Cargando…

Comparison of Ultrasonic Scalpel versus Conventional Techniques in Open Gastrectomy for Gastric Carcinoma Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES: To compare surgical efficacy and postoperative recovery of ultrasonic scalpel (USS) with conventional techniques for the resection of gastric carcinoma. METHODS: A systematic search of major medical databases (PubMed, Embase, CCRT and CNKI) was conducted. Both randomized and non-randomiz...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chen, Xiao-Long, Chen, Xin-Zu, Lu, Zheng-Hao, Wang, Li, Yang, Kun, Hu, Jian-Kun, Zhang, Bo, Chen, Zhi-Xin, Chen, Jia-Ping, Zhou, Zong-Guang
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4117513/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25079780
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0103330
_version_ 1782328710664290304
author Chen, Xiao-Long
Chen, Xin-Zu
Lu, Zheng-Hao
Wang, Li
Yang, Kun
Hu, Jian-Kun
Zhang, Bo
Chen, Zhi-Xin
Chen, Jia-Ping
Zhou, Zong-Guang
author_facet Chen, Xiao-Long
Chen, Xin-Zu
Lu, Zheng-Hao
Wang, Li
Yang, Kun
Hu, Jian-Kun
Zhang, Bo
Chen, Zhi-Xin
Chen, Jia-Ping
Zhou, Zong-Guang
author_sort Chen, Xiao-Long
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To compare surgical efficacy and postoperative recovery of ultrasonic scalpel (USS) with conventional techniques for the resection of gastric carcinoma. METHODS: A systematic search of major medical databases (PubMed, Embase, CCRT and CNKI) was conducted. Both randomized and non-randomized controlled trials (RCTs and nRCTs) were considered eligible. Operation time (OT), intraoperative blood loss (BL) and postoperative complications (POC) rates as well as postoperative hospitalization days, number of dissected lymph nodes, abdominal drainage volume and time for recovery of gastrointestinal functions were synthesized and compared. RESULTS: Nineteen studies were included (7 RCTs and 12 nRCTs), in which 1930 patients were enrolled totally (946 in the USS group and 984 in the conventional group). Monopolar electrocautery and ligation were used as the conventional methods. Comparative meta-analysis showed perioperative outcomes were significantly improved using USS compared with conventional surgical instrumentation. OT was reduced from a weighted mean of 185.3 min in the conventional group to 151.0 min in the USS group (MD = −33.30, 95% CI [−41.75, −24.86], p<0.001) and intraoperative BL was decreased from a weighted mean of 217.9 ml in the conventional group to 111.6 ml in the USS group (MD = −113.42, 95% CI [−142.05, −84.79], p<0.001). Results from RCTs subgroup were consistent with those from nRCTs subgroup. The weighted cumulative risk of POC accounted for 8.9% (0%–25%) and 12.9% (5.5%–45%) in the USS and conventional groups, respectively. Pooled estimated results from nRCTs (OR = 0.54, 95% CI [0.27, 1.06], p = 0.07) and RCTs (RR = 0.75, 95% CI [0.44, 1.26], p = 0.27) showed no significant difference between the USS and control groups. Analysis of secondary outcomes showed the improvements of the USS group over control group regarding the number of dissected lymph nodes, postoperative hospitalization days, abdominal drainage volume and time for recovery of gastrointestinal functions. CONCLUSION: Compared with conventional electrosurgery, the USS is a safe and effective technique with more short-term advantages in open surgery for gastric cancer.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4117513
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-41175132014-08-04 Comparison of Ultrasonic Scalpel versus Conventional Techniques in Open Gastrectomy for Gastric Carcinoma Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Chen, Xiao-Long Chen, Xin-Zu Lu, Zheng-Hao Wang, Li Yang, Kun Hu, Jian-Kun Zhang, Bo Chen, Zhi-Xin Chen, Jia-Ping Zhou, Zong-Guang PLoS One Research Article OBJECTIVES: To compare surgical efficacy and postoperative recovery of ultrasonic scalpel (USS) with conventional techniques for the resection of gastric carcinoma. METHODS: A systematic search of major medical databases (PubMed, Embase, CCRT and CNKI) was conducted. Both randomized and non-randomized controlled trials (RCTs and nRCTs) were considered eligible. Operation time (OT), intraoperative blood loss (BL) and postoperative complications (POC) rates as well as postoperative hospitalization days, number of dissected lymph nodes, abdominal drainage volume and time for recovery of gastrointestinal functions were synthesized and compared. RESULTS: Nineteen studies were included (7 RCTs and 12 nRCTs), in which 1930 patients were enrolled totally (946 in the USS group and 984 in the conventional group). Monopolar electrocautery and ligation were used as the conventional methods. Comparative meta-analysis showed perioperative outcomes were significantly improved using USS compared with conventional surgical instrumentation. OT was reduced from a weighted mean of 185.3 min in the conventional group to 151.0 min in the USS group (MD = −33.30, 95% CI [−41.75, −24.86], p<0.001) and intraoperative BL was decreased from a weighted mean of 217.9 ml in the conventional group to 111.6 ml in the USS group (MD = −113.42, 95% CI [−142.05, −84.79], p<0.001). Results from RCTs subgroup were consistent with those from nRCTs subgroup. The weighted cumulative risk of POC accounted for 8.9% (0%–25%) and 12.9% (5.5%–45%) in the USS and conventional groups, respectively. Pooled estimated results from nRCTs (OR = 0.54, 95% CI [0.27, 1.06], p = 0.07) and RCTs (RR = 0.75, 95% CI [0.44, 1.26], p = 0.27) showed no significant difference between the USS and control groups. Analysis of secondary outcomes showed the improvements of the USS group over control group regarding the number of dissected lymph nodes, postoperative hospitalization days, abdominal drainage volume and time for recovery of gastrointestinal functions. CONCLUSION: Compared with conventional electrosurgery, the USS is a safe and effective technique with more short-term advantages in open surgery for gastric cancer. Public Library of Science 2014-07-31 /pmc/articles/PMC4117513/ /pubmed/25079780 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0103330 Text en © 2014 Chen et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Chen, Xiao-Long
Chen, Xin-Zu
Lu, Zheng-Hao
Wang, Li
Yang, Kun
Hu, Jian-Kun
Zhang, Bo
Chen, Zhi-Xin
Chen, Jia-Ping
Zhou, Zong-Guang
Comparison of Ultrasonic Scalpel versus Conventional Techniques in Open Gastrectomy for Gastric Carcinoma Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title Comparison of Ultrasonic Scalpel versus Conventional Techniques in Open Gastrectomy for Gastric Carcinoma Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_full Comparison of Ultrasonic Scalpel versus Conventional Techniques in Open Gastrectomy for Gastric Carcinoma Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_fullStr Comparison of Ultrasonic Scalpel versus Conventional Techniques in Open Gastrectomy for Gastric Carcinoma Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Ultrasonic Scalpel versus Conventional Techniques in Open Gastrectomy for Gastric Carcinoma Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_short Comparison of Ultrasonic Scalpel versus Conventional Techniques in Open Gastrectomy for Gastric Carcinoma Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_sort comparison of ultrasonic scalpel versus conventional techniques in open gastrectomy for gastric carcinoma patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4117513/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25079780
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0103330
work_keys_str_mv AT chenxiaolong comparisonofultrasonicscalpelversusconventionaltechniquesinopengastrectomyforgastriccarcinomapatientsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT chenxinzu comparisonofultrasonicscalpelversusconventionaltechniquesinopengastrectomyforgastriccarcinomapatientsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT luzhenghao comparisonofultrasonicscalpelversusconventionaltechniquesinopengastrectomyforgastriccarcinomapatientsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT wangli comparisonofultrasonicscalpelversusconventionaltechniquesinopengastrectomyforgastriccarcinomapatientsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT yangkun comparisonofultrasonicscalpelversusconventionaltechniquesinopengastrectomyforgastriccarcinomapatientsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT hujiankun comparisonofultrasonicscalpelversusconventionaltechniquesinopengastrectomyforgastriccarcinomapatientsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT zhangbo comparisonofultrasonicscalpelversusconventionaltechniquesinopengastrectomyforgastriccarcinomapatientsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT chenzhixin comparisonofultrasonicscalpelversusconventionaltechniquesinopengastrectomyforgastriccarcinomapatientsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT chenjiaping comparisonofultrasonicscalpelversusconventionaltechniquesinopengastrectomyforgastriccarcinomapatientsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT zhouzongguang comparisonofultrasonicscalpelversusconventionaltechniquesinopengastrectomyforgastriccarcinomapatientsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis