Hand assisted laparoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopy for colorectal surgery
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic surgery for colon disease has been shown to have advantages over the open approach in the perioperative period in terms of shorter hospital stay, decreased analgesic use and a more rapid return of bowel function but provides these benefits at the expense of increased technical difficulty and operative time. Hand assisted surgery which a is a hybrid of open surgery and laparoscopic surgery may offer patients the perioperative advantages of minimally invasive surgery without the technical difficulty and increased operative time associated with the conventional laparoscopic approach. This review compares the benefits and harms of laparoscopic and hand assisted laparoscopic surgery for colon disease. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the perioperative outcomes of hand assisted laparoscopic surgery compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery in adult patients requiring colorectal resections. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched EMBASE (1980- Feb 2010), Medline (1966- Feb 2010) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2010 issue 1), references of included studies, relevant review articles and conference abstracts. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which adult patients were allocated to either receive hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery or conventional laparoscopic colorectal resection for benign or malignant colorectal disease. Studies were not restricted by language of publication. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Reports of potentially relevant articles were retrieved in full text, and two reviewers independently assessed the eligibility of these studies. Data abstraction was performed independently by two reviewers. Meta-analysis of perioperative outcome measures was carried out using a random effects model. MAIN RESULTS: Three randomised controlled studies met the inclusion criteria (n=189). One study focused exclusively on malignant pathology, the second study focused mostly on benign pathology and the third trial had a mixed variety of pathology with approximately a third representing malignant pathology. Conversion rates were significantly decreased in patients undergoing hand assisted surgery but there was no statistically significant difference in operative time or complication rates when comparing hand assisted surgery to conventional laparoscopy. All studies were associated with methodological limitations. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite the limited number of trials performed, meta-analysis demonstrated a statistically significant decrease in conversion rates among the hand assisted group. There was no difference in operating time or perioperative complication rates. Additional adequately powered and methodologically sound trials are needed to determine if there is a clinically important difference in perioperative outcomes. Due to significant costs associated with the use of hand-assist devices, economic analyses are also warranted.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,008 | 0,028 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,008 | 0,007 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».