Medicine · 2021
Proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction versus total gastrectomy for proximal early gastric cancer: A 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.
Xiang Renshen, Song Wei, Ren Jun, Lu Wei, Zhang Heng, Fu Tao
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The incidence of proximal gastric cancer in the gastric fundus, cardia, and other parts is increasing rapidly. The purpose of this study was to systematically compare the short-term and long-term clinical effects of proximal gastrectomy with double tract reconstruction (PG-DTR) to total gastrectomy (TG) for proximal early gastric cancer (EGC).
METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted through searching the literature in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CNKI, WAN FANG, and VIP databases. All clinical controlled trials and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of PG-DTR and PG were included. Simultaneously, the relevant data were extracted, and the software RevMan version 5.1 was used for the meta-analysis.
RESULTS: Eight studies with a total of 753 patients were eligible for the meta-analysis. There were no significant differences in the operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, early complications (anastomotic fistula and anastomotic bleeding), late complications (reflux symptoms and anastomotic stenosis), and 5-year survival rate between PG-DTR and TG. However, the levels of partial nutritional indicators (vitamin B12 supplements and vitamin B12 deficiency) were significantly higher in the PG-DTR group than in the TG group.
CONCLUSION: This study showed ample evidence to suggest that PG-DTR improved the postoperative nutritional status without compromising patient safety while providing the same surgical characteristics and postoperative morbidity as TG.
METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted through searching the literature in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CNKI, WAN FANG, and VIP databases. All clinical controlled trials and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of PG-DTR and PG were included. Simultaneously, the relevant data were extracted, and the software RevMan version 5.1 was used for the meta-analysis.
RESULTS: Eight studies with a total of 753 patients were eligible for the meta-analysis. There were no significant differences in the operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, early complications (anastomotic fistula and anastomotic bleeding), late complications (reflux symptoms and anastomotic stenosis), and 5-year survival rate between PG-DTR and TG. However, the levels of partial nutritional indicators (vitamin B12 supplements and vitamin B12 deficiency) were significantly higher in the PG-DTR group than in the TG group.
CONCLUSION: This study showed ample evidence to suggest that PG-DTR improved the postoperative nutritional status without compromising patient safety while providing the same surgical characteristics and postoperative morbidity as TG.