Dataset Information

LigaSure small jaw versus conventional neck dissection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Neck dissection has a central role in the management of head and neck cancers. This systematic review aimed to compare the intraoperative and postoperative parameters between conventional and LigaSure Small Jaw (LSJ)-assisted neck dissection.

Methods

PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched. independently by two authors for relevant articles comparing the outcomes of conventional and LSJ-assisted neck dissection. Data from each study were extracted, and a random-effects model was used in the pooled analysis.

Results

Compared with conventional techniques, LSJ-assisted neck dissection was associated with a significantly reduced operative time. The rates of postoperative hematoma, infection, amount of intraoperative blood loss, the length of hospital stay and the drainage amount showed no significant intergroup differences.

Conclusions

The meta-analysis provides evidence that properly using LSJ may reduce the operative time compared with that of conventional techniques. Surgeons may consider using LSJ in neck dissection according to personal experiences.

SUBMITTER: Chen TY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8008542 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

LigaSure small jaw versus conventional neck dissection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Chen Tai-Yu TY Hsin Li-Jen LJ Lin Wan-Ni WN Tsai Ming-Shao MS Tsai Yao-Te YT Lee Yi-Chan YC

Journal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-faciale 20210329 1

<h4>Background</h4>Neck dissection has a central role in the management of head and neck cancers. This systematic review aimed to compare the intraoperative and postoperative parameters between conventional and LigaSure Small Jaw (LSJ)-assisted neck dissection.<h4>Methods</h4>PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched. independently by two authors for relevant articles comparing the outcomes of conventional and LSJ-assisted neck dissection. Data from each study were extract ...[more]

PMID: 33781344

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveA meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was performed to compare the effects of miniaturized extracorporeal circulation (MECC) and conventional extracorporeal circulation (CECC) on morbidity and mortality rates after cardiac surgery.MethodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted using Ovid, PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane databases. Randomized controlled trials from the year 2000 with n > 40 patients were considered. Key search terms included variations of "mini," "cardiopulmonary," "bypass," "extracorporeal," "perfusion," and "circuit." Studies were assessed for bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. The primary outcomes were postoperative mortality and stroke. Secondary outcomes included arrhythmia, myocardial infarction, renal failure, blood loss, and a composite outcome comprised of mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction and renal failure. Duration of intensive care unit, and hospital stay was also recorded.ResultsThe 42 studies eligible for this study included a total of 2154 patients who underwent CECC and 2196 patients who underwent MECC. There were no significant differences in any preoperative or demographic characteristics. Compared with CECC, MECC did not reduce the incidence of mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, and renal failure but did significantly decrease the composite of these outcomes (odds ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50-0.81; P = .0002). MECC was also associated with reductions in arrhythmia (odds ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.54-0.83; P = .0003), blood loss (mean difference [MD], -96.37 mL; 95% CI, -152.70 to -40.05 mL; P = .0008), hospital stay (MD, -0.70 days; 95% CI, -1.21 to -0.20 days; P = .006), and intensive care unit stay (MD, -2.27 hours; 95% CI, -3.03 to -1.50 hours; P < .001).ConclusionsMECC demonstrates clinical benefits compared with CECC. Further studies are required to perform a cost-utility analysis and to assess the long-term outcomes of MECC. These should use standardized definitions of endpoints such as mortality and renal failure to reduce inconsistency in outcome reporting.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the effects between computer-assisted and traditional cannulated screw internal fixation on treating femoral neck fracture.MethodsThe search was conducted in Embase, Pubmed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and Wanfang Database from the beginning to August 2020. RevMan5.4 software, which was provided by the International Cochrane Group, was used for the meta-analysis comparing the differences in operation time, intraoperative bleeding volume, fluoroscopy frequency, fracture healing time, total drilling times, Harris score, fracture healing rate, and femoral head necrosis rate between computer-assisted and traditional methods groups.ResultsA total of 1028 patients were included in 16 studies. Primary outcome indicators: Compared with the traditional method group, the computer-assisted group had less operative time (2RCTs, P < 0.00001; 8 non-RCTs, P = 0.009; Overall, P < 0.00001), intraoperative bleeding (1 RCTs, P < 0.00001; 9non-RCTs, P < 0.00001; Overall, P < 0.00001), femoral head necrosis rate (1 RCT, P = 0.11;7 non-RCTs, P = 0.09; Overall, P = 0.02) and higher Harris scores (1 RCT, P < 0.0001; 9 non-RCTs, P = 0.0002; Overall, P < 0.0001), and there were no significant differences in fracture healing rate between the two groups (5 non-RCTs, P = 0.17). Secondary outcomes indicators: The computer-assisted group had a lower frequency of intraoperative fluoroscopy and total number of drills compared with the traditional method group, while there was no significant difference in fracture healing time.ConclusionCompared with the traditional hollow screw internal fixation on the treatment of femoral neck fracture, computer-assisted percutaneous cannulated screw fixation can shorten the operation time and improve the operation efficiency and reduce the X-ray injury of medical staff and help patients obtain a better prognosis. Therefore, computer-assisted percutaneous cannulated screw fixation is a better choice for the treatment of femoral neck fracture. Study registration PROSPERO registration number CRD42020214493.

Project description:Robotic-assisted mitral valve surgery (RMVS) is becoming an increasingly performed procedure in cardiac surgery, however, its true safety and efficacy compared to the gold standard conventional sternotomy approach [conventional sternotomy mitral valve surgery (CSMVS)] remains debated. The aim of this meta-analysis was to provide a comprehensive analysis of all available literature comparing RMVS to CSMVS. An electronic search of five databases was performed to identify all relevant studies comparing RMVS to CSMVS. Pre-defined primary outcomes of interest included all-cause mortality, cerebrovascular accidents (CVA) and re-operation for bleeding. Secondary outcomes of interest included cross clamp time, cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay (LOS), post-operative atrial fibrillation (POAF) and red blood cell (RBC) transfusion. The search strategy identified fourteen studies qualifying for inclusion in this meta-analysis comparing RMVS to CSMVS. The outcomes of 6,341 patients (2,804 RMVS and 3,537 CSMVS) were included. RMVS had significantly lower mortality when compared to CSMVS group in both the unmatched [odds ratio (OR) 0.33; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.19-0.57; P<0.001] and matched cohorts (OR 0.35; 95% CI: 0.15-0.80; P=0.01). There was no significant difference in rates of CVA or re-operation for bleeding between the two groups in either the entire included cohort or matched patients. CSMVS had significantly shorter cross clamp time by 28 minutes (95% CI: 19.30-37.32; P<0.001) and CPB time by 49 minutes (95% CI: 36.16-61.01; P<0.001) which remained significantly shorter in the matched cohorts. RMVS had shorter ICU [mean difference (MD) 26 hours; 95% CI: -34.31 to -18.52; P<0.001] and hospital LOS (MD 2 days; 95% CI: -2.66 to -1.37; P<0.001), which were again both significantly shorter in the matched cohort. RMVS group also had fewer RBC transfusions (OR 0.44; 95% CI: 0.28-0.70; P<0.001). Current evidence on comparative outcomes of RMVS and CSMVS is limited with only low-quality studies currently available. This present meta-analysis suggests that RMVS may have lower mortality and shorter ICU and hospital LOS, however CSMVS may be associated with significantly shorter cross clamp and CPB times. Further analysis of high-quality studies with randomized data is required to verify these results.

Project description:The aim was to conduct a systematic review of literature and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing short-term outcomes of bipolar hemiarthroplasty (HA) through SuperPATH and bipolar HA through conventional approaches (CAs) in patients with femoral neck fractures. The following PICO question was formulated: In human participants with femoral neck fractures, are the short-term outcomes of SuperPATH HA better than the short-term outcomes of CAs HA? The following databases were searched until 25 August 2023: PubMed, CNKI, CENTRAL of The Cochrane Library, Clinical trials, and Google Scholar. Quality assessment of the RCTs was performed, according to the Cochrane's Risk of Bias 2 tool and the recommendations of the GRADE system. Furthermore, we evaluated publication bias with funnel plots. Mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for continuous variables using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method and a random effects model. Nine RCTs with overall 762 patients were included in this meta-analysis. All 9 RCTs were rated with a moderate risk of bias. The quality of evidence of the outcome parameters was rated moderate to very low. The funnel plots were overall broadly symmetrical, possibly indicating low to moderate publication bias. SuperPATH had a longer operation time compared to CAs (MD = 21.79, 95% CI 12.57 to 31.02). SuperPATH decreased incision length (MD = - 4.50; 95% CI - 5.80 to - 3.20), intraoperative blood loss (MD = - 103.96, 95% CI - 150.27 to - 55.66), postoperative drainage volume (MD = - 137.30, 95% CI - 178.74 to - 95.86), time to mobilization (MD = - 3.86; 95% CI - 5.96 to - 1.76), pain VAS ≤ 1 week postoperatively (MD = - 1.81; 95% CI - 2.17 to - 1.45), and hospitalization time (MD = - 4.05; 95% CI - 4.96 to - 3.15). SuperPATH improved HHS ≤ 1 week postoperatively (MD = 11.10; 95% CI 1.65 to 20.54) and HHS 3 months postoperatively (MD = 6.33; 95% CI 3.97 to 8.69). There was no difference in pain VAS 1-3 months postoperatively (MD = - 0.08; 95% CI - 0.22 to 0.05) and HHS 6 months postoperatively (MD = 0.44; 95% CI - 0.11 to 1.00). This is the first meta-analysis comparing SuperPATH HA with CAs HA in patients with femoral neck fractures. SuperPATH HA was superior in the early short-term functional outcome (HHS) compared to CAs HA, reaching minimal clinically important differences. Furthermore, SuperPATH HA showed significantly better results in incision length, blood loss, time to mobilization, pain intensity (VAS), and hospitalization time than CAs HA.

Dataset Information

LigaSure small jaw versus conventional neck dissection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

LigaSure small jaw versus conventional neck dissection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets