Cargando…

Clinical effectiveness of gasless laparoscopic surgery for abdominal conditions: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: In high-income countries, laparoscopic surgery is the preferred approach for many abdominal conditions. Conventional laparoscopy is a complex intervention that is challenging to adopt and implement in low resource settings. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluate the clinical e...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Aruparayil, N., Bolton, W., Mishra, A., Bains, L., Gnanaraj, J., King, R., Ensor, T., King, N., Jayne, D., Shinkins, B.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer US 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8599349/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34398284
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-021-08677-7
_version_ 1784600930244624384
author Aruparayil, N.
Bolton, W.
Mishra, A.
Bains, L.
Gnanaraj, J.
King, R.
Ensor, T.
King, N.
Jayne, D.
Shinkins, B.
author_facet Aruparayil, N.
Bolton, W.
Mishra, A.
Bains, L.
Gnanaraj, J.
King, R.
Ensor, T.
King, N.
Jayne, D.
Shinkins, B.
author_sort Aruparayil, N.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: In high-income countries, laparoscopic surgery is the preferred approach for many abdominal conditions. Conventional laparoscopy is a complex intervention that is challenging to adopt and implement in low resource settings. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluate the clinical effectiveness of gasless laparoscopy compared to conventional laparoscopy with CO(2) pneumoperitoneum and open surgery for general surgery and gynaecological procedures. METHODS: A search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Global Health, AJOL databases and Cochrane Library was performed from inception to January 2021. All randomised (RCTs) and comparative cohort (non-RCTs) studies comparing gasless laparoscopy with open surgery or conventional laparoscopy were included. The primary outcomes were mortality, conversion rates and intraoperative complications. Secondary outcomes: operative times and length of stay. The inverse variance random-effects model was used to synthesise data. RESULTS: 63 studies were included: 41 RCTs and 22 non-RCTs (3,620 patients). No procedure-related deaths were reported in the studies. For gasless vs conventional laparoscopy there was no difference in intraoperative complications for general RR 1.04 [CI 0.45–2.40] or gynaecological surgery RR 0.66 [0.14–3.13]. In the gasless laparoscopy group, the conversion rates for gynaecological surgery were high RR 11.72 [CI 2.26–60.87] when compared to conventional laparoscopy. For gasless vs open surgery, the operative times were longer for gasless surgery in general surgery RCT group MD (mean difference) 10 [CI 0.64, 19.36], but significantly shorter in the gynaecology RCT group MD − 18.74 [CI − 29.23, − 8.26]. For gasless laparoscopy vs open surgery non-RCT, the length of stay was shorter for gasless laparoscopy in general surgery MD − 3.94 [CI − 5.93, − 1.95] and gynaecology MD − 1.75 [CI − 2.64, − 0.86]. Overall GRADE assessment for RCTs and Non-RCTs was very low. CONCLUSION: Gasless laparoscopy has advantages for selective general and gynaecological procedures and may have a vital role to play in low resource settings. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00464-021-08677-7.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8599349
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Springer US
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-85993492021-11-24 Clinical effectiveness of gasless laparoscopic surgery for abdominal conditions: systematic review and meta-analysis Aruparayil, N. Bolton, W. Mishra, A. Bains, L. Gnanaraj, J. King, R. Ensor, T. King, N. Jayne, D. Shinkins, B. Surg Endosc Review Article BACKGROUND: In high-income countries, laparoscopic surgery is the preferred approach for many abdominal conditions. Conventional laparoscopy is a complex intervention that is challenging to adopt and implement in low resource settings. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluate the clinical effectiveness of gasless laparoscopy compared to conventional laparoscopy with CO(2) pneumoperitoneum and open surgery for general surgery and gynaecological procedures. METHODS: A search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Global Health, AJOL databases and Cochrane Library was performed from inception to January 2021. All randomised (RCTs) and comparative cohort (non-RCTs) studies comparing gasless laparoscopy with open surgery or conventional laparoscopy were included. The primary outcomes were mortality, conversion rates and intraoperative complications. Secondary outcomes: operative times and length of stay. The inverse variance random-effects model was used to synthesise data. RESULTS: 63 studies were included: 41 RCTs and 22 non-RCTs (3,620 patients). No procedure-related deaths were reported in the studies. For gasless vs conventional laparoscopy there was no difference in intraoperative complications for general RR 1.04 [CI 0.45–2.40] or gynaecological surgery RR 0.66 [0.14–3.13]. In the gasless laparoscopy group, the conversion rates for gynaecological surgery were high RR 11.72 [CI 2.26–60.87] when compared to conventional laparoscopy. For gasless vs open surgery, the operative times were longer for gasless surgery in general surgery RCT group MD (mean difference) 10 [CI 0.64, 19.36], but significantly shorter in the gynaecology RCT group MD − 18.74 [CI − 29.23, − 8.26]. For gasless laparoscopy vs open surgery non-RCT, the length of stay was shorter for gasless laparoscopy in general surgery MD − 3.94 [CI − 5.93, − 1.95] and gynaecology MD − 1.75 [CI − 2.64, − 0.86]. Overall GRADE assessment for RCTs and Non-RCTs was very low. CONCLUSION: Gasless laparoscopy has advantages for selective general and gynaecological procedures and may have a vital role to play in low resource settings. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00464-021-08677-7. Springer US 2021-08-16 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC8599349/ /pubmed/34398284 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-021-08677-7 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Review Article
Aruparayil, N.
Bolton, W.
Mishra, A.
Bains, L.
Gnanaraj, J.
King, R.
Ensor, T.
King, N.
Jayne, D.
Shinkins, B.
Clinical effectiveness of gasless laparoscopic surgery for abdominal conditions: systematic review and meta-analysis
title Clinical effectiveness of gasless laparoscopic surgery for abdominal conditions: systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Clinical effectiveness of gasless laparoscopic surgery for abdominal conditions: systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Clinical effectiveness of gasless laparoscopic surgery for abdominal conditions: systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Clinical effectiveness of gasless laparoscopic surgery for abdominal conditions: systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Clinical effectiveness of gasless laparoscopic surgery for abdominal conditions: systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort clinical effectiveness of gasless laparoscopic surgery for abdominal conditions: systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Review Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8599349/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34398284
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-021-08677-7
work_keys_str_mv AT aruparayiln clinicaleffectivenessofgaslesslaparoscopicsurgeryforabdominalconditionssystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT boltonw clinicaleffectivenessofgaslesslaparoscopicsurgeryforabdominalconditionssystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT mishraa clinicaleffectivenessofgaslesslaparoscopicsurgeryforabdominalconditionssystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT bainsl clinicaleffectivenessofgaslesslaparoscopicsurgeryforabdominalconditionssystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT gnanarajj clinicaleffectivenessofgaslesslaparoscopicsurgeryforabdominalconditionssystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT kingr clinicaleffectivenessofgaslesslaparoscopicsurgeryforabdominalconditionssystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT ensort clinicaleffectivenessofgaslesslaparoscopicsurgeryforabdominalconditionssystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT kingn clinicaleffectivenessofgaslesslaparoscopicsurgeryforabdominalconditionssystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT jayned clinicaleffectivenessofgaslesslaparoscopicsurgeryforabdominalconditionssystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT shinkinsb clinicaleffectivenessofgaslesslaparoscopicsurgeryforabdominalconditionssystematicreviewandmetaanalysis