Peritoneal interposition flap reduces symptomatic lymphocele following transperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection: An updated meta-analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with intraoperative pelvic lymph node dissection is the criterion standard for surgical treatment of nonmetastatic intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer. However, this method is associated with symptomatic lymphocele (SLC), which is an important morbidity factor. To overcome this complication, several modifications of the technique have been developed, including the peritoneal interposition flap (PIF). We performed an updated systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and safety of this technique for preventing SLC and lymphocele (LC) formation. Materials and methods Searches were performed using databases and references from included studies and previous systematic reviews. Only randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized cohorts were included. Primary outcomes were the incidence of SLC and LC formation, and safety outcomes were defined as operation time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, and urinary incontinence. Quality assessment was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane Collaboration's tool. Pooled treatment effects were estimated using odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for binary endpoints. Heterogeneity was examined using Cochran's Q test and I 2 statistics; p values < 0.10 and I 2 > 25% were considered significant for heterogeneity. We used Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect models in the analyses with low heterogeneity. Otherwise, the DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model was used. Results The initial search yielded 510 results. After the removal of duplicate records and application of the exclusion criterion, 9 studies were fully reviewed for eligibility. Three randomized controlled trials and 5 retrospective cohorts met all the inclusion criteria, comprising 2261 patients, of whom 1073 (47.4%) underwent PIF. Six studies reported a significant reduction in SLC in the PIF group, and 3 of the 4 studies reported LC formation yielded significant results in preventing this complication. The incidence of SLC and LC formation in a follow-up of ≥3 months was significantly different between the PIF and no PIF group (odds ratio, 0.34 [95% CI, 0.16–0.74; p = 0.006] and 0.48 [95% CI, 0.31–0.74; p = 0.0008]), respectively. The safety outcomes did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. Conclusions These results suggest that PIF is an effective and safe technique for preventing LC and SLC in patients undergoing transperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».