Tomasz, Lugowska Agnieszka, Pasennik Elzbieta, Ryglewicz Danuta
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To review published literatures comparing the safety and effectiveness of retroperitoneal laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (RLPN) with transperitoneal laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (TLPN) and provide reference for clinical work.
METHODS: The search strategy was performed to identify relevant papers from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, China Hospital Knowledge Database, Wangfang Chinese Periodical Database, and VIP Chinese Periodical Database. All papers comparing RLPN with TLPN were included from 2000 to 2015. Two to three reviewers independently screened, evaluated, and extracted the included papers. A Meta-analysis was executed by using Review Manager 5.3 software. The interesting outcomes were tumor size, operating time, estimated blood loss, warm ischaemia time, length of hospital stay, positive margin rate, open conversion rate, overall complication rate, and recurrence rate.
RESULTS: The literature search obtained 378 papers, then 10 of them were ultimately met the inclusion criteria and included in the systematic review. Finally, 6 of the 10 papers were included in the Meta-analysis. RLPN had significantly less operating time [P = 0.01, mean difference (MD)=-33.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) within (-60.35, -7.01)] and shorter length of hospital stay [P < 0.0001, MD=-1.47, 95% CI within (-2.18, -0.76)] than TLPN. Significant differences were not found between RLPN and TLPN in other outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: RLPN may be equally safe and be faster than TLPN. Each center can choose a modality according to your own operating habits and experience.
METHODS: The search strategy was performed to identify relevant papers from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, China Hospital Knowledge Database, Wangfang Chinese Periodical Database, and VIP Chinese Periodical Database. All papers comparing RLPN with TLPN were included from 2000 to 2015. Two to three reviewers independently screened, evaluated, and extracted the included papers. A Meta-analysis was executed by using Review Manager 5.3 software. The interesting outcomes were tumor size, operating time, estimated blood loss, warm ischaemia time, length of hospital stay, positive margin rate, open conversion rate, overall complication rate, and recurrence rate.
RESULTS: The literature search obtained 378 papers, then 10 of them were ultimately met the inclusion criteria and included in the systematic review. Finally, 6 of the 10 papers were included in the Meta-analysis. RLPN had significantly less operating time [P = 0.01, mean difference (MD)=-33.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) within (-60.35, -7.01)] and shorter length of hospital stay [P < 0.0001, MD=-1.47, 95% CI within (-2.18, -0.76)] than TLPN. Significant differences were not found between RLPN and TLPN in other outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: RLPN may be equally safe and be faster than TLPN. Each center can choose a modality according to your own operating habits and experience.