Ultrasonic Dissection versus Conventional Dissection for Pancreatic Surgery: A Meta-Analysis
Background. The role of ultrasonic dissection (UD) in pancreatic surgery remains controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the clinical effect of UD in pancreatic surgery when compared with conventional dissection (CD). Materials and Methods. A comprehensive literature search was...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2016-01-01
|
| Series: | Gastroenterology Research and Practice |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/6195426 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832559452484534272 |
|---|---|
| author | Haiming Lei Dong Xu Xinghua Shi Koulan Han |
| author_facet | Haiming Lei Dong Xu Xinghua Shi Koulan Han |
| author_sort | Haiming Lei |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Background. The role of ultrasonic dissection (UD) in pancreatic surgery remains controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the clinical effect of UD in pancreatic surgery when compared with conventional dissection (CD). Materials and Methods. A comprehensive literature search was performed to identify eligible studies that compared UD with CD for pancreatic surgery in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Risk ratio (RR) or mean difference with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated. Results. Six studies were included with a total of 215 patients undergoing UD and 210 undergoing CD. In comparison with CD in distal pancreatectomy, UD was associated with lower rates of pancreatic fistula (RR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.27–0.76) and abdominal abscess and shorter operation time and hospital stay (P<0.05). In pancreaticoduodenectomy, there was no significant difference in pancreatic fistula rate between two groups (RR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.48–1.29). However, the significantly less intraoperative blood loss and the transfused blood unit were found in patients receiving UD (P<0.05). Conclusions. The results of this meta-analysis show that, in comparison with CD, UD is associated with better perioperative outcomes in pancreatic surgery. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-da71ef9e5ddc4096a674eeea23b34992 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 1687-6121 1687-630X |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2016-01-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Gastroenterology Research and Practice |
| spelling | doaj-art-da71ef9e5ddc4096a674eeea23b349922025-02-03T01:30:04ZengWileyGastroenterology Research and Practice1687-61211687-630X2016-01-01201610.1155/2016/61954266195426Ultrasonic Dissection versus Conventional Dissection for Pancreatic Surgery: A Meta-AnalysisHaiming Lei0Dong Xu1Xinghua Shi2Koulan Han3School of Clinical Medicine, Yancheng Institute of Health Sciences, Yancheng 224005, ChinaDepartment of General Surgery, Gaochun People’s Hospital, Nanjing 211300, ChinaSchool of Clinical Medicine, Yancheng Institute of Health Sciences, Yancheng 224005, ChinaSchool of Clinical Medicine, Yancheng Institute of Health Sciences, Yancheng 224005, ChinaBackground. The role of ultrasonic dissection (UD) in pancreatic surgery remains controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the clinical effect of UD in pancreatic surgery when compared with conventional dissection (CD). Materials and Methods. A comprehensive literature search was performed to identify eligible studies that compared UD with CD for pancreatic surgery in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Risk ratio (RR) or mean difference with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated. Results. Six studies were included with a total of 215 patients undergoing UD and 210 undergoing CD. In comparison with CD in distal pancreatectomy, UD was associated with lower rates of pancreatic fistula (RR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.27–0.76) and abdominal abscess and shorter operation time and hospital stay (P<0.05). In pancreaticoduodenectomy, there was no significant difference in pancreatic fistula rate between two groups (RR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.48–1.29). However, the significantly less intraoperative blood loss and the transfused blood unit were found in patients receiving UD (P<0.05). Conclusions. The results of this meta-analysis show that, in comparison with CD, UD is associated with better perioperative outcomes in pancreatic surgery.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/6195426 |
| spellingShingle | Haiming Lei Dong Xu Xinghua Shi Koulan Han Ultrasonic Dissection versus Conventional Dissection for Pancreatic Surgery: A Meta-Analysis Gastroenterology Research and Practice |
| title | Ultrasonic Dissection versus Conventional Dissection for Pancreatic Surgery: A Meta-Analysis |
| title_full | Ultrasonic Dissection versus Conventional Dissection for Pancreatic Surgery: A Meta-Analysis |
| title_fullStr | Ultrasonic Dissection versus Conventional Dissection for Pancreatic Surgery: A Meta-Analysis |
| title_full_unstemmed | Ultrasonic Dissection versus Conventional Dissection for Pancreatic Surgery: A Meta-Analysis |
| title_short | Ultrasonic Dissection versus Conventional Dissection for Pancreatic Surgery: A Meta-Analysis |
| title_sort | ultrasonic dissection versus conventional dissection for pancreatic surgery a meta analysis |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/6195426 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT haiminglei ultrasonicdissectionversusconventionaldissectionforpancreaticsurgeryametaanalysis AT dongxu ultrasonicdissectionversusconventionaldissectionforpancreaticsurgeryametaanalysis AT xinghuashi ultrasonicdissectionversusconventionaldissectionforpancreaticsurgeryametaanalysis AT koulanhan ultrasonicdissectionversusconventionaldissectionforpancreaticsurgeryametaanalysis |