Surgical endoscopy · 2012
Minimally invasive oesophagectomy versus open surgery: is there an advantage?
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка 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.
Uttley Lesley, Campbell Fiona, Rhodes Michael, Cantrell Anna, Stegenga Heather, Lloyd-Jones Myfanwy
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Oesophageal resection is the main method of curative treatment for cancer of the oesophagus. Despite advances in surgical technology and postoperative care, the survival rate and prognosis of people undergoing oesophagectomy is still poor. The use of minimally invasive techniques in oesophageal surgery offers hope of reduced recovery time due to a reduction in surgical trauma. Although the first reports of thoracoscopy- and laparoscopy-assisted oesophagectomy emerged some 20 years ago, there is still no consensus that the outcomes are clearly superior to outcomes following conventional open surgery. Increasingly, some surgeons promote the use of minimally invasive techniques for oesophagectomy but questions remain over its safety and efficacy compared with open surgery.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the literature to compare minimally invasive techniques for oesophagectomy to open surgery. The outcomes of interest for efficacy and safety included mortality, operative complications, recurrence, and quality of life.
RESULTS: There were 28 included comparative studies. No randomised controlled studies (RCTs) were available and therefore the data need to be interpreted with caution.
CONCLUSION: Recommendations for future research are discussed. We argue that it is difficult to conduct an RCT for this procedure due to ethical considerations and suggest ways that future nonrandomised studies could be improved.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the literature to compare minimally invasive techniques for oesophagectomy to open surgery. The outcomes of interest for efficacy and safety included mortality, operative complications, recurrence, and quality of life.
RESULTS: There were 28 included comparative studies. No randomised controlled studies (RCTs) were available and therefore the data need to be interpreted with caution.
CONCLUSION: Recommendations for future research are discussed. We argue that it is difficult to conduct an RCT for this procedure due to ethical considerations and suggest ways that future nonrandomised studies could be improved.