Medicine · 2025
Conventional technique versus no-touch technique in autogenous arteriovenous fistula: A meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСравнительное исследованиеСистематический 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.
Tang Weigang, Li Tong, Jiang Wei, Wang Zhixia, Li Xianping, Liu Xiaoming, Luo Qing, Wan Macuo, Zhong Wanxin, Caiji Zhuoma, Xiangxiu Danzhi, Zhao Wei, Kong Fancheng, Dan Xiang, Xu Wei
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The comparative benefit of the no-touch technique versus the conventional technique for autogenous arteriovenous fistula (AVF) creation is still uncertain. Thus, our meta-analysis was conducted to compare the clinical outcomes between these 2 techniques.
METHODS: Databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and the Wanfang database, were searched from inception to May 1, 2025. Eligible studies comparing conventional and no-touch techniques for AVF creation were included. The data were analyzed using Review Manager Version 5.3.
RESULTS: Six studies were included in the meta-analysis. There was no significant difference between the conventional technique group and the no-touch technique group with regards to the success rate of surgery (odds ratio [OR] 0.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.09-1.60, P = .19), maturation rate at 3 months (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.24-1.18, P = .12), or secondary patency rate within 6 months to 1 year (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.17-0.99, P = .05). The primary patency rate from 6 months to 2 years in the no-touch technique group was greater than that in the conventional technique group (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.31-0.68; P < .0001).
CONCLUSION: Compared with conventional techniques, the no-touch technique may have a greater primary patency rate for AVF creation. However, the 2 techniques did not significantly differ in terms of the success rate of surgery, maturation rate, or secondary patency rate.
METHODS: Databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and the Wanfang database, were searched from inception to May 1, 2025. Eligible studies comparing conventional and no-touch techniques for AVF creation were included. The data were analyzed using Review Manager Version 5.3.
RESULTS: Six studies were included in the meta-analysis. There was no significant difference between the conventional technique group and the no-touch technique group with regards to the success rate of surgery (odds ratio [OR] 0.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.09-1.60, P = .19), maturation rate at 3 months (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.24-1.18, P = .12), or secondary patency rate within 6 months to 1 year (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.17-0.99, P = .05). The primary patency rate from 6 months to 2 years in the no-touch technique group was greater than that in the conventional technique group (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.31-0.68; P < .0001).
CONCLUSION: Compared with conventional techniques, the no-touch technique may have a greater primary patency rate for AVF creation. However, the 2 techniques did not significantly differ in terms of the success rate of surgery, maturation rate, or secondary patency rate.