Cargando…
Two-dimensional versus three-dimensional laparoscopy in surgical efficacy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopy is a revolutionary technique in modern surgery. However, the comparative efficacy between two-dimensional laparoscopy and three-dimensional laparoscopy remains in uncertainty. Therefore we performed this systematic review and meta-analysis in order to seek for answers. METHOD...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Impact Journals LLC
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5342603/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27486967 http://dx.doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.10916 |
_version_ | 1782513218724298752 |
---|---|
author | Cheng, Ji Gao, Jinbo Shuai, Xiaoming Wang, Guobin Tao, Kaixiong |
author_facet | Cheng, Ji Gao, Jinbo Shuai, Xiaoming Wang, Guobin Tao, Kaixiong |
author_sort | Cheng, Ji |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Laparoscopy is a revolutionary technique in modern surgery. However, the comparative efficacy between two-dimensional laparoscopy and three-dimensional laparoscopy remains in uncertainty. Therefore we performed this systematic review and meta-analysis in order to seek for answers. METHODS: Databases of PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were carefully screened. Clinical trials comparing two-dimensional versus three-dimensional laparoscopy were included for pooled analysis. Observational and randomized trials were methodologically appraised by Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Revised Jadad's Scale respectively. Subgroup analyses were additionally conducted to clarify the potential confounding elements. Outcome stability was examined by sensitivity analysis, and publication bias was analyzed by Begg's test and Egger's test. RESULTS: 21 trials were screened out from the preliminary 3126 records. All included studies were high-quality in methodology, except for Bilgen 2013 and Ruan 2015. Three-dimensional laparoscopy was superior to two-dimensional laparoscopy in terms of surgical time (P < 0.00001), blood loss (P = 0.01), perioperative complications (P = 0.04) and hospital stay (P = 0.03). Additionally, both techniques demonstrated comparable results of secondary endpoints, including drainage volume (P = 0.74), drainage time (P = 0.26), numbers of retrieved lymphnodes (P = 0.85), hospital expenses (P = 0.49), anastomosis time in prostatectomy (P=0.15) and 6-month continence rate (P = 0.61). The pooled outcomes of primary endopoints were verified to be stable by sensitivity analysis. Although Begg's test (P = 0.215) and Egger's test (P = 0.003) revealed that there was publication bias across included studies, Trim-and-Fill method confirmed that the results remained stable. CONCLUSION: Three-dimensional laparoscopy is a preferably surgical option against two-dimensional laparoscopy due to its better surgical efficacy. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5342603 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | Impact Journals LLC |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-53426032017-03-24 Two-dimensional versus three-dimensional laparoscopy in surgical efficacy: a systematic review and meta-analysis Cheng, Ji Gao, Jinbo Shuai, Xiaoming Wang, Guobin Tao, Kaixiong Oncotarget Clinical Research Paper BACKGROUND: Laparoscopy is a revolutionary technique in modern surgery. However, the comparative efficacy between two-dimensional laparoscopy and three-dimensional laparoscopy remains in uncertainty. Therefore we performed this systematic review and meta-analysis in order to seek for answers. METHODS: Databases of PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were carefully screened. Clinical trials comparing two-dimensional versus three-dimensional laparoscopy were included for pooled analysis. Observational and randomized trials were methodologically appraised by Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Revised Jadad's Scale respectively. Subgroup analyses were additionally conducted to clarify the potential confounding elements. Outcome stability was examined by sensitivity analysis, and publication bias was analyzed by Begg's test and Egger's test. RESULTS: 21 trials were screened out from the preliminary 3126 records. All included studies were high-quality in methodology, except for Bilgen 2013 and Ruan 2015. Three-dimensional laparoscopy was superior to two-dimensional laparoscopy in terms of surgical time (P < 0.00001), blood loss (P = 0.01), perioperative complications (P = 0.04) and hospital stay (P = 0.03). Additionally, both techniques demonstrated comparable results of secondary endpoints, including drainage volume (P = 0.74), drainage time (P = 0.26), numbers of retrieved lymphnodes (P = 0.85), hospital expenses (P = 0.49), anastomosis time in prostatectomy (P=0.15) and 6-month continence rate (P = 0.61). The pooled outcomes of primary endopoints were verified to be stable by sensitivity analysis. Although Begg's test (P = 0.215) and Egger's test (P = 0.003) revealed that there was publication bias across included studies, Trim-and-Fill method confirmed that the results remained stable. CONCLUSION: Three-dimensional laparoscopy is a preferably surgical option against two-dimensional laparoscopy due to its better surgical efficacy. Impact Journals LLC 2016-07-29 /pmc/articles/PMC5342603/ /pubmed/27486967 http://dx.doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.10916 Text en Copyright: © 2016 Cheng et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ 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 credited. |
spellingShingle | Clinical Research Paper Cheng, Ji Gao, Jinbo Shuai, Xiaoming Wang, Guobin Tao, Kaixiong Two-dimensional versus three-dimensional laparoscopy in surgical efficacy: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title | Two-dimensional versus three-dimensional laparoscopy in surgical efficacy: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full | Two-dimensional versus three-dimensional laparoscopy in surgical efficacy: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_fullStr | Two-dimensional versus three-dimensional laparoscopy in surgical efficacy: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Two-dimensional versus three-dimensional laparoscopy in surgical efficacy: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_short | Two-dimensional versus three-dimensional laparoscopy in surgical efficacy: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_sort | two-dimensional versus three-dimensional laparoscopy in surgical efficacy: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
topic | Clinical Research Paper |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5342603/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27486967 http://dx.doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.10916 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT chengji twodimensionalversusthreedimensionallaparoscopyinsurgicalefficacyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT gaojinbo twodimensionalversusthreedimensionallaparoscopyinsurgicalefficacyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT shuaixiaoming twodimensionalversusthreedimensionallaparoscopyinsurgicalefficacyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT wangguobin twodimensionalversusthreedimensionallaparoscopyinsurgicalefficacyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT taokaixiong twodimensionalversusthreedimensionallaparoscopyinsurgicalefficacyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis |