-
Nutrients Sep 2023Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common gastrointestinal disease. The efficacy of different probiotics in treating IBS remains controversial. This network... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common gastrointestinal disease. The efficacy of different probiotics in treating IBS remains controversial. This network meta-analysis aimed to compare and rank the outcome-specific efficacy of different probiotic strains or combinations in adults with IBS. We searched the literature up to June 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy of probiotics in IBS were included. A frequentist framework was used to perform this study. In total, 9253 participants from 81 RCTs were included in the study. Four probiotic strains and five mixtures were significantly superior to placebo in improving IBS Symptom Severity Scale, among which DDS-1 ranked first (surface under the cumulative ranking, SUCRA, 92.9%). A mixture containing five probiotics (SUCRA, 100%) ranked first in improving the IBS-Quality of life. MTCC 5856 (SUCRA, 96.9%) and Unique IS2 (SUCRA, 92.6%) were among the most effective probiotics for improving abdominal pain. Three probiotic strains and two mixtures were effective in alleviating abdominal bloating. Four probiotic strains and a mixture were significantly superior to placebo in reducing the bowel movement frequency in diarrhea-predominant IBS (IBS-D). MTCC 5856 (SUCRA, 99.6%) and CNCM I-3856 (SUCRA, 89.7%) were among the most effective probiotics for improving the Bristol stool form scale of IBS-D. Only some probiotics are effective for particular outcomes in IBS patients. This study provided the first ranking of outcome-specific efficacy of different probiotic strains and combinations in IBS. Further studies are needed to confirm these results.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Irritable Bowel Syndrome; Network Meta-Analysis; Abdominal Pain; Bacillus coagulans; Probiotics; Saccharomyces cerevisiae
PubMed: 37686889
DOI: 10.3390/nu15173856 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2023Currently, there are five major approaches to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease: abdominal hysterectomy (AH), vaginal hysterectomy (VH), laparoscopic... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Currently, there are five major approaches to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease: abdominal hysterectomy (AH), vaginal hysterectomy (VH), laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH), robotic-assisted hysterectomy (RH) and vaginal natural orifice hysterectomy (V-NOTES). Within the LH category we further differentiate the laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) from the total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) and single-port laparoscopic hysterectomy (SP-LH).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of different surgical approaches to hysterectomy for women with benign gynaecological conditions.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases (from their inception to December 2022): the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Specialised Register of Controlled Trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO. We also searched the trial registries and relevant reference lists, and communicated with experts in the field for any additional trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which clinical outcomes were compared between one surgical approach to hysterectomy and another.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias and performed data extraction. Our primary outcomes were return to normal activities, satisfaction and quality of life, intraoperative visceral injury and major long-term complications (i.e. fistula, pelvic-abdominal pain, urinary dysfunction, bowel dysfunction, pelvic floor condition and sexual dysfunction).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 63 studies with 6811 women. The evidence for most comparisons was of low or moderate certainty. The main limitations were poor reporting and imprecision. Vaginal hysterectomy (VH) versus abdominal hysterectomy (AH) (12 RCTs, 1046 women) Return to normal activities was probably faster in the VH group (mean difference (MD) -10.91 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -17.95 to -3.87; 4 RCTs, 274 women; I = 67%; moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the return to normal activities after AH is assumed to be 42 days, then after VH it would be between 24 and 38 days. We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for the other primary outcomes. Laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) versus AH (28 RCTs, 3431 women) Return to normal activities may be sooner in the LH group (MD -13.01 days, 95% CI -16.47 to -9.56; 7 RCTs, 618 women; I = 68%, low-certainty evidence), but there may be more urinary tract injuries in the LH group (odds ratio (OR) 2.16, 95% CI 1.19 to 3.93; 18 RCTs, 2594 women; I = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the return to normal activities after abdominal hysterectomy is assumed to be 37 days, then after laparoscopic hysterectomy it would be between 22 and 25 days. It also suggests that if the rate of ureter injury during abdominal hysterectomy is assumed to be 0.2%, then during laparoscopic hysterectomy it would be between 0.2% and 2%. We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for the other primary outcomes. LH versus VH (22 RCTs, 2135 women) We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for any of our primary outcomes. Both short- and long-term complications were rare in both groups. Robotic-assisted hysterectomy (RH) versus LH (three RCTs, 296 women) None of the studies reported satisfaction rates or quality of life. We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for our other primary outcomes. Single-port laparoscopic hysterectomy (SP-LH) versus LH (seven RCTs, 621 women) None of the studies reported satisfaction rates, quality of life or major long-term complications. We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for rates of intraoperative visceral injury. Total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) versus laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) (three RCTs, 233 women) None of the studies reported satisfaction rates or quality of life. We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for rates of intraoperative visceral injury or major long-term complications. Transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (V-NOTES) versus LH (two RCTs, 96 women) We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for rates of bladder injury. Our other primary outcomes were not reported. Overall, adverse events were rare in the included studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Among women undergoing hysterectomy for benign disease, VH appears to be superior to AH. When technically feasible, VH should be performed in preference to AH because it is associated with faster return to normal activities, fewer wound/abdominal wall infections and shorter hospital stay. Where VH is not possible, LH has advantages over AH including faster return to normal activities, shorter hospital stay, and decreased risk of wound/abdominal wall infection, febrile episodes or unspecified infection, and transfusion. These advantages must be balanced against the increased risk of ureteric injury and longer operative time. When compared to LH, VH was associated with no difference in time to return to normal activities but shorter operative time and shorter hospital stay. RH and V-NOTES require further evaluation since there is a lack of evidence of any patient benefit over conventional LH. Overall, the evidence in this review has to be interpreted with caution as adverse event rates were low, resulting in low power for these comparisons. The surgical approach to hysterectomy should be discussed with the patient and decided in the light of the relative benefits and hazards. Surgical expertise is difficult to quantify and poorly reported in the available studies and this may influence outcomes in ways that cannot be accounted for in this review. In conclusion, when VH is not feasible, LH has multiple advantages over AH, but at the cost of more ureteric injuries. Evidence is limited for RH and V-NOTES.
Topics: Female; Humans; Hysterectomy; Abdominal Injuries; Fever; Hospitals
PubMed: 37642285
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003677.pub6 -
Gastroenterology Nov 2023Some probiotics may be beneficial in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), but differences in species and strains used, as well as endpoints reported, have hampered attempts... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND & AIMS
Some probiotics may be beneficial in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), but differences in species and strains used, as well as endpoints reported, have hampered attempts to make specific recommendations as to which should be preferred. We updated our previous meta-analysis examining this issue.
METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were searched (up to March 2023). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting adults with IBS, comparing probiotics with placebo were eligible. Dichotomous symptom data were pooled to obtain a relative risk of global symptoms, abdominal pain, or abdominal bloating or distension persisting after therapy, with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Continuous data were pooled using a standardized mean difference with a 95% CI. Adverse events data were also pooled.
RESULTS
We identified 82 eligible trials, containing 10,332 patients. Only 24 RCTs were at low risk of bias across all domains. For global symptoms, there was moderate certainty in the evidence for a benefit of Escherichia strains, low certainty for Lactobacillus strains and Lactobacillus plantarum 299V, and very low certainty for combination probiotics, LacClean Gold S, Duolac 7s, and Bacillus strains. For abdominal pain, there was low certainty in the evidence for a benefit of Saccharomyces cerevisae I-3856 and Bifidobacterium strains, and very low certainty for combination probiotics, Lactobacillus, Saccharomyces, and Bacillus strains. For abdominal bloating or distension there was very low certainty in the evidence for a benefit of combination probiotics and Bacillus strains. The relative risk of experiencing any adverse event, in 55 trials, including more than 7000 patients, was not significantly higher with probiotics.
CONCLUSIONS
Some combinations of probiotics or strains may be beneficial in IBS. However, certainty in the evidence for efficacy by GRADE criteria was low to very low across almost all of our analyses.
Topics: Irritable Bowel Syndrome; Probiotics; Humans; Treatment Outcome; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Abdominal Pain; Gastrointestinal Microbiome
PubMed: 37541528
DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.07.018 -
Surgery Dec 2023Endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy has been proposed as an alternative strategy for treating appendicitis, but debate exists on its role compared with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy versus appendectomy or antibiotics in the modern approach to uncomplicated acute appendicitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
INTRODUCTION
Endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy has been proposed as an alternative strategy for treating appendicitis, but debate exists on its role compared with conventional treatment.
METHODS
This systematic review was performed on MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE. The last search was in April of 2023. The risk ratio with a 95% confidence interval was calculated for dichotomous variables, and the mean difference with a 95% confidence interval for continuous variables. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool (randomized controlled trials) and the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Intervention tool (non-randomized controlled trials).
RESULTS
Six studies met the eligibility criteria. Four studies compared endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy (n = 236 patients) and appendectomy (n = 339) and found no differences in technical success during index admission (risk ratio 0.97, 95% confidence interval [0.92,1.02]). Appendectomy showed superior outcomes for recurrence at 1-year follow-up (risk ratio 11.28, 95% confidence interval [2.61,48.73]). Endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy required shorter procedural time (mean difference -14.38, 95% confidence interval [-20.17, -8.59]) and length of hospital stay (mean difference -1.19, 95% confidence interval [-2.37, -0.01]), with lower post-intervention abdominal pain (risk ratio 0.21, 95% confidence interval [0.14,0.32]). Two studies compared endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy (n = 269) and antibiotic treatment (n = 280). Technical success during admission (risk ratio 1.11, 95% confidence interval [0.91,1.35]) and appendicitis recurrence (risk ratio 1.07, 95% confidence interval [0.08,14.87]) did not differ, but endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy decreased the length of hospitalization (mean difference -1.91, 95% confidence interval [-3.18, -0.64]).
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis did not identify significant differences between endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy and appendectomy or antibiotics regarding technical success during index admission and treatment efficacy at 1-year follow-up. However, a high risk of imprecision limits these results. The advantages of endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy in terms of reduced procedural times and shorter lengths of stay must be balanced against the increased risk of having an appendicitis recurrence at one year.
Topics: Humans; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Appendectomy; Appendicitis; Hospitalization; Length of Stay; Abdominal Pain; Acute Disease
PubMed: 37806859
DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2023.08.029 -
BMC Gastroenterology Jan 2024To comprehensively evaluate the efficacy, safety, patient symptoms, and quality-of-life (QoL) of lubiprostone, linaclotide, and elobixibat as treatment for chronic... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Comparative profiles of lubiprostone, linaclotide, and elobixibat for chronic constipation: a systematic literature review with meta-analysis and number needed to treat/harm.
OBJECTIVE
To comprehensively evaluate the efficacy, safety, patient symptoms, and quality-of-life (QoL) of lubiprostone, linaclotide, and elobixibat as treatment for chronic constipation (CC).
DESIGN
Systematic literature review (SLR) and meta-analysis (MA). Literature searches were conducted on PubMed and Embase using the Ovid platform.
METHODS
SLR including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies was conducted to identify the overall efficacy and safety of lubiprostone, linaclotide, and elobixibat. Thereafter, MA was performed using only RCTs. The number needed to treat (NNT) and number needed to harm (NNH) analyses were additionally conducted.
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES
The primary outcome was efficacy regarding change in spontaneous bowel movements. Secondary outcomes included safety, constipation-related symptoms, and QoL.
RESULTS
Twenty-four studies met the inclusion criteria for the SLR: 17 RCTs, 4 observational studies, and 3 single-arm trials. Feasibility assessment for the MA resulted in 14 studies available for safety data analysis, and 8 available for efficacy analysis, respectively. Three drugs showed similar efficacy in the MA and NNT analysis. However, the NNH analysis revealed distinct safety profiles: lubiprostone, linaclotide, and elobixibat were linked to the highest risk of nausea, diarrhea, and abdominal pain, respectively.
CONCLUSION
The current study provides an updated overview of the efficacy, safety, patient symptoms, and QoL of the three drugs with different mechanisms of action for CC treatment.The findings could help physicians adopt an individualized approach for treating patients with CC in clinical practice.
Topics: Humans; Constipation; Lubiprostone; Peptides; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38166671
DOI: 10.1186/s12876-023-03104-8 -
Reviews in Endocrine & Metabolic... Dec 2023Knowledge of ectopic insulinomas comes from single cases. We performed a systematic review through PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, eLibrary and ScienceDirect of all...
Knowledge of ectopic insulinomas comes from single cases. We performed a systematic review through PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, eLibrary and ScienceDirect of all cases reported in the last four decades. We also describe one unreported patient. From 28 patients with ectopic insulinoma, 78.6% were female and mean age was 55.7 ± 19.2 years. Hypoglycaemia was the first symptom in 85.7% while 14.3% complained of abdominal pain or genital symptoms. Median tumour diameter was 27.5 [15-52.5] mm and it was localised by CT (73.1%), MRI (88.9%), [Ga]Ga-DOTA-exedin-4 PET/CT (100%), Ga-labelled-DOTA-conjugated somatostatin analogue PET/TC (100%), somatostatin receptor scintigraphy (40%) and endoscopic ultrasound (50%). Ectopic insulinomas were located at duodenum (n = 3), jejunum (n = 2), and one respectively at stomach, liver, appendix, rectum, mesentery, ligament of Treitz, gastrosplenic ligament, hepatoduodenal ligament and splenic hilum. Seven insulinomas were affecting the female reproductive organs: ovary (n = 5), cervix (n = 2) and remaining tumours were at retroperitoneum (n = 3), kidney (n = 2), spleen (n = 1) and pelvis (n = 1). 89.3% underwent surgery (66.7% surgery vs. 33.3% laparoscopy) and 16% underwent an ineffective pancreatectomy. 85.7% had localized disease at diagnosis and 14.3% developed distant metastasis. Median follow-up time was 14.5 [4.5-35.5] months and mortality was reported in 28.6% with median time until death of 60 [5-144] months. In conclusion, ectopic insulinomas are presented as hypoglycaemia with female preponderance. Functional imaging [Ga]Ga-DOTA-exedin-4 PET/CT and Ga-labelled-DOTA-conjugated somatostatin analogue PET/TC have very high sensitivity. Clinicians should be alert to the possibility of extra-pancreatic insulinomas when classic diagnostic tests and intraoperative pancreas exploration failed to locate the tumour.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Gallium Radioisotopes; Hypoglycemia; Insulinoma; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography; Somatostatin
PubMed: 37434098
DOI: 10.1007/s11154-023-09824-2 -
Integrative Medicine Research Dec 2023Current endometriosis treatments do not always provide symptom relief, with many using complementary approaches. This study examined the effectiveness of acupuncture on... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Current endometriosis treatments do not always provide symptom relief, with many using complementary approaches. This study examined the effectiveness of acupuncture on pain and quality of life in people with endometriosis.
METHODS
Searches were conducted on Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) and Embase (Ovid), Epistemonikos, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; EBSCOhost) on 20 March 2023. Trials were included if they used penetrating acupuncture. Risk of bias was assessed with Cochrane RoB2 and GRADE for overall evidence certainty. Random-effects meta-analyses were undertaken, using Hedges' g or mean difference (MD) both with 95 % confidence intervals (CI).
RESULTS
Six studies involving a total of 331 participants were included. Evidence for benefit was found for acupuncture compared to non-specific acupuncture on overall pelvic pain ( = 1.54, 95 % CI 0.92 to 2.16, 3 RCTs, = 231, low certainty evidence, <0.001), menstrual pain ( = 1.67, 95 % CI 1.23 to 2.12, 1 RCT, = 106, moderate certainty evidence, <0.001), and non-specified pelvic pain (MD -2.77, 95 % CI 2.15 to 3.38, 2 RCTs, = 125, low certainty evidence, <0.001), and compared to usual care on menstrual pain ( = 0.9, 95 % CI 0.15 to 1.64, 1 RCT, = 19, very low certainty evidence, = 0.02). Most studies reported low rates of adverse events.
CONCLUSION
Acupuncture treatment for endometriosis demonstrated clinically relevant improvements in pelvic pain and should be considered as a potential treatment intervention.
STUDY REGISTRATION
PROSPERO ID: CRD42023408700.
PubMed: 38033648
DOI: 10.1016/j.imr.2023.101003 -
Imiquimod for Cervical and Vaginal Intraepithelial Neoplasia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Obstetrics and Gynecology Aug 2023To evaluate the treatment efficacy and the risk of adverse events of imiquimod for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia (VAIN),... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the treatment efficacy and the risk of adverse events of imiquimod for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia (VAIN), compared with placebo or no intervention.
DATA SOURCES
We searched Cochrane, PubMed, ISRCTN registry, ClinicalTrials.gov , and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform up to November 23, 2022.
METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION
We included randomized controlled trials and prospective nonrandomized studies with control arms that investigated the efficacy of imiquimod for histologically confirmed CIN or VAIN. The primary outcomes were histologic regression of the disease (primary efficacy outcome) and treatment discontinuation due to side effects (primary safety outcome). We estimated pooled odds ratios (ORs) of imiquimod, compared with placebo or no intervention. We also conducted a meta-analysis of the proportions of patients with adverse events in the imiquimod arms.
TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS
Four studies contributed to the pooled OR for the primary efficacy outcome. An additional four studies were available for meta-analyses of proportions in the imiquimod arm. Imiquimod was associated with increased probability of regression (pooled OR 4.05, 95% CI 2.08-7.89). Pooled OR for CIN in the three studies was 4.27 (95% CI 2.11-8.66); results of one study were available for VAIN (OR, 2.67, 95% CI 0.36-19.71). Pooled probability for primary safety outcome in the imiquimod arm was 0.07 (95% CI 0.03-0.14). The pooled probabilities (95% CI) of secondary outcomes were 0.51 (0.20-0.81) for fever, 0.53 (0.31-0.73) for arthralgia or myalgia, 0.31 (0.18-0.47) for abdominal pain, 0.28 (0.09-0.61) for abnormal vaginal discharge or genital bleeding, 0.48 (0.16-0.82) for vulvovaginal pain, and 0.02 (0.01-0.06) for vaginal ulceration.
CONCLUSION
Imiquimod was found to be effective for CIN, whereas data on VAIN were limited. Although local and systemic complications are common, treatment discontinuation is infrequent. Thus, imiquimod is potentially an alternative therapy to surgery for CIN.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO, CRD42022377982.
Topics: Female; Humans; Imiquimod; Antineoplastic Agents; Prospective Studies; Aminoquinolines; Uterine Cervical Dysplasia; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
PubMed: 37411024
DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000005256 -
Cureus Jan 2024Appendectomy remains the gold standard for treating appendicitis, but advancements in laparoscopic techniques have shifted the paradigm. Natural orifice transluminal... (Review)
Review
Appendectomy remains the gold standard for treating appendicitis, but advancements in laparoscopic techniques have shifted the paradigm. Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) and transvaginal appendectomy (TVA) offer a potentially less invasive alternative to traditional laparoscopic appendectomy (LA). This article systematically reviews the procedures, perceptions, and complications of TVA to assess its viability as a surgical option. Between January 1, 2003, and November 1, 2023, 4832 case reports, case series, and experimental and observational peer-reviewed publications were examined and filtered using the keyword "Transvaginal Laparoscopic Appendectomy." The publications were screened using PRISMA guidelines, and 20 studies were included for analysis and review. Survey results showed that women's acceptance of TVA was 43%, citing reduced invasiveness as a major reason for positive reception. TVA procedures exhibited consistency, with variations in appendectomy methods, appendix removal, and posterior fornix incision closure. Positive outcomes included shorter operation times, reduced postoperative pain, and minimal scarring. Complications were uncommon but included bladder puncture, urinary tract infections, and intra-abdominal abscesses. Indications primarily focused on surgical safety, reduced scarring, and postoperative benefits. Sexual function post-TVA exhibited no significant differences in most cases, with a recovery period of two to four weeks. This systematic review suggests that TVA is a promising alternative to traditional LA, offering potential advantages in terms of postoperative complications. While the existing literature indicates positive outcomes, further research with larger sample sizes and long-term follow-ups is needed to validate the efficacy and safety of TVA and assess how the procedure impacts the reproductive function of patients.
PubMed: 38333466
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.51962 -
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Jul 2023Incisional hernia (IH) is the main complication after laparotomy. In an attempt to reduce this complication, mesh techniques and studies in which the closure technique... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Incisional hernia (IH) is the main complication after laparotomy. In an attempt to reduce this complication, mesh techniques and studies in which the closure technique is modified have been proposed. Both types are characterized by comparison with the closure described as standard or conventional: 1 × 1, mass, and continuous closure. For this study, modified closure techniques (MCTs) were considered as those techniques in which an extra suture is placed (reinforced tension line (RTL), retention), the closure point is modified in distance (small bites) or shape (CLDC, Smead Jones, interrupted, Cardiff point) and which aim to reduce these complications. The objective of this network meta-analysis (NMA) was to evaluate the effectiveness of MCTs for reducing the incidence of IH and abdominal wound dehiscence (AWD) to provide objective support for their recommendation.
METHODS
An NMA was performed according to the PRISMA-NMA guidelines. The primary objective was to determine the incidence of IH and AWD, and the secondary objective was to determine the incidence of postoperative complications. Only published clinical trials were included. The risk of bias was analyzed, and the random-effects model was used to determine statistical significance.
RESULTS
Twelve studies comparing 3540 patients were included. The incidence of HI was lower in RTL, retention suture, and small bites, these techniques showed statistical differences with pooled ORs (95% CI) of 0.28 (0.09-0.83), 0.28 (0.13-0.62), and 0.44 (0.31-0.62), respectively. Associated complications, including hematoma, seroma, and postoperative pain, could not be analyzed; however, MCTs did not increase the risk of surgical site infection.
CONCLUSION
Small bites, RTL, and retention sutures decreased the prevalence of IH. RTL and retention suture decreased the prevalence of AWD. RTL was the best technique as it reduced both complications (IH and AWD) and had the best SUCRA and P-scores, and the number needed to treat (NNT) for net effect was 3.
REGISTRATION
This study was prospectively registered in the PROSPERO database under registration number CRD42021231107.
Topics: Humans; Incisional Hernia; Laparotomy; Network Meta-Analysis; Suture Techniques; Abdomen; Abdominal Injuries; Sutures; Abdominal Wound Closure Techniques; Surgical Wound Dehiscence
PubMed: 37418033
DOI: 10.1007/s00423-023-02954-w