Cargando…

Effect of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy on the incidence of surgical‐site wound infection: A meta‐analysis

A meta‐analysis was conducted to assess the impact of robotic and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomies on postoperative surgical site wound infections. A comprehensive computerised search of databases, such as PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructur...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kong, De‐Shuai, Zhang, Heng‐Le, Zhao, Xiu‐Lei, Meng, Yu, Chai, Wei, Wang, Zhen‐Yong
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10588349/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37277912
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/iwj.14259
Descripción
Sumario:A meta‐analysis was conducted to assess the impact of robotic and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomies on postoperative surgical site wound infections. A comprehensive computerised search of databases, such as PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and Wanfang Data, was performed to identify studies comparing robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) with laparoscopicPD. Relevant studies were searched from the inception of the database construction until April 2023. The meta‐analysis outcomes were analysed using odds ratios (OR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). The RevMan 5.4 software was used for the meta‐analysis. The findings of the meta‐analysis showed that patients who underwent laparoscopic PD had a significantly lower incidence of surgical‐site wound (16.52% vs. 18.92%, OR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.68–0.90, P = .0005), superficial wound (3.65% vs. 7.57%, OR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.39–0.68, P < .001), and deep wound infections (1.09% vs. 2.23%, OR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.34–0.85, P = .008) than those who received robotic PD. However, because of variations in sample size between studies, some studies suffered from methodological quality deficiencies. Therefore, further validation of this result is needed in future studies with higher quality and larger sample sizes.