女性生殖脱垂和综合妇科病理的外科治疗:一项荟萃分析

IF 0.9 Q3 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Aliya Meirmanova, Gulzhakhan Omarova, A. Kurmanova, Zhanara Begniyazova, A. Yuldasheva
{"title":"女性生殖脱垂和综合妇科病理的外科治疗:一项荟萃分析","authors":"Aliya Meirmanova, Gulzhakhan Omarova, A. Kurmanova, Zhanara Begniyazova, A. Yuldasheva","doi":"10.29333/ejgm/12793","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Prolapse can be fixed using a variety of surgical procedures. The goal of the present study was to examine the current literature on various surgical techniques for treating female genital organ prolapse.\nMethods: The PubMed and Medline databases were explored for pertinent literature up through August 2022 for this meta-analysis. The terms [surgery] AND [management] AND [genital prolapse OR gynaecological diseases] AND [randomised control studies OR randomised control trials] were used as search criteria. The studies that met the inclusion criteria were considered qualified using the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Cochrane handbook of “Systematic reviews of interventions” was used for risk of bias assessment.\nResults: The investigations found significant difference in the heterogeneity between the groups with a 76% I2 value (p<0.00001). There was little variability among the six trials that examined robotic and laparoscopic therapy of prolapse (I2=0%, p=0.94). In six investigations, the odd ratio revealed no statistically significant difference between groups (1.05; 95% CI, 0.52, 2.12). However, generally there were no appreciable differences between robotic and laparoscopic treatment of female prolapse. There was a low-risk bias among the selected studies.\nConclusion: According to this meta-analysis study, laparoscopic surgery performed better job of managing prolapse than abdominal surgery.","PeriodicalId":44930,"journal":{"name":"Electronic Journal of General Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Surgical management of genital prolapse and combined gynecological pathologies in women: A meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Aliya Meirmanova, Gulzhakhan Omarova, A. Kurmanova, Zhanara Begniyazova, A. Yuldasheva\",\"doi\":\"10.29333/ejgm/12793\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction: Prolapse can be fixed using a variety of surgical procedures. The goal of the present study was to examine the current literature on various surgical techniques for treating female genital organ prolapse.\\nMethods: The PubMed and Medline databases were explored for pertinent literature up through August 2022 for this meta-analysis. The terms [surgery] AND [management] AND [genital prolapse OR gynaecological diseases] AND [randomised control studies OR randomised control trials] were used as search criteria. The studies that met the inclusion criteria were considered qualified using the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Cochrane handbook of “Systematic reviews of interventions” was used for risk of bias assessment.\\nResults: The investigations found significant difference in the heterogeneity between the groups with a 76% I2 value (p<0.00001). There was little variability among the six trials that examined robotic and laparoscopic therapy of prolapse (I2=0%, p=0.94). In six investigations, the odd ratio revealed no statistically significant difference between groups (1.05; 95% CI, 0.52, 2.12). However, generally there were no appreciable differences between robotic and laparoscopic treatment of female prolapse. There was a low-risk bias among the selected studies.\\nConclusion: According to this meta-analysis study, laparoscopic surgery performed better job of managing prolapse than abdominal surgery.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44930,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Electronic Journal of General Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Electronic Journal of General Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.29333/ejgm/12793\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Electronic Journal of General Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29333/ejgm/12793","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介:脱垂可以通过多种外科手术来固定。本研究的目的是检查目前文献的各种手术技术治疗女性生殖器官脱垂。方法:通过PubMed和Medline数据库检索截至2022年8月的相关文献进行meta分析。术语[手术]和[管理]和[生殖器脱垂或妇科疾病]和[随机对照研究或随机对照试验]被用作搜索标准。符合纳入标准的研究被认为符合系统评价和荟萃分析(PRISMA)指南的首选报告项目。采用Cochrane“干预措施系统评价”手册进行偏倚风险评估。结果:调查发现组间异质性有显著差异,I2值为76% (p<0.00001)。在6项检测机器人和腹腔镜治疗脱垂的试验中,差异很小(I2=0%, p=0.94)。6次调查中,奇数比组间差异无统计学意义(1.05;95% ci, 0.52, 2.12)。然而,一般来说,机器人和腹腔镜治疗女性脱垂没有明显的差异。所选研究存在低风险偏倚。结论:根据这项荟萃分析研究,腹腔镜手术治疗脱垂优于腹部手术。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Surgical management of genital prolapse and combined gynecological pathologies in women: A meta-analysis
Introduction: Prolapse can be fixed using a variety of surgical procedures. The goal of the present study was to examine the current literature on various surgical techniques for treating female genital organ prolapse. Methods: The PubMed and Medline databases were explored for pertinent literature up through August 2022 for this meta-analysis. The terms [surgery] AND [management] AND [genital prolapse OR gynaecological diseases] AND [randomised control studies OR randomised control trials] were used as search criteria. The studies that met the inclusion criteria were considered qualified using the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Cochrane handbook of “Systematic reviews of interventions” was used for risk of bias assessment. Results: The investigations found significant difference in the heterogeneity between the groups with a 76% I2 value (p<0.00001). There was little variability among the six trials that examined robotic and laparoscopic therapy of prolapse (I2=0%, p=0.94). In six investigations, the odd ratio revealed no statistically significant difference between groups (1.05; 95% CI, 0.52, 2.12). However, generally there were no appreciable differences between robotic and laparoscopic treatment of female prolapse. There was a low-risk bias among the selected studies. Conclusion: According to this meta-analysis study, laparoscopic surgery performed better job of managing prolapse than abdominal surgery.
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
Electronic Journal of General Medicine
Electronic Journal of General Medicine MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
4.80%
发文量
79
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信