期刊文献+

单孔与传统腹腔镜胆囊切除术的比较:随机对照试验的Meta分析 被引量:6

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
原文传递
导出
摘要 目的:评价单孔腹腔镜胆囊切除术(SILC)与传统腹腔镜胆囊切除术(CLC)的安全性和有效性。方法:计算机检索各数据库中有关SILC与CLC的前瞻性随机对照试验。检索时限均为建库至2012年11月。按Cochrane系统评价员手册对纳入文献的方法学质量进行评价后,提取数据,采用RevMan5.1统计软件行Meta分析。结果:筛选后最终纳入17个研究,共1267例患者,其中SILC组654例,CLC组613例。Meta分析结果显示,手术时间SILC组长于CLC组(WMD=13.02,95%CI=7.95—18.09,P〈0.001);术后切口外观评分和患者满意度评分SILC组优于CLC组(WMD=1.21,95%CI=0.70~1.72,P〈0.001;WMD=O.76,95%CI=0.53~1.00,P〈0.001);术后并发症、术后疼痛评分和住院时间两组间差异无统计学意义(RR=1.13,95%CI=0.87~1.48,P=0.35;WMD=O.03,95%CI=-0.82~0.88,P=0.95;WMD=-0.06,95%CI=-0.40~0.28,P=0.73)。结论:对于治疗非复杂性的胆囊良性疾病,SILC是一项安全而有效的手术操作;它具有良好的切口外观和患者满意的优点。 Objective: To evaluate the efficiency and safety of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC). Methods: The literature of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) concerning SILC versus CLC was retrievedby searching the electronic databases from their inception date to November 2012. Methodological quality of the included trials was assessed using the Cochrane Reviewers' Handbook criteria, and data were extracted and combined into a Meta-analysis by using RevMan 5.1 analysis software. Results: Seventeen studies were finally selected after screening, with a total of 1 267 patients, of whom, 654 cases underwent SILC and 613 cases underwent CLC. Meta-analysis results demonstrated that the operative time in SILC group was longer than that in CLC group (WMD=13.02, 95%CI=7.95-18.09, P〈0.001); the scores for the postoperative appearance of incision and patient-satisfaction in SILC group were higher than those in CLC group (WMD=I.21, 95%CI=0.70-1.72, P〈0.001; WMD=0.76, 95%CI=0.53-1.00, P〈0.001); the postoperative complications, postoperative pain scores and lengths of hospital stay between the two group showed no statistical difference (RR=I.13, 95%CI=0.87-1.48, P=0.35; WMD=O.03, 95%CI=-0.82-0.88, P=0.95; WMD=-O.06, 95%CI=-0.40-0.28, P=0.73). Conclusion: For uncomplicated cases of benign gallbladder disease, SILC is a safe and effective surgical procedure with the advantages of a good cosmetic incision and high patient satisfaction.
出处 《中国普通外科杂志》 CAS CSCD 北大核心 2013年第2期174-182,共9页 China Journal of General Surgery
关键词 胆囊切除术 腹腔镜 META分析 随机对照试验 Cholecystectom), Laparoscopic Meta-Analysis Randomized Controlled Trial
  • 相关文献

参考文献25

  • 1Navarra G, Pozza E, Occhionorelli S, et al. One-wound laparoscopic cholecystectomy[J]. Br ] Surg, 1997, 84(5):695.
  • 2Tsimoyiannis EC, Tsimogiannis KE, Pappas-Gogos G, et al. Different pain scores in single transumbilical incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus classic laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial[J]. Surg Endosc, 2010, 24(8):1842- 1848.
  • 3Lee PC, Lo C, Lai PS, et al. Randomized clinical trial of single- incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus minilaparoscopic cholecystectomy[J]. Br J Surg, 2010, 97(7):1007-1012.
  • 4Mehmood Z, Subhan A, Ali N, et al. Four port versus single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy[J]. J Surg Pak (Int), 2010, 15:122- 125.
  • 5Lirici MM, Califano AD, Angelini P, et al. Laparo-endoseopic single site cholecystectomy versus standard laparoscopic eholecystectomy: results of a pilot randomized trial[J]. Am J Surg, 2011,202(1):45- 52.
  • 6Ma J, Cassera MA, Spaun GO, et al. Randomized controlled trial comparing single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy and four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy[J]. Ann Surg, 2011, 254(1):22-27.
  • 7Lai EC, Yang GP, Tang CN, et al. Prospective randomized comparative study of single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy[J]. Am J Surg, 2011,202(3):254-258.
  • 8Cao ZG, Cai W, Qin MF, et al. Randomized clinical trial of single- incision versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: short- term operative outcomes[J]. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech, 2011, 21(5):311-313.
  • 9Aprea G, Coppola Bottazzi E, Guida F, et al. Laparoendoscopic single site (LESS) versus classic video-laparoscepic cholecystectomy:a randomized prospective study[J]. J Surg Res, 2011,166(2):109-112.
  • 10Asakuma M, I-Iayashi M, Komeda K, et al. Impact of single- port cholecystectomy on postoperative pain[J]. Br J Surg, 2011, 98(7):991-995.

二级参考文献24

  • 1Zorron R, Filqueiras M, Maggioni LC, et al. Transvaginal cholecystectomy: report of the first case[J]. Surg Innov, 2007, 14(4): 279-283.
  • 2Zornig C, Emmermann A, yon Waldenfels HA, et al. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy without visible scar: combined transvaginal and transumbilical approach [J]. Endoscopy, 2007, 39 (10): 913-915.
  • 3Wheeless CR. A rapid, inexpensive and effective method of surgical sterilization by laparoscopy [J]. J Reprod Med, 1969,3(5): 65-69.
  • 4Singh KB. Tubal sterilization by lararoscopy. Simplified technique[J]. N Y State J Med, 1977,77:194-196.
  • 5Pelosi MA, Pelosi 3rd MA. Laparoscopic hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy using a single umbilical puncture [J]. N J Med, 1991,88(10):721-726.
  • 6Pelosi MA, Pelosi 3rd MA. Laparoscopic appendectomy using a single umbilical puncture (minilaparoscopy)[J]. J Reprod Med, 1992,37(7):588-594.
  • 7Raman JD, Bensalah K, Bagrodia A, Stern JM, Cadeddu JA. Laboratory and clinical development of single key hole umbilical nephrectomy [ J ]. Urology ,2007,70(6): 1039-1042.
  • 8Bucher P, Pugin F, Morel P. Single port access laparoscopic right hemicolectomy. Int J Colorectal Dis [J]. In press. DOI 10.1007/s00384-008-0519-8.
  • 9Bresadola F, Pasqualucci A, Donini A, et al. Elective transumbilical compared with standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy [J].Eur J Surg,1999,165(1):29-34.
  • 10Cuesta MA, Berends F, Veenhof AA. The "invisible cholecystectomy". A transumbilicat operation without a scar [J]. Surg Endosc, 2008,22(5): 1211-1213.

共引文献84

同被引文献82

引证文献6

二级引证文献80

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部