-
Journal of Clinical Medicine May 2024Atypical Spitz tumor (AST) is an intermediate category among Spitz melanocytic neoplasms. Sentinel node biopsy (SNB) has been proposed in the clinical management of AST... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Atypical Spitz tumor (AST) is an intermediate category among Spitz melanocytic neoplasms. Sentinel node biopsy (SNB) has been proposed in the clinical management of AST patients, but this approach remains the subject of debate. This systematic review aims to summarize the available evidence on SNB procedures in AST patients.
METHODS
A comprehensive search was conducted, including MEDLINE/Pubmed, EMBASE, and SCOPUS, through April 2023. Case series, cohort studies, and case-control studies of AST patients were eligible for inclusion. PRISMA guidelines were followed.
RESULTS
Twenty-two studies with a total of 756 AST patients were included. The pooled SNB prevalence was 54% (95% CI 32 to 75%), with substantial heterogeneity (I2 90%). The pooled SNB+ prevalence was 35% (95% CI 25 to 46%) with moderate heterogeneity (I2 39%). Lymphadenectomy was performed in 0-100% of SNB+ patients. Overall survival rates ranged from 93% to 100%, and disease-free survival ranged from 87% to 100% in AST patients. Overall and disease-free survival rates were 100% in SNB patients. Pooled survival estimates were not calculated due to the heterogeneous timing of the survival assessment and/or the small size of the subgroups. All studies clearly reported inclusion criteria and measured the condition in a standard way for all participants, but only 50% indicated valid methods for the identification of the condition.
CONCLUSIONS
The oncologic behavior of AST is related to an almost always favorable outcome. SNB does not seem to be relevant as a staging or prognostic procedure, and its indication remains debatable and controversial.
PubMed: 38892943
DOI: 10.3390/jcm13113232 -
The Journal of Antimicrobial... Sep 2022Trichoderma spp. are filamentous fungi causing invasive fungal diseases in patients with haematological malignancies and in peritoneal dialysis patients.
BACKGROUND
Trichoderma spp. are filamentous fungi causing invasive fungal diseases in patients with haematological malignancies and in peritoneal dialysis patients.
OBJECTIVES
To analyse clinical presentation, predisposing factors, treatment and outcome of Trichoderma infections.
METHODS
A systematic literature review was conducted for published cases of invasive Trichoderma infection in PubMed until December 2021 and by reviewing the included studies' references. Cases from the FungiScope® registry were added to a combined analysis.
RESULTS
We identified 50 invasive infections due to Trichoderma species, including 11 in the FungiScope® registry. The main underlying conditions were haematological malignancies in 19 and continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) in 10 cases. The most prevalent infection sites were lung (42%) and peritoneum (22%). Systemic antifungal therapy was administered in 42 cases (84%), mostly amphotericin B (n = 27, lipid-based formulation 13/27) and voriconazole in 15 cases (30%). Surgical interventions were performed in 13 cases (26%). Overall mortality was 48% (n = 24) and highest for allogeneic HSCT and solid organ transplantation (SOT) recipients [80% (4/5) and 77% (7/9), respectively]. In patients treated with amphotericin B, voriconazole and caspofungin, mortality was 55% (15/27), 46% (7/15) and 28% (2/7), respectively. Three out of four patients treated with a combination therapy of voriconazole and caspofungin survived.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite treatment with antifungal therapies and surgery, invasive Trichoderma infections are life-threatening complications in immunocompromised patients, especially after HSCT and SOT. In addition, Trichoderma spp. mainly affect the lungs in patients with haematological malignancies and the peritoneum in CAPD patients.
Topics: Amphotericin B; Antifungal Agents; Caspofungin; Hematologic Neoplasms; Humans; Registries; Trichoderma; Voriconazole
PubMed: 35929089
DOI: 10.1093/jac/dkac235 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2014Caesarean section is a very common surgical procedure worldwide. Suturing the peritoneal layers at caesarean section may or may not confer benefit, hence the need to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Caesarean section is a very common surgical procedure worldwide. Suturing the peritoneal layers at caesarean section may or may not confer benefit, hence the need to evaluate whether this step should be omitted or routinely performed.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this review was to assess the effects of non-closure as an alternative to closure of the peritoneum at caesarean section on intraoperative and immediate- and long-term postoperative outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (1 November 2013).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials comparing leaving the visceral or parietal peritoneum, or both, unsutured at caesarean section with a technique which involves suturing the peritoneum in women undergoing elective or emergency caesarean section.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked it for accuracy.
MAIN RESULTS
A total of 29 trials were included in this review and 21 trials (17,276 women) provided data that could be included in an analysis. The quality of the trials was variable. 1. Non-closure of visceral and parietal peritoneum versus closure of both parietal layersSixteen trials involving 15,480 women, were included and analysed, when both parietal peritoneum was left unclosed versus when both peritoneal surfaces were closed. Postoperative adhesion formation was assessed in only four trials with 282 women, and no difference was found between groups (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to 1.29). There was significant reduction in the operative time (mean difference (MD) -5.81 minutes, 95% CI -7.68 to -3.93). The duration of hospital stay in a total of 13 trials involving 14,906 women, was also reduced (MD -0.26, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.05) days. In a trial involving 112 women, reduced chronic pelvic pain was found in the peritoneal non-closure group. 2. Non-closure of visceral peritoneum only versus closure of both peritoneal surfacesThree trials involving 889 women were analysed. There was an increase in adhesion formation (two trials involving 157 women, RR 2.49, 95% CI 1.49 to 4.16) which was limited to one trial with high risk of bias.There was reduction in operative time, postoperative days in hospital and wound infection. There was no significant reduction in postoperative pyrexia. 3. Non-closure of parietal peritoneum only versus closure of both peritoneal layersThe two identified trials involved 573 women. Neither study reported on postoperative adhesion formation. There was reduction in operative time and postoperative pain with no difference in the incidence of postoperative pyrexia, endometritis, postoperative duration of hospital stay and wound infection. In only one study, postoperative day one wound pain assessed by the numerical rating scale, (MD -1.60, 95% CI -1.97 to -1.23) and chronic abdominal pain d by the visual analogue score (MD -1.10, 95% CI -1.39 to -0.81) was reduced in the non-closure group. 4. Non-closure versus closure of visceral peritoneum when parietal peritoneum is closed.There was reduction in all the major urinary symptoms of frequency, urgency and stress incontinence when the visceral peritoneum is left unsutured.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There was a reduction in operative time across all the subgroups. There was also a reduction in the period of hospitalisation post-caesarean section except in the subgroup where parietal peritoneum only was not sutured where there was no difference in the period of hospitalisation. The evidence on adhesion formation was limited and inconsistent. There is currently insufficient evidence of benefit to justify the additional time and use of suture material necessary for peritoneal closure. More robust evidence on long-term pain, adhesion formation and infertility is needed.
Topics: Abdominal Wound Closure Techniques; Cesarean Section; Female; Humans; Length of Stay; Operative Time; Peritoneal Diseases; Peritoneum; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Suture Techniques; Tissue Adhesions
PubMed: 25110856
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000163.pub2 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Jun 2024Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) is an emerging technique for delivering chemotherapy directly to the peritoneum via a pressurized aerosol. Its... (Review)
Review
Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) is an emerging technique for delivering chemotherapy directly to the peritoneum via a pressurized aerosol. Its growing attention stems from its effectiveness in treating peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) originating from various primary tumors, with gastric cancer (GC) being among the most prevalent. This study aimed to systematically investigate PIPAC's therapeutic role in gastric cancer peritoneal metastasis (GCPM). The systematic review and meta-analysis followed the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, searching Pubmed, Web of Science, and SCOPUS databases. The meta-analysis of relative risks and mean differences compared patients undergoing one or two PIPAC sessions with those completing three or more, assessing various outcomes. Eighteen studies underwent qualitative analysis, and four underwent quantitative analysis. Patients with three or more PIPAC procedures had shorter hospital stays (MD = -1.2; 95%CI (-1.9; -0.5); < 0.001), higher rates of histopathological response (RR = 1.77, 95%CI 1.08; 2.90; = 0.023), and significantly improved overall survival (MD = 6.0; 95%CI 4.2; 7.8; < 0.001). Other outcomes showed no significant differences. PIPAC demonstrated efficacy in carefully selected patients, enhancing histopathologic response rates and overall survival without prolonging hospital stays. This study underscores the necessity for randomized controlled trials and precise selection criteria to refine PIPAC's implementation in clinical practice.
PubMed: 38893031
DOI: 10.3390/jcm13113320 -
Pleura and Peritoneum Mar 2019The quest to cure or to contain the disease in cancer patients leads to new strategies and techniques being added to the armamentarium of oncologists. Pressurized... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The quest to cure or to contain the disease in cancer patients leads to new strategies and techniques being added to the armamentarium of oncologists. Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a recently described surgical technique which is being evaluated at many centers for the management of peritoneal metastasis (PM). The present study is a systematic review to evaluate the current role of PIPAC in the management of gastric cancer associated PM.
METHODS
A systematic search was conducted in Pubmed and EMBASE database using relevant keywords and confirming to the PRISMA guidelines to identify the articles describing the role of PIPAC in gastric cancer associated PM. All the studies which were published prior to July 1, 2018 in English literature and reported the role of PIPAC in gastric cancer associated PM were included in the systematic review.
RESULTS
The search yielded 79 articles; there were ten published studies which have reported the use of PIPAC in gastric cancer associated PM. A total of 129 patients with gastric cancer associated PM were treated in the studies. Only two studies had an exclusive cohort of gastric cancer patients while eight other studies had a heterogeneous population with a small proportion of gastric cancer patients. There was only one study highlighting the role of PIPAC in neoadjuvant setting to downgrade the peritoneal carcinomatosis index. All the studies revealed that PIPAC is feasible and has minimal perioperative morbidity, even after repeated applications.
CONCLUSION
There is a scarcity of English literature related to the role of PIPAC in gastric cancer associated PM. PIPAC is a safe and well-tolerated procedure which has the potential to contain spreading PM. Further studies are warranted to better define the role of PIPAC in gastric cancer associated PM.
PubMed: 31198852
DOI: 10.1515/pp-2018-0127 -
Surgical Endoscopy Sep 2023Despite its extremely low incidence, intra-abdominal herniation through the lesser omentum is associated with a high mortality rate and must be recognized early and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Despite its extremely low incidence, intra-abdominal herniation through the lesser omentum is associated with a high mortality rate and must be recognized early and treated urgently. To overcome a lack of data on the management of this condition, we collected and reviewed all the reported cases of operated lesser omental hernia and presented the case of a patient treated by laparoscopy for an isolated lesser omental hernia.
METHODS
According to PRISMA guidelines and using PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, a systematic literature review of cases of lesser omental hernia treated by surgery was performed on February 12, 2023.
RESULTS
Of 482 articles, 30 were included for analysis and only 9 articles presented an isolated hernia through the lesser omentum. Among these, 4 patients were female and the median age was 38. Upper abdominal pain and vomiting were reported in 7 out of 9 patients. The small bowel was responsible for 78% (7/9) of all lesser omental herniations. All of them were treated by laparotomy. In addition, we describe the case of a 65-year-old woman without prior surgical history who was treated by laparoscopy for a spontaneous closed loop hernia through the lesser omentum without any other associated hernias.
CONCLUSION
Mostly associated with prior surgery or trauma, this type of herniation could sometimes occur spontaneously without any sign of peritonitis. Due to the high mortality rate, internal abdominal hernias should always be ruled out with a CT scan in front of patients presenting with persisting acute abdominal pain and no alternative diagnosis.
Topics: Humans; Female; Adult; Aged; Male; Omentum; Laparoscopy; Liver; Abdominal Pain; Hernia
PubMed: 37479840
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-023-10279-4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2017This is an updated version of an original Cochrane review published in Issue 6, 2014. Pelvic lymphadenectomy is associated with significant complications including... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of an original Cochrane review published in Issue 6, 2014. Pelvic lymphadenectomy is associated with significant complications including lymphocyst formation and related morbidities. Retroperitoneal drainage using suction drains has been recommended as a method to prevent such complications. However, findings from recent studies have challenged this policy.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of retroperitoneal drainage versus no drainage after pelvic lymphadenectomy on lymphocyst formation and related morbidities in women with gynaecological cancer.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 3, 2017) in the Cochrane Library, electronic databases MEDLINE (1946 to March Week 2, 2017), Embase (1980 to 2017 week 12), and the citation lists of relevant publications. We also searched the trial registries for ongoing trials on 20 May 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the effect of retroperitoneal drainage versus no drainage after pelvic lymphadenectomy in women with gynaecological cancer. Retroperitoneal drainage was defined as placement of passive or active suction drains in pelvic retroperitoneal spaces. No drainage was defined as no placement of passive or active suction drains in pelvic retroperitoneal spaces.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We assessed studies using methodological quality criteria. For dichotomous data, we calculated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We examined continuous data using mean difference (MD) and 95% CI.
MAIN RESULTS
Since the last version of this review, we have identified no new studies for inclusion. The review included four studies with 571 women. Regarding short-term outcomes (within four weeks after surgery), retroperitoneal drainage was associated with a comparable rate of overall lymphocyst formation when all methods of pelvic peritoneum management were considered together (2 studies; 204 women; RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.04 to 13.35; moderate-quality evidence). When the pelvic peritoneum was left open, the rates of overall lymphocyst formation (1 study; 110 women; RR 2.29, 95% CI 1.38 to 3.79) and symptomatic lymphocyst formation (2 studies; 237 women; RR 3.25, 95% CI 1.26 to 8.37) were higher in the drained group. At 12 months after surgery, the rates of overall lymphocyst formation were comparable between the groups (1 study; 232 women; RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.89 to 2.45; high-quality evidence). However, there was a trend toward increased risk of symptomatic lymphocyst formation in the group with drains (1 study; 232 women; RR 7.12, 95% CI 0.89 to 56.97; low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Placement of retroperitoneal tube drains has no benefit in the prevention of lymphocyst formation after pelvic lymphadenectomy in women with gynaecological malignancies. When the pelvic peritoneum is left open, the tube drain placement is associated with a higher risk of short- and long-term symptomatic lymphocyst formation. We found the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach to be moderate to high for most outcomes, except for symptomatic lymphocyst formation at 12 months after surgery, and unclear or low risk of bias.
Topics: Drainage; Female; Genital Neoplasms, Female; Humans; Lymph Node Excision; Lymphocele; Pelvis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Retroperitoneal Space; Suction
PubMed: 28660687
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007387.pub4 -
Minerva Urologica E Nefrologica = the... Apr 2018Peritoneal fibrosis remains a serious complication of long-term peritoneal dialysis. Stem cell therapy is an innovative field of scientific investigation with potential... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Peritoneal fibrosis remains a serious complication of long-term peritoneal dialysis. Stem cell therapy is an innovative field of scientific investigation with potential for clinical application. Here, we systematically reviewed the studies to determine whether stem cell based therapy could improve the peritoneal fibrosis in experimental models of peritoneal fibrosis.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
Our systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library yield 5219 article. After screening for eligibility, in vivo, experimental, interventional studies using stem cells in animal models of peritoneal fibrosis; 11 articles were included. The studies underwent comprehensive review, quality assessment, and data extraction.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Mesenchymal stem cells were the most used type (90.9%) originated either from bone marrow (70%), adipose tissue (20%), or umbilical cord (10%). In 90.9% of studies, stem cells were injected after peritoneal insult and 63.6% of studies used the intraperitoneal injection route. Eight studies met the ≥50% of criteria indicated by ARRIVE recommendation. Information regarding the nature of ethical review permissions, species, strain and gender, dose, route and duration of treatment, was stated by all studies; 81.8% of the studies reported the number of animals in each group. Adverse events were reported in one study. Improvement in histological parameters including attenuation of submesothelial thickness (100%), inflammation (62.5%), angiogenesis (60%), and fibrosis (85.7%) was reported after stem cell therapy. Peritoneal permeability function by assessing the ultrafiltration, glucose transport and solute permeability was improved in all studies. Stem cell treatment resulted in mesothelial recovery in 100% of studies.
CONCLUSIONS
In preclinical studies, the use of stem cells is associated with improved peritoneal fibrosis. This may provide an important foundation to support future translational clinical research using stem cell therapy to repair the injured peritoneum and modulate immune responses in PD patients.
Topics: Humans; Peritoneal Fibrosis; Stem Cell Transplantation; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28362076
DOI: 10.23736/S0393-2249.17.02882-X -
Pleura and Peritoneum Dec 2022Small bowel adenocarcinoma (SBA) with peritoneal metastasis (PM) is rare and despite treatment with systemic chemotherapy, the prognosis is poor. However, there is... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Small bowel adenocarcinoma (SBA) with peritoneal metastasis (PM) is rare and despite treatment with systemic chemotherapy, the prognosis is poor. However, there is emerging evidence that cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) may offer a survival benefit over systemic therapy alone. This systematic review will assess the effectiveness of CRS-HIPEC for SBA-PM.
CONTENT
Three databases were searched from inception to 11/10/21. Clinical outcomes were extracted and analysed.
SUMMARY
A total of 164 cases of SBA-PM undergoing CRS-HIPEC were identified in 12 studies. The majority of patients had neoadjuvant chemotherapy (87/164, 53%) and complete cytoreduction (143/164, 87%) prior to HIPEC. The median overall survival was 9-32 months and 5-year survival ranged from 25 to 40%. Clavien-Dindo grade III/IV morbidity ranged between 19.1 and 50%, while overall mortality was low with only 3 treatment-related deaths.
OUTLOOK
CRS-HIPEC has the potential to improve the overall survival in a highly selected group of SBA-PM patients, with 5-year survival rates comparable to those reported in colorectal peritoneal metastases. However, the expected survival benefits need to be balanced against the intrinsic risk of morbidity and mortality associated with the procedure. Further multicentre studies are required to assess the safety and feasibility of CRS-HIPEC in SBA-PM to guide best practice management for this rare disease.
PubMed: 36560970
DOI: 10.1515/pp-2022-0121 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2021There has been extensive debate in the surgical literature regarding the optimum surgical access approach to the infrarenal abdominal aorta during an operation to repair... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
There has been extensive debate in the surgical literature regarding the optimum surgical access approach to the infrarenal abdominal aorta during an operation to repair an abdominal aortic aneurysm. The published trials comparing retroperitoneal (RP) and transperitoneal (TP) aortic surgery show conflicting results. This is an update of the review first published in 2016.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of the retroperitoneal versus transperitoneal approach for elective open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair on mortality, complications, hospital stay and blood loss.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and the ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 30 November 2020. The review authors searched the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database and handsearched reference lists of relevant articles to identify additional trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the RP approach versus the TP approach for elective open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. There were no restrictions on language or publication status.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data from the included trials. We resolved any disagreements through discussion with a third review author. Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias in included trials with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the odds ratio (OR) with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous data, we calculated a pooled estimate of treatment effect by calculating the mean difference (MD) and standard deviation (SD) with corresponding 95% CIs. We pooled data using a fixed-effect model, unless we identified heterogeneity, in which case we used a random-effects model. We used GRADE to assess the overall certainty of the evidence. We evaluated the outcomes of mortality, complications, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, hospital stay, blood loss, aortic cross-clamp time and operating time.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified no new studies from the updated searches. After reassessment, we included one study which had previously been excluded. Five RCTs with a combined total of 152 participants are included. The overall certainty of the evidence ranged from low to very low because of the low methodological quality of the included trials (unclear random sequence generation method and allocation concealment, and no blinding of outcome assessors), small sample sizes, small number of events, high heterogeneity and inconsistency between the included trials, no power calculations and relatively short follow-up. There was no evidence of a difference between the RP approach and the TP approach regarding mortality (odds ratio (OR) 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.25; 3 studies, 110 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Similarly, there was no evidence of a difference in complications such as hematoma (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.13 to 6.48; 2 studies, 75 participants; very low-certainty evidence), abdominal wall hernia (OR 10.76, 95% CI 0.55 to 211.78; 1 study, 48 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or chronic wound pain (OR 2.20, 95% CI 0.36 to 13.34; 1 study, 48 participants; very low-certainty evidence) between the RP and TP approaches in participants undergoing elective open AAA repair. The RP approach may reduce ICU stay (mean difference (MD) -19.02 hours, 95% CI -30.83 to -7.21; 3 studies, 106 participants; low-certainty evidence); hospital stay (MD -3.30 days, 95% CI -4.85 to-1.75; 5 studies, 152 participants; low-certainty evidence); and blood loss (MD -504.87 mL, 95% CI -779.19 to -230.56; 4 studies, 129 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the RP approach and the TP approach regarding aortic cross-clamp time (MD 0.69 min, 95% CI -7.23 to 8.60; 4 studies, 129 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or operating time (MD -15.94 min, 95% CI -34.76 to 2.88; 4 studies, 129 participants; very low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Very low-certainty evidence from five small RCTs showed no clear evidence of a difference between the RP approach and the TP approach for elective open AAA repair in terms of mortality, or for rates of complications including hematoma (very low-certainty evidence), abdominal wall hernia (very low-certainty evidence), or chronic wound pain (very low-certainty evidence). However, a shorter intensive care unit (ICU) stay and shorter hospital stay was probably indicated following the RP approach compared to the TP approach (both low-certainty evidence). A possible reduction in blood loss was also shown after the RP approach (very low-certainty evidence). There is no clear difference between the RP approach and TP approach in aortic cross-clamp time or operating time. Further well-designed, large-scale RCTs assessing the RP approach versus TP approach for elective open AAA repair are required.
Topics: Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal; Bias; Blood Loss, Surgical; Elective Surgical Procedures; Hematoma; Humans; Length of Stay; Operative Time; Pain, Postoperative; Peritoneum; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Retroperitoneal Space
PubMed: 34152003
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010373.pub3