腹腔镜阑尾切除术治疗复杂性阑尾炎后腹腔引流与不引流的优势比较:一项荟萃分析。

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Hongsheng Wu, Biling Liao, Tiansheng Cao, Tengfei Ji, Yumei Luo, Jianbin Huang, Keqiang Ma
{"title":"腹腔镜阑尾切除术治疗复杂性阑尾炎后腹腔引流与不引流的优势比较:一项荟萃分析。","authors":"Hongsheng Wu, Biling Liao, Tiansheng Cao, Tengfei Ji, Yumei Luo, Jianbin Huang, Keqiang Ma","doi":"10.1186/s12876-024-03500-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Peritoneal drainage (PD) following laparoscopic appendectomy(LA) has long been considered beneficial for appendicitis patients, especially those with complicated appendicitis. However, recent research has raised doubts about the advantages of PD, as it not only fails to reduce postoperative complications but also prolongs the operative duration and hospital stay and incurs higher medical expenses. Given this controversy, we conducted a meta-analysis to determine whether drainage is necessary after LA for complicated appendicitis. This meta-analysis had registered in PROSPERO(ID: CRD42023472382).</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study assessed current evidence regarding the efficacy, safety, and potential benefits of drainage versus no drainage following LA for complicated appendicitis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, Springer, and the Cochrane Library using the search terms \"appendicitis\", \"laparoscopic appendectomy\", and \"drain\" or \"drainage\" for studies published between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2022. We employed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) criteria for study inclusion and exclusion. Primary outcomes included postoperative intra-abdominal abscess, postoperative intestinal obstruction, postoperative stump leakage, wound infection and postoperative visual analog scale(VAS) score, while secondary outcomes consisted of operative time, postoperative recovery time and total hospitalization duration. Studies with at least two outcomes were considered for meta-synthesis. Depending on I<sup>2</sup> values, fixed- or random effects models were used for data synthesis. Pooled odds ratios (OR) and weighted mean differences (WMD) were calculated for outcome comparisons between PD and no peritoneal drainage (NPD). Sensitivity analysis and meta-regression were performed to assess and investigate inter-study heterogeneity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After conducting our literature search and screening, twelve studies were analyzed, comprising 3374 cases. During the comparison of primary outcomes between PD and NPD, the incidence of wound infection and postoperative VAS score were significantly higher in the PD group(P < 0.05). While during the comparison of secondary outcomes, the operative duration, postoperative recovery time and hospitalization duration were significantly longer in the PD group than in the NPD group(P < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>PD following LA for complicated appendicitis not only increases the incidence wound infection and aggravate patients' postoperative pain, but also prolongs the operative duration, postoperative recovery time and hospitalization duration. Therefore, routine PD after LA for acute complicated appendicitis is not recommended.</p>","PeriodicalId":9129,"journal":{"name":"BMC Gastroenterology","volume":"24 1","pages":"411"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11568599/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Advantages comparison of peritoneal drainage versus no drainage after laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated appendicitis: a meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Hongsheng Wu, Biling Liao, Tiansheng Cao, Tengfei Ji, Yumei Luo, Jianbin Huang, Keqiang Ma\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12876-024-03500-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Peritoneal drainage (PD) following laparoscopic appendectomy(LA) has long been considered beneficial for appendicitis patients, especially those with complicated appendicitis. However, recent research has raised doubts about the advantages of PD, as it not only fails to reduce postoperative complications but also prolongs the operative duration and hospital stay and incurs higher medical expenses. Given this controversy, we conducted a meta-analysis to determine whether drainage is necessary after LA for complicated appendicitis. This meta-analysis had registered in PROSPERO(ID: CRD42023472382).</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study assessed current evidence regarding the efficacy, safety, and potential benefits of drainage versus no drainage following LA for complicated appendicitis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, Springer, and the Cochrane Library using the search terms \\\"appendicitis\\\", \\\"laparoscopic appendectomy\\\", and \\\"drain\\\" or \\\"drainage\\\" for studies published between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2022. We employed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) criteria for study inclusion and exclusion. Primary outcomes included postoperative intra-abdominal abscess, postoperative intestinal obstruction, postoperative stump leakage, wound infection and postoperative visual analog scale(VAS) score, while secondary outcomes consisted of operative time, postoperative recovery time and total hospitalization duration. Studies with at least two outcomes were considered for meta-synthesis. Depending on I<sup>2</sup> values, fixed- or random effects models were used for data synthesis. Pooled odds ratios (OR) and weighted mean differences (WMD) were calculated for outcome comparisons between PD and no peritoneal drainage (NPD). Sensitivity analysis and meta-regression were performed to assess and investigate inter-study heterogeneity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After conducting our literature search and screening, twelve studies were analyzed, comprising 3374 cases. During the comparison of primary outcomes between PD and NPD, the incidence of wound infection and postoperative VAS score were significantly higher in the PD group(P < 0.05). While during the comparison of secondary outcomes, the operative duration, postoperative recovery time and hospitalization duration were significantly longer in the PD group than in the NPD group(P < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>PD following LA for complicated appendicitis not only increases the incidence wound infection and aggravate patients' postoperative pain, but also prolongs the operative duration, postoperative recovery time and hospitalization duration. Therefore, routine PD after LA for acute complicated appendicitis is not recommended.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9129,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Gastroenterology\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"411\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11568599/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Gastroenterology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-024-03500-8\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-024-03500-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:腹腔镜阑尾切除术(LA)后腹腔引流(PD)一直被认为对阑尾炎患者,尤其是复杂性阑尾炎患者有益。然而,最近的研究对腹腔引流术的优势提出了质疑,因为它不仅不能减少术后并发症,还会延长手术时间和住院时间,并产生更高的医疗费用。考虑到这一争议,我们进行了一项荟萃分析,以确定复杂性阑尾炎的 LA 术后是否需要引流。该荟萃分析已在 PROSPERO(ID:CRD42023472382)上注册:本研究评估了目前有关复杂性阑尾炎 LA 术后引流与不引流的疗效、安全性和潜在益处的证据:我们使用 "阑尾炎"、"腹腔镜阑尾切除术"、"引流 "或 "引流管 "等检索词对 PubMed、Springer 和 Cochrane 图书馆进行了全面检索,检索对象为 2000 年 1 月 1 日至 2022 年 12 月 31 日期间发表的研究。我们采用系统综述和荟萃分析首选报告项目(PRISMA)标准进行研究的纳入和排除。主要结果包括术后腹腔内脓肿、术后肠梗阻、术后残端渗漏、伤口感染和术后视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分,次要结果包括手术时间、术后恢复时间和总住院时间。荟萃综合考虑了至少有两项结果的研究。根据 I2 值的不同,采用固定效应或随机效应模型进行数据综合。针对腹腔引流术和无腹腔引流术(NPD)之间的结果比较,计算汇总的几率比(OR)和加权平均差(WMD)。进行了敏感性分析和元回归,以评估和调查研究间的异质性:经过文献检索和筛选,我们分析了 12 项研究,包括 3374 个病例。在比较PD和NPD的主要结果时,PD组的伤口感染发生率和术后VAS评分均显著高于NPD组(P 结论:PD组的伤口感染发生率和术后VAS评分均显著高于NPD组):复杂性阑尾炎 LA 术后行 PD 不仅会增加伤口感染的发生率,加重患者的术后疼痛,还会延长手术时间、术后恢复时间和住院时间。因此,不建议在急性复杂性阑尾炎 LA 术后常规进行腹腔镜手术。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Advantages comparison of peritoneal drainage versus no drainage after laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated appendicitis: a meta-analysis.

Background: Peritoneal drainage (PD) following laparoscopic appendectomy(LA) has long been considered beneficial for appendicitis patients, especially those with complicated appendicitis. However, recent research has raised doubts about the advantages of PD, as it not only fails to reduce postoperative complications but also prolongs the operative duration and hospital stay and incurs higher medical expenses. Given this controversy, we conducted a meta-analysis to determine whether drainage is necessary after LA for complicated appendicitis. This meta-analysis had registered in PROSPERO(ID: CRD42023472382).

Objective: This study assessed current evidence regarding the efficacy, safety, and potential benefits of drainage versus no drainage following LA for complicated appendicitis.

Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, Springer, and the Cochrane Library using the search terms "appendicitis", "laparoscopic appendectomy", and "drain" or "drainage" for studies published between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2022. We employed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) criteria for study inclusion and exclusion. Primary outcomes included postoperative intra-abdominal abscess, postoperative intestinal obstruction, postoperative stump leakage, wound infection and postoperative visual analog scale(VAS) score, while secondary outcomes consisted of operative time, postoperative recovery time and total hospitalization duration. Studies with at least two outcomes were considered for meta-synthesis. Depending on I2 values, fixed- or random effects models were used for data synthesis. Pooled odds ratios (OR) and weighted mean differences (WMD) were calculated for outcome comparisons between PD and no peritoneal drainage (NPD). Sensitivity analysis and meta-regression were performed to assess and investigate inter-study heterogeneity.

Results: After conducting our literature search and screening, twelve studies were analyzed, comprising 3374 cases. During the comparison of primary outcomes between PD and NPD, the incidence of wound infection and postoperative VAS score were significantly higher in the PD group(P < 0.05). While during the comparison of secondary outcomes, the operative duration, postoperative recovery time and hospitalization duration were significantly longer in the PD group than in the NPD group(P < 0.05).

Conclusion: PD following LA for complicated appendicitis not only increases the incidence wound infection and aggravate patients' postoperative pain, but also prolongs the operative duration, postoperative recovery time and hospitalization duration. Therefore, routine PD after LA for acute complicated appendicitis is not recommended.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Gastroenterology
BMC Gastroenterology 医学-胃肠肝病学
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
465
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: BMC Gastroenterology is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of the prevention, diagnosis and management of gastrointestinal and hepatobiliary disorders, as well as related molecular genetics, pathophysiology, and epidemiology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信