Journal of surgical oncology · 2018
Short-term outcomes of pleurectomy decortication and extrapleural pneumonectomy in mesothelioma.
СтатьяМетаанализОбзорНазвание 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.
van Gerwen Maaike, Wolf Andrea, Liu Bian, Flores Raja, Taioli Emanuela
Аннотация
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: We evaluated postoperative mortality and complications after extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP) and pleurectomy decortication (P/D) to better understand their effectiveness in malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM).
METHODS: A meta-analysis was done to evaluate 30-day mortality and postoperative complications. In addition, in-patients data of 500 eligible patients with MPM who underwent EPP or P/D was extracted from the New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS). Multivariate analyses and propensity matching were used to compare in-hospital mortality and postoperative complications in EPP vs P/D.
RESULTS: The meta-analysis showed a statistically significant difference in 30-day mortality (5% [95% CI: 4-6] vs P/D 2% [95% CI: 1-3]), proportion of complications (46% [95% CI: 36-56] vs 24% [95% CI: 15-34]) and postoperative arrhythmias (20% [95% CI: 12-31] vs 5% [95% CI: 2-8]) for EPP vs P/D. In-hospital mortality (OR adj : 2.6; 95% CI: 0.86-7.75) and postoperative complications (OR adj : 1.1; 95% CI: 0.68-1.86) were not different in EPP compared with P/D while supraventricular arrhythmia was significantly more frequent after EPP vs P/D (OR adj : 5.2; 95% CI: 2.34-11.33).
CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative mortality, postoperative complications, and particularly supraventricular arrhythmia are less frequent after P/D vs EPP. P/D, a less invasive surgery, may provide a better option when technically feasible for patients with MPM.
METHODS: A meta-analysis was done to evaluate 30-day mortality and postoperative complications. In addition, in-patients data of 500 eligible patients with MPM who underwent EPP or P/D was extracted from the New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS). Multivariate analyses and propensity matching were used to compare in-hospital mortality and postoperative complications in EPP vs P/D.
RESULTS: The meta-analysis showed a statistically significant difference in 30-day mortality (5% [95% CI: 4-6] vs P/D 2% [95% CI: 1-3]), proportion of complications (46% [95% CI: 36-56] vs 24% [95% CI: 15-34]) and postoperative arrhythmias (20% [95% CI: 12-31] vs 5% [95% CI: 2-8]) for EPP vs P/D. In-hospital mortality (OR adj : 2.6; 95% CI: 0.86-7.75) and postoperative complications (OR adj : 1.1; 95% CI: 0.68-1.86) were not different in EPP compared with P/D while supraventricular arrhythmia was significantly more frequent after EPP vs P/D (OR adj : 5.2; 95% CI: 2.34-11.33).
CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative mortality, postoperative complications, and particularly supraventricular arrhythmia are less frequent after P/D vs EPP. P/D, a less invasive surgery, may provide a better option when technically feasible for patients with MPM.