找回密码
 注册

微信登录,快人一步

QQ登录

只需一步,快速开始

查看: 1708|回复: 0

一项CDSR:结直肠手术使用吻合器好还是人工缝合好?

[复制链接]
发表于 2012-9-27 00:01:10 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式

马上注册登录,享用更多感控资源,助你轻松入门。

您需要 登录 才可以下载或查看,没有账号?注册 |

×
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Feb 15;2:CD003144.
Stapled versus handsewn methods for colorectal anastomosis surgery.Neutzling CB, Lustosa SA, Proenca IM, da Silva EM, Matos D.
Source
Interdisciplinary Surgical Science Program,UNIFESP-Escola Paulista deMedicina, São Paulo, Brazil.

AbstractBACKGROUND:
Previous systematic reviews comparing stapled and handsewn colorectal anastomosis that are available in the medical literature have not shown either technique to be superior. An update of this systematic review was performed to find out if there are any data that properly answer this question.
OBJECTIVES:
To compare the safety and effectiveness of stapled and handsewn colorectal anastomosis surgery. The following primary hypothesis was tested: the stapled technique is more effective because it decreases the level of complications.
SEARCH METHODS:
A computerized search was performed in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE according to the strategies of the Colorectal Cancer Group of The Cochrane Collaboration. There were no limits upon language, date or other criteria. A revised search strategy was performed for this updated version of the review May 2011.
SELECTION CRITERIA:
All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which stapled and handsewn colorectal anastomosis techniques were compared. Participants were adult patients undergoing elective colorectal anastomosis surgery. The interventions were endoluminal circular stapler andhandsewn colorectal anastomosis surgery. Outcomes considered were a) mortality; b) overall anastomotic dehiscence; c) clinical anastomotic dehiscence; d) radiological anastomotic dehiscence; e) stricture; f) anastomotic haemorrhage; g) reoperation; h) wound infection; i) anastomosisduration; and j) hospital stay.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:
Data were independently analysed by the two review authors (CBN, SASL) and cross-checked. The methodological quality of each trial was assessed by the same two authors. After searching the literature for this update, no study was added to those in the previous version of this review. Details of randomizations (generation and concealment), blinding, whether an intention-to-treat analysis was done or not, and the number of patients lost to follow-up were recorded. The analysis of the risk of bias was updated according to the software Review Manager 5.1. The results of each RCT were summarized on an intention-to-treat basis in 2 x 2 tables for each outcome. External validity was defined by the characteristics of the participants, interventions and the outcomes. The RCTs were stratified according to the level of colorectalanastomosis. The risk difference (RD) method (random-effects model) and number needed to treat (NNT) for dichotomous outcome measures and weighted mean differences (WMD) for continuous outcomes measures, with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI), were presented in this review. Statistical heterogeneity was evaluated using a funnel plot and the Chi(2) test.
MAIN RESULTS:
Of the 1233 patients enrolled in nine identified trials, 622 were treated with staples and 611 with manual suture. The following main results were obtained. a) Mortality, result based on 901 patients: RD -0.6%, 95% CI -2.8% to +1.6%. b) Overall dehiscence, result based on 1233 patients: RD 0.2%, 95% CI -5.0% to +5.3%. c) Clinical anastomotic dehiscence, result based on 1233 patients: RD -1.4%, 95% CI -5.2 to +2.3%. d) Radiological anastomotic dehiscence, result based on 825 patients: RD 1.2%, 95% CI -4.8% to +7.3%. e) Stricture, result based on 1042 patients: RD 4.6%, 95% CI 1.2% to 8.1%; NNT 17, 95% CI 12 to 31. f) Anastomotic haemorrhage, result based on 662 patients: RD 2.7%, 95% CI -0.1% to +5.5%. g) Reoperation, result based on 544 patients: RD 3.9%, 95% CI 0.3% to 7.4%. h) Wound infection, result based on 567 patients: RD 1.0%, 95% CI -2.2% to +4.3%. i) Anastomosis duration, result based on one study (159 patients): WMD -7.6 minutes, 95% CI -12.9 to -2.2 minutes. j) Hospital stay, result based on one study (159 patients): WMD 2.0 days, 95% CI -3.27 to +7.2 days.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
The evidence found was insufficient to demonstrate any superiority of stapled over handsewn techniques in colorectalanastomosis surgery, regardless of the level of anastomosis. There were no randomised clinical trials comparing these two types of anastomosis in elective conditions in the last decade. The relevance of this research question has possibly lost its strength where elective surgery is concerned. However, in risk situations, such as emergency surgery, trauma and inflammatory bowel disease, new clinical trials are needed.



评分

参与人数 1威望 +2 收起 理由
樵夫 + 2 赞一个!

查看全部评分

贡献排行榜:
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册 |

本版积分规则

×本站发帖友情提示
1、注册用户在本社区发表、转载的任何作品仅代表其个人观点,不代表本社区认同其观点。
2、如果存在违反国家相关法律、法规、条例的行为,我们有权在不经作者准许的情况下删除其在本论坛所发表的文章、帖子。
3、所有网友不要盗用有明确版权要求的作品,转贴请注明来源,否则文责自负。
4、本社区保护注册用户个人资料,但是在自身原因导致个人资料泄露、丢失、被盗或篡改,本论坛概不负责,也不承担相应法律责任。

关闭

站长推荐上一条 /1 下一条

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表