MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410379238 · doi:10.37275/bsm.v9i7.1342

Management Strategies and Outcomes for Bilateral Pulmonary Hydatid Cysts: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2025· review· en· W4410379238 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Berliana Islamiyarti Hydra, Irvan Medison, Fenty Anggrainy

Bibliographic record

VenueBioscientia Medicina Journal of Biomedicine and Translational Research · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParasitic infections in humans and animals
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeta-analysisSystematic reviewMedicineGeneral surgeryIntensive care medicineMEDLINEInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Bilateral pulmonary hydatid disease presents a complex therapeutic challenge, necessitating careful consideration of surgical timing, approach, and adjuvant medical therapy to optimize patient outcomes while minimizing morbidity. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the different management strategies and their associated outcomes in patients with bilateral pulmonary hydatid cysts. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases was conducted for studies published between January 2014 and December 2024, reporting on management strategies (one-stage bilateral surgery, two-stage bilateral surgery, medical therapy) and outcomes (postoperative complications, recurrence, mortality, length of hospital stay) in patients with bilateral pulmonary hydatid cysts. Studies were selected based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers, and quality assessment was performed using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Pooled proportions for outcomes were calculated using random-effects models. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. Results: Seven studies, encompassing a total of 305 patients with bilateral pulmonary hydatid cysts, met the inclusion criteria. The studies varied in design, including retrospective cohorts and prospective case series. Management predominantly involved surgical intervention, with 148 patients (48.5%) undergoing one-stage bilateral surgery and 127 patients (41.6%) undergoing two-stage procedures. Perioperative albendazole was administered to 245 patients (80.3%). The pooled overall postoperative complication rate was 28.7% (95% CI: 21.5%-36.8%; I2=78%). Major complications occurred in 12.1% (95% CI: 8.0%-17.9%; I2=65%). The pooled recurrence rate at a mean follow-up of 38.5 months was 8.5% (95% CI: 5.1%-13.8%; I2=55%). Overall mortality was 2.1% (95% CI: 0.9%-4.5%; I2=0%). Patients undergoing one-stage surgery exhibited a trend towards higher overall complication rates (33.1% vs. 25.2% for two-stage) but shorter total hospital stays. Adjuvant albendazole therapy was associated with a trend towards lower recurrence rates. Conclusion: Surgical management, whether one-stage or two-stage, remains the cornerstone of treatment for bilateral pulmonary hydatid disease, achieving acceptable morbidity and mortality with good long-term control in most patients. Postoperative complications are relatively common, highlighting the complexity of these cases. While one-stage surgery may shorten overall hospital stay, it might be associated with a higher risk of immediate complications. Adjuvant albendazole appears beneficial in reducing recurrence. The choice of surgical strategy should be individualized based on patient status, cyst characteristics, and surgical expertise. Further prospective, comparative studies are needed to delineate optimal management pathways.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.040
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.186
GPT teacher head0.500
Teacher spread0.314 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioscientia Medicina Journal of Biomedicine and Translational ResearchSame topicParasitic infections in humans and animalsFrench-language works237,207