-
BMC Surgery Nov 2017Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) reduces postoperative morbidity, hospital stay and recovery as compared with open distal pancreatectomy. Many authors believe... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) reduces postoperative morbidity, hospital stay and recovery as compared with open distal pancreatectomy. Many authors believe that robotic surgery can overcome the difficulties and technical limits of LDP thanks to improved surgical manipulation and better visualization. Few studies in the literature have compared the two methods in terms of surgical and oncological outcome. The aim of this study was to compare the results of robotic (RDP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted of control studies published up to December 2016 comparing LDP and RDP. Two Reviewers independently assessed the eligibility and quality of the studies. The meta-analysis was conducted using either the fixed-effect or the random-effect model.
RESULTS
Ten studies describing 813 patients met the inclusion criteria. This meta-analysis shows that the RDP group had a significantly higher rate of spleen preservation [OR 2.89 (95% confidence interval 1.78-4.71, p < 0.0001], a lower rate of conversion to open OR 0.33 (95% CI 0.12-0.92), p = 0.003] and a shorter hospital stay [MD -0.74; (95% CI -1.34 -0.15), p = 0.01] but a higher cost than the LDP group, while other surgical outcomes did not differ between the two groups.
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis suggests that the RDP procedure is safe and comparable in terms of surgical results to LDP. However, even if the RDP has a higher cost compared to LDP, it increases the rate of spleen preservation, reduces the risk of conversion to open surgery and is associated to shorter length of hospital stay.
Topics: Conversion to Open Surgery; Humans; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Pancreatectomy; Postoperative Period; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Spleen; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29121885
DOI: 10.1186/s12893-017-0301-3 -
European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery... May 2023The treatment of giant cell tumors (GCT) of the distal radius remains challenging, with no consensus on the optimal surgical management. Surgical management remains the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
The treatment of giant cell tumors (GCT) of the distal radius remains challenging, with no consensus on the optimal surgical management. Surgical management remains the mainstay of treatment with options including intralesional curettage and en-bloc resection with reconstruction. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate and compare the outcomes of these two procedures.
METHODS
Using OVID-Medline and Embase databases, a systematic literature search was performed. Comparative studies, assessing intralesional curettage and en-bloc resection in patients with GCTs of the distal radius, were included. Data regarding rates of local recurrence, metastasis, overall complications, and functional outcomes, were collected and analyzed. The ROBINS-I tool was utilized for risk of bias appraisal within each study outcome.
RESULTS
Thirteen studies (n = 373 patients) reporting on 191 intralesional curettage procedures and 182 en-bloc resections were included in the analysis. The average age of participants was 31.9 (SD ± 2.4) years and average follow-up was 7.1 (SD ± 3.6) years. Patients that underwent intralesional curettage were more likely to develop local recurrence (Risk Ratio (RR) 3.3, 95% CI, [2.1, 5.4], p < 0.00001) when compared to patients that underwent en-bloc resection. In Campanacci grade 3 lesions, the risk for local recurrence was 5.9 (95% CI, [2.2, 16.3], p = 0.0006) times higher in patients that received intralesional curettage. Patients that underwent intralesional curettage showed an 84% reduction in the relative risk of developing overall complications compared to en-bloc resection (95% CI, [0.1, 0.4], p < 0.00001), and a larger decrease in Visual Analog Scale and lower Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) scores (p < 0.00001). Risk ratio for developing a local recurrence, with PMMA versus bone graft following an intralesional procedure was not significant (RR 1.2, 95% CI, [0.6, 2.6], p = 0.62).
CONCLUSIONS
In the surgical management of GCT of the distal radius, intralesional curettage increased local recurrence compared to en-bloc resection with reconstruction, particularly in grade 3 tumors. However, it led to significantly fewer operative complications, lower pain scores, and improved functional outcomes compared to en-bloc resection. Both treatment options remain relevant in the contemporary management of GCTs of the distal radius. Surgical decision making should include both patient and tumor factors when determining the optimal treatment strategy for these patients. LEVEL 3 EVIDENCE: Meta-analysis of Level 3 studies.
Topics: Humans; Adult; Radius; Giant Cell Tumor of Bone; Bone Neoplasms; Curettage; Bone Transplantation; Retrospective Studies; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35377078
DOI: 10.1007/s00590-022-03252-9 -
Surgical Endoscopy May 2022Robotic distal gastrectomy (RDG) is a new technique that is rapidly gaining popularity and may help overcome the limitations of laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG);... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Robotic distal gastrectomy (RDG) is a new technique that is rapidly gaining popularity and may help overcome the limitations of laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG); however, its safety and therapeutic efficacy remain controversial. Therefore, this meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of RDG.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for studies that compared RDG and LDG and were published between the time of database inception and May 2021. We assessed the bias risk of the observational studies using ROBIN-I, and a random effect model was always applied.
RESULTS
The meta-analysis included 22 studies involving 5386 patients. Compared with LDG, RDG was associated with longer operating time (Mean Difference [MD] = 43.88, 95% CI = 35.17-52.60), less intraoperative blood loss (MD = - 24.84, 95% CI = - 41.26 to - 8.43), a higher number of retrieved lymph nodes (MD = 2.41, 95% CI = 0.77-4.05), shorter time to first flatus (MD = - 0.09, 95% CI = - 0.15 to - 0.03), shorter postoperative hospital stay (MD = - 0.68, 95% CI = - 1.27 to - 0.08), and lower incidence of pancreatic fistula (OR = 0.23, 95% CI = 0.07-0.79). Mean proximal and distal resection margin distances, time to start liquid and soft diets, and other complications were not significantly different between RDG and LDG groups. However, in the propensity-score-matched meta-analysis, the differences in time to first flatus and postoperative hospital stay between the two groups lost significance.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the available evidence, RDG appears feasible and safe, shows better surgical and oncological outcomes than LDG and, comparable postoperative recovery and postoperative complication outcomes.
Topics: Flatulence; Gastrectomy; Humans; Laparoscopy; Postoperative Complications; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Stomach Neoplasms; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35020057
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-021-08994-x -
Surgery Jul 2021Minimally invasive pancreatic resection has been shown recently in some randomized trials to be superior in selected perioperative outcomes compared with open resection... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Minimally invasive pancreatic resection has been shown recently in some randomized trials to be superior in selected perioperative outcomes compared with open resection when performed by experienced surgeons. However, minimally invasive pancreatic resection is associated with a long learning curve. This study aims to summarize the current evidence on the learning curve of minimally invasive pancreatic resection and define the number of cases required to surmount the learning curve.
METHODS
A systematic search was performed on PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane database using a detailed search strategy. Studies that did not describe the learning curve were excluded from the study. Data on the method of learning curve analysis, single surgeon versus institutional learning curve, and outcome measures were extracted and analyzed.
RESULTS
A total of 32 studies were included in the pooled analysis: 12 on laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy, 9 on robotic pancreatoduodenectomy, 12 on laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy, and 3 on robotic distal pancreatectomy. Sample population was comparable between laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (median 63 vs 65). Six of 12 studies and 7 of 9 studies used nonarbitrary methods of analysis in laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy, respectively. Operating time was used as the single outcome measure in 4 of 12 studies in laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy and 5 of 9 studies in robotic pancreatoduodenectomy. Overall, there was no significant difference between the number of cases required to surmount the learning curve for laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy versus robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy 34.1 [95% confidence interval 30.7-37.7] versus robotic pancreatoduodenectomy 36.7 [95% confidence interval 32.9-41.0]; P = .8241) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy versus robotic distal pancreatectomy (laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy 25.3 [95% confidence interval 22.5-28.3] versus robotic distal pancreatectomy 20.7 [95% confidence interval 15.8-26.5]; P = .5997.) CONCLUSION: This study provides a detailed summary of existing evidence around the learning curve in minimally invasive pancreatic resection. There was no significant difference between the learning curve for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy versus laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy and robotic distal pancreatectomy versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. These findings were limited by the retrospective nature and heterogeneity of the studies published to date.
Topics: Humans; Laparoscopy; Learning Curve; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Operative Time; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Robotic Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 33541746
DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2020.11.046 -
European Spine Journal : Official... Oct 2019Cervical spondylotic amyotrophy (CSA) is characterized by upper limb muscle weakness and atrophy, without sensory deficits. The pathophysiology of CSA has been...
PURPOSE
Cervical spondylotic amyotrophy (CSA) is characterized by upper limb muscle weakness and atrophy, without sensory deficits. The pathophysiology of CSA has been attributed to selective injury to the ventral nerve root and/or anterior horn of the spinal cord. This review aimed to delineate the history of CSA and to describe the epidemiology, etiology, pathophysiology, classification, clinical features, radiological and electrophysiological assessment, diagnosis, differential diagnosis, natural history and treatment of CSA.
METHODS
A comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library and Web of Science databases was conducted, from their inception to April 3, 2018.
RESULTS
Clinically, CSA is classified into three types: a proximal-type (involving the scapular muscles, deltoid and biceps), a distal-type (involving the triceps and muscles of the forearm and hand) and a diffuse-type (involving features of both the distal- and proximal-type). Diagnosis requires documentation of muscle atrophy, without significant sensory deficits, supported by careful neurological, radiological and neurophysiological assessments, with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Parsonage-Turner syndrome, rotator cuff tear and Hirayama disease being the principle differential diagnoses. Conservative management of CSA includes cervical traction, neck immobilization and physical therapy, with vitamin B12 or E administration being useful in some patients. Surgical treatment, including anterior decompression and fusion or laminoplasty, with or without foraminotomy, is indicated after conservative treatment failure. Factors associated with a poor outcome include the distal-type CSA, long symptom duration, older age and greater preoperative muscle weakness.
CONCLUSION
Although the disease process of CSA is self-limited, treatment remains challenging, leaving scope for future studies. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
Topics: Cervical Vertebrae; Conservative Treatment; Decompression, Surgical; Diagnosis, Differential; Humans; Immobilization; Physical Therapy Modalities; Prognosis; Spinal Fusion; Spondylosis; Traction
PubMed: 31037421
DOI: 10.1007/s00586-019-05990-7 -
The British Journal of Surgery Jan 2015Established closure techniques for the pancreatic remnant after distal pancreatectomy include stapler, suture and anastomotic closure. However, controversy remains... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Established closure techniques for the pancreatic remnant after distal pancreatectomy include stapler, suture and anastomotic closure. However, controversy remains regarding the ideal technique; therefore, the aim of this study was to compare closure techniques and risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF).
METHODS
A systematic review was carried out according to PRISMA guidelines for studies published before January 2014 that compared at least two closure techniques for the pancreatic remnant in distal pancreatectomy. A random-effects model was constructed using weighted odds ratios (ORs).
RESULTS
Thirty-seven eligible studies matched the inclusion criteria and 5252 patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy were included. The primary outcome measure, the POPF rate, ranged 0 from to 70 per cent. Meta-analysis of the 31 studies comparing stapler versus suture closure showed that the stapler technique had a significantly lower rate of POPF, with a combined OR of 0.77 (95 per cent c.i. 0.61 to 0.98; P = 0.031). Anastomotic closure was associated with a significantly lower POPF rate than suture closure (OR 0.55, 0.31 to 0.98; P = 0.042). Combined stapler and suture closure had significantly lower POPF rates than suture closure alone, but no significant difference compared with stapler closure alone.
CONCLUSION
The use of stapler closure or anastomotic closure for the pancreatic remnant after distal pancreatectomy significantly reduces POPF rates compared with suture closure. The combination of stapler and suture closure shows superiority over suture closure alone.
Topics: Abdominal Abscess; Anastomosis, Surgical; Epidemiologic Methods; Humans; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Postoperative Complications; Surgical Stapling; Suture Techniques
PubMed: 25388952
DOI: 10.1002/bjs.9653 -
Indian Journal of Urology : IJU :... 2023Tamsulosin is the most commonly used medical expulsive therapy (MET). However, it does not alleviate ureteral colic. It is important to develop MET that can reduce... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Tamsulosin is the most commonly used medical expulsive therapy (MET). However, it does not alleviate ureteral colic. It is important to develop MET that can reduce ureteral colic while maintaining a high stone clearance rate. Silodosin is an α1A adrenoceptor with high affinity and selectivity for the distal ureter, which may reduce ureteral colic and enable stone expulsion for distal ureteral stones. Therefore, we performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of silodosin as MET and its role in reducing ureteral colic among patients with distal ureteral stones.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This research was conducted in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Review and Intervention, in adherence with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, and was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO CRD42021249003). A comprehensive literature search was performed in several databases including Medline, EMBASE, and Scopus up to July 2021 for randomized trials comparing silodosin with placebo for MET. RevMan 5.4 was used for data analysis.
RESULTS
A total of six randomized controlled trials were included in this analysis with a total of 907 patients. Our analysis revealed that the patients who received silodosin had significantly higher stone expulsion rate (SER) (odds ratio [OR] 3.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.34, 4.76, P < 0.01), significantly shorter stone expulsion time (SET) (mean difference -3.79, 95% CI -4.51, -3.06, P < 0.01), and lower analgesic use (OR 0.4, 95% CI 0.23, 0.69, P < 0.01) compared to the group receiving placebo.
CONCLUSION
Silodosin showed significantly higher SER, lower SET and lower analgesic use in patients with distal ureteral stones as compared to a placebo.
PubMed: 36824112
DOI: 10.4103/iju.iju_115_22 -
The Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery Feb 2022Modern advances in techniques and implants have allowed for a better operative fixation for distal femoral fractures. Both locked plating and retromedullary nail have... (Review)
Review
Modern advances in techniques and implants have allowed for a better operative fixation for distal femoral fractures. Both locked plating and retromedullary nail have allowed surgeons to stabilize these fractures with minimal soft tissue dissection and preserve blood supply. Although both the implants have been used extensively for such types of fractures, the superiority of one implant over the other is still doubtful. Therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis to compare locked plating and retrograde intramedullary nailing in distal femoral fractures. Based on prisma guidelines, electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Ovid Medline were searched using a well-defined search strategy. Outcome measures which were studied included blood loss, implant failure, infection, knee range of motion, malunion, non-union, pain, surgical duration and union time Surgical duration (95% CI 2.90 to 17.13, p <0.01) and blood loss (95% CI 69.60 to123.18, p <0.01) favoured plating group and the difference is significant. But while analysing parameters like implant failure, knee range of motion, non-union and union time, our analysis favoured nailing group, but the difference is not significant. Overall, both locked plating and retrograde intramedullary nailing are comparable with respect to union and complications in distal femur fractures, but we need further larger and high quality randomized studies to evaluate the difference.
PubMed: 35655740
DOI: 10.22038/abjs.2021.53515.2656 -
European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery... Oct 2020Sarcopenia is a clinical syndrome characterized by the reduction in muscle mass, strength and physical ability. Although proximal femur fractures are one of the major...
INTRODUCTION
Sarcopenia is a clinical syndrome characterized by the reduction in muscle mass, strength and physical ability. Although proximal femur fractures are one of the major burdens affecting the ageing population, distal radius fractures are equally important for frequency, clinical and social consequences. The aim of this study is to evaluate the incidence of sarcopenia in distal radius fractures and clinical implications in functional recovery.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Scopus and PubMed search was performed to find relationship between sarcopenia and distal radius fractures. Literature search was performed between 2009 and 2019 including clinical trials and clinical studies related to "sarcopenia and distal radius fracture" and "sarcopenia and wrist fracture". After identification, studies were screened and analysed through the Oxford Level of Evidence.
RESULTS
According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, five articles were included. Four articles analysed the incidence of sarcopenia and its role as a risk factor in patients with distal radial fractures, while one article focused on sarcopenia and clinical results of surgical treatment of distal radius fractures. Incidence of sarcopenia in patients older than 50 years with distal radius fracture varied between 29.7% and 31.7%. Patients with distal radial fractures did not show a significant inferior muscle mass than control group in examined population. Functional results of surgery were significantly inferior in sarcopenic patients than control group (no sarcopenia).
CONCLUSIONS
About 30% of patients older than 50 years with distal radius fracture suffered by sarcopenia; sarcopenic patients surgically treated had worse clinical results than no sarcopenic patients. Further studies with larger samples are needed to confirm these preliminary results.
Topics: Fracture Fixation, Internal; Humans; Radius Fractures; Recovery of Function; Sarcopenia; Ulna Fractures; Wrist Injuries
PubMed: 32415433
DOI: 10.1007/s00590-020-02697-0 -
Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Feb 2016Surgical fixation is the preferred method of treatment for the ruptured distal biceps tendon in active patients. To date, no fixation technique has been proven superior... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Surgical fixation is the preferred method of treatment for the ruptured distal biceps tendon in active patients. To date, no fixation technique has been proven superior in a clinical setting. The purpose of the study was to systematically review the available literature on approach and fixation methods for distal biceps tendon repair in a clinical setting and to determine the optimal fixation methods of the distal biceps tendon on the radial tuberosity. Our hypothesis was that the outcomes would not be significantly different among the various fixation techniques and approaches.
METHODS
A systematic review of the available literature on anatomic reconstruction methods for distal biceps tendon ruptures was performed. The outcome measures evaluated were postoperative range of motion, elbow flexion and supination strength, and complication rates and types.
RESULTS
Forty articles were included, representing 1074 patients divided into 4 fixation groups: suture anchors, bone tunnels, interference screws, and cortical buttons. There was no significant difference in range of motion and strength between the different approaches and fixation techniques. Complications were significantly less common after the double-incision approach with bone tunnel fixation (P < .0005).
CONCLUSIONS
There were significantly fewer complications after the double-incision approach with bone tunnel fixation. The double-incision approach had significantly fewer complications than the single-incision anterior approach, and the bone tunnel fixation had significantly fewer complications than the other 3 fixation techniques. However, as the double-incision approach was used with bone tunnel fixation in 84% of cases, there was a strong interrelationship between these variables.
Topics: Arm Injuries; Humans; Orthopedic Fixation Devices; Orthopedic Procedures; Patient Outcome Assessment; Rupture; Tendon Injuries
PubMed: 26709017
DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2015.09.004