Cargando…
Radiofrequency-Assisted Liver Resection Versus Clamp-Crush Liver Resection: Protocol for an Updated Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review
BACKGROUND: Malignancy of the liver has historically meant a poor prognosis and remains the second most common cause of cancer-related deaths globally. Traditionally, hepatectomy has utilized the clamp-crush technique; however, this is associated with high incidence of postoperative complications. M...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
JMIR Publications
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6719484/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31432783 http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/13437 |
_version_ | 1783447945135259648 |
---|---|
author | El-Koubani, Osman McCann, Mark Christmas, Daniel Khanna, Aakash von Maydell, Alexander |
author_facet | El-Koubani, Osman McCann, Mark Christmas, Daniel Khanna, Aakash von Maydell, Alexander |
author_sort | El-Koubani, Osman |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Malignancy of the liver has historically meant a poor prognosis and remains the second most common cause of cancer-related deaths globally. Traditionally, hepatectomy has utilized the clamp-crush technique; however, this is associated with high incidence of postoperative complications. Many novel techniques have been developed—radiofrequency ablation and transarterial chemoembolization; however, these are not applicable to numerous cases. Clamp-crush liver resection (CCLR) remains the gold standard. Radiofrequency-assisted liver resection (RFLR) is a technique that aims to reduce mortality through bloodless liver resection. A systematic review was previously performed on RFLR but the results neither recommended nor refuted the use of RFLR owing to the lack of sufficient evidence from well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) at the time. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is the meta-analysis and systematic review of recent studies comparing RFLR against CCLR. METHODS: Articles comparing RFLR and CCLR that were published from 2014 until 2019 will be reviewed and relevant data will be extracted and statistically analyzed through Review Manager 5 (by the Cochrane Collaboration) together with the results of the previous meta-analysis. RESULTS: Data collection is currently underway, with papers being screened. We hope to publish the results by the end of 2019. CONCLUSIONS: Given the high mortality rates currently associated with liver resection, it is imperative that novel surgical techniques are undertaken and investigated so we can improve best practice guidance and outcomes. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/13437 |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6719484 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | JMIR Publications |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-67194842019-09-19 Radiofrequency-Assisted Liver Resection Versus Clamp-Crush Liver Resection: Protocol for an Updated Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review El-Koubani, Osman McCann, Mark Christmas, Daniel Khanna, Aakash von Maydell, Alexander JMIR Res Protoc Protocol BACKGROUND: Malignancy of the liver has historically meant a poor prognosis and remains the second most common cause of cancer-related deaths globally. Traditionally, hepatectomy has utilized the clamp-crush technique; however, this is associated with high incidence of postoperative complications. Many novel techniques have been developed—radiofrequency ablation and transarterial chemoembolization; however, these are not applicable to numerous cases. Clamp-crush liver resection (CCLR) remains the gold standard. Radiofrequency-assisted liver resection (RFLR) is a technique that aims to reduce mortality through bloodless liver resection. A systematic review was previously performed on RFLR but the results neither recommended nor refuted the use of RFLR owing to the lack of sufficient evidence from well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) at the time. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is the meta-analysis and systematic review of recent studies comparing RFLR against CCLR. METHODS: Articles comparing RFLR and CCLR that were published from 2014 until 2019 will be reviewed and relevant data will be extracted and statistically analyzed through Review Manager 5 (by the Cochrane Collaboration) together with the results of the previous meta-analysis. RESULTS: Data collection is currently underway, with papers being screened. We hope to publish the results by the end of 2019. CONCLUSIONS: Given the high mortality rates currently associated with liver resection, it is imperative that novel surgical techniques are undertaken and investigated so we can improve best practice guidance and outcomes. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/13437 JMIR Publications 2019-08-20 /pmc/articles/PMC6719484/ /pubmed/31432783 http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/13437 Text en ©Osman El-Koubani, Mark McCann, Daniel Christmas, Aakash Khanna, Alexander von Maydell. Originally published in JMIR Research Protocols (http://www.researchprotocols.org), 20.08.2019. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Research Protocols, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://www.researchprotocols.org, as well as this copyright and license information must be included. |
spellingShingle | Protocol El-Koubani, Osman McCann, Mark Christmas, Daniel Khanna, Aakash von Maydell, Alexander Radiofrequency-Assisted Liver Resection Versus Clamp-Crush Liver Resection: Protocol for an Updated Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review |
title | Radiofrequency-Assisted Liver Resection Versus Clamp-Crush Liver Resection: Protocol for an Updated Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review |
title_full | Radiofrequency-Assisted Liver Resection Versus Clamp-Crush Liver Resection: Protocol for an Updated Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review |
title_fullStr | Radiofrequency-Assisted Liver Resection Versus Clamp-Crush Liver Resection: Protocol for an Updated Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review |
title_full_unstemmed | Radiofrequency-Assisted Liver Resection Versus Clamp-Crush Liver Resection: Protocol for an Updated Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review |
title_short | Radiofrequency-Assisted Liver Resection Versus Clamp-Crush Liver Resection: Protocol for an Updated Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review |
title_sort | radiofrequency-assisted liver resection versus clamp-crush liver resection: protocol for an updated meta-analysis and systematic review |
topic | Protocol |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6719484/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31432783 http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/13437 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT elkoubaniosman radiofrequencyassistedliverresectionversusclampcrushliverresectionprotocolforanupdatedmetaanalysisandsystematicreview AT mccannmark radiofrequencyassistedliverresectionversusclampcrushliverresectionprotocolforanupdatedmetaanalysisandsystematicreview AT christmasdaniel radiofrequencyassistedliverresectionversusclampcrushliverresectionprotocolforanupdatedmetaanalysisandsystematicreview AT khannaaakash radiofrequencyassistedliverresectionversusclampcrushliverresectionprotocolforanupdatedmetaanalysisandsystematicreview AT vonmaydellalexander radiofrequencyassistedliverresectionversusclampcrushliverresectionprotocolforanupdatedmetaanalysisandsystematicreview |