AIM To compare the clinical outcomes of right hepatectomy for large hepatocellular carcinoma via the anterior and conventional approach.METHODS We comprehensively performed an electronic search of Pub Med, EMBASE, and...AIM To compare the clinical outcomes of right hepatectomy for large hepatocellular carcinoma via the anterior and conventional approach.METHODS We comprehensively performed an electronic search of Pub Med, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials(RCTs) or controlled clinical trials(CCTs) published between January 2000 and May 2017 concerning the anterior approach(AA) and the conventional approach(CA) to right hepatectomy. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were included, and their outcome analyses were further assessed using a fixed or random effects model.RESULTS This analysis included 2297 patients enrolled in 16 studies(3 RCTs and 13 CTTs). Intraoperative blood loss [weighted mean difference =-255.21; 95% confidence interval(95%CI):-371.3 to-139.12; P < 0.0001], intraoperative blood transfusion [odds ratio(OR) = 0.42; 95%CI: 0.29-0.61; P < 0.0001], mortality(OR = 0.59; 95%CI: 0.38-0.92; P = 0.02), morbidity(OR = 0.77; 95%CI: 0.62-0.95; P = 0.01), and recurrencerate(OR = 0.62; 95%CI: 0.47-0.83; P = 0.001) were significantly reduced in the AA group. Patients in the AA group had better overall survival(hazard ratio [HR] = 0.71; 95%CI: 0.50-1.00; P = 0.05) and disease-free survival(HR = 0.67; 95%CI: 0.58-0.79; P < 0.0001) than those in the CA group.CONCLUSION The AA is safe and effective for right hepatectomy for large hepatocellular carcinoma and could accelerate postoperative recovery and achieve better survival outcomes than the CA.展开更多
AIM: To evaluate the clinical outcomes and safety of anterior-and conventional-approach hepatectomy for patients with large liver tumors. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar and the Cochrane Library databases were...AIM: To evaluate the clinical outcomes and safety of anterior-and conventional-approach hepatectomy for patients with large liver tumors. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar and the Cochrane Library databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials comparing anterior-approach hepatectomy (AAH) and conventional-approach hepatectomy (CAH). Two observers independently extracted the data using a spreadsheet and assessed the studies for inclusion. Studies that fulfilled the inclusion criteria and addressed the clinical questions of this analysis were further assessed using either fixed effects or random effects models. RESULTS: Two RCTs and six controlled clinical trials involving 807 patients met the predefined inclusion criteria. A total of 363 patients underwent AAH and 444 underwent CAH. Meta-analysis indicated that the AAH group had fewer requirements for transfusion (OR = 0.37, 95%CI: 0.21-0.63), less recurrence (OR = 0.57, 95%CI: 0.37-0.87), and lower mortality (OR = 0.29, 95%CI: 0.13-0.63). There were no significant differences between AAH and CAH with regard to perioperative complications (OR = 0.94, 95%CI: 0.58-1.51), intraoperative tumor rupture (OR = 0.98, 95%CI: 0.40-2.40), or length of hospital stay (weighted mean difference = -0.17, 95%CI: -2.36-2.02). CONCLUSION: AAH has advantages of decreased transfusion, mortality and recurrence compared to CAH. It is a safe and effective method for large cancers requiring right hepatectomy. (C) 2014 Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.展开更多
Background:Although the utility of laser fiber in microscopic stapes surgery has been documented in the past,their role can be highly emphasized in endoscopic stapes surgery,especially in difficult anatomical situatio...Background:Although the utility of laser fiber in microscopic stapes surgery has been documented in the past,their role can be highly emphasized in endoscopic stapes surgery,especially in difficult anatomical situations.Methods:This is a retrospective analysis of cases where a total of 46 patients(22 in conventional stapedotomy and 24 in CO_(2) laser‐assisted stapedotomy)were included in the study.The clinical parameters were assessed both in the preoperative and postoperative periods in the respective groups and later compared 12 weeks after stapedotomy.Results:A total of 90.90%(20/22)of the patients in the conventional stapedotomy and 95.83%(23/24)of patients in laser‐assisted stapedotomy had<20 dB of AB gap in the postoperative period(P=0.71).Canaloplasty was required in six patients in the conventional stapedotomy and none of the patients in the laser group needed the same(P=0.01).Chorda tympani nerve was manipulated in 59.09%(13/22)and 25.00%(6/24)of cases in the conventional group and in the CO_(2) laser group,respectively(P=0.01).Conclusion:Although the audiological outcomes with fiber‐enabled CO_(2) laser in endoscopic stapedotomy are comparable to conventional surgery,it is a better tool in a narrow auditory canal,requiring minimal manipulation of the chorda tympani nerve.展开更多
AIM To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on minimally vs conventional invasive techniques for harvesting grafts for living donor liver transplantation. METHODS PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and the Cochr...AIM To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on minimally vs conventional invasive techniques for harvesting grafts for living donor liver transplantation. METHODS PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched comprehensively for studies comparing MILDH with conventional living donor hepatectomy (CLDH). Intraoperative and postoperative outcomes (operative time, estimated blood loss, postoperative liver function, length of hospital stay, analgesia use, complications, and survival rate) were analyzed in donors and recipients. Articles were included if they: (1) compared the outcomes of MILDH and CLDH; and (2) reported at least some of the above outcomes. RESULTS Of 937 articles identified, 13, containing 1592 patients, met our inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. For donors, operative time [weighted mean difference (WMD) = 20.68, 95% CI: -6.25-47.60, p = 0.13] and blood loss (WMD = -32.61, 95% CI: -80.44-5.21, p = 0.18) were comparable in the two groups. In contrast, analgesia use (WMD = -7.79, 95% CI: -14.06-1.87, p = 0.01), postoperative complications [odds ratio (OR) = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.44-0.89, p = 0.009], and length of hospital stay (WMD): -1.25, 95% CI: -2.35-0.14, p = 0.03) significantly favored MILDH. No differences were observed in recipient outcomes, including postoperative complications (OR = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.66-1.31, p = 0.68) and survival rate (hr = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.27-3.47, p = 0.95). Funnel plot and statistical methods showed a low probability of publication bias. CONCLUSION MILDH is safe, effective, and feasible for living donor liver resection with fewer donor postoperative complications, reduced length of hospital stay and analgesia requirement than CLDH.展开更多
基金Supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China,No.81572368the Guangdong Natural Science Foundation,No.2016A030313278the Science and Technology Planning Project of Guangdong Province,China,No.2014A020212084
文摘AIM To compare the clinical outcomes of right hepatectomy for large hepatocellular carcinoma via the anterior and conventional approach.METHODS We comprehensively performed an electronic search of Pub Med, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials(RCTs) or controlled clinical trials(CCTs) published between January 2000 and May 2017 concerning the anterior approach(AA) and the conventional approach(CA) to right hepatectomy. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were included, and their outcome analyses were further assessed using a fixed or random effects model.RESULTS This analysis included 2297 patients enrolled in 16 studies(3 RCTs and 13 CTTs). Intraoperative blood loss [weighted mean difference =-255.21; 95% confidence interval(95%CI):-371.3 to-139.12; P < 0.0001], intraoperative blood transfusion [odds ratio(OR) = 0.42; 95%CI: 0.29-0.61; P < 0.0001], mortality(OR = 0.59; 95%CI: 0.38-0.92; P = 0.02), morbidity(OR = 0.77; 95%CI: 0.62-0.95; P = 0.01), and recurrencerate(OR = 0.62; 95%CI: 0.47-0.83; P = 0.001) were significantly reduced in the AA group. Patients in the AA group had better overall survival(hazard ratio [HR] = 0.71; 95%CI: 0.50-1.00; P = 0.05) and disease-free survival(HR = 0.67; 95%CI: 0.58-0.79; P < 0.0001) than those in the CA group.CONCLUSION The AA is safe and effective for right hepatectomy for large hepatocellular carcinoma and could accelerate postoperative recovery and achieve better survival outcomes than the CA.
基金Supported by Grants from the National Science and Technol-ogy Major Project of China,No.2012ZX10002-016 and No.2012ZX10002-017
文摘AIM: To evaluate the clinical outcomes and safety of anterior-and conventional-approach hepatectomy for patients with large liver tumors. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar and the Cochrane Library databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials comparing anterior-approach hepatectomy (AAH) and conventional-approach hepatectomy (CAH). Two observers independently extracted the data using a spreadsheet and assessed the studies for inclusion. Studies that fulfilled the inclusion criteria and addressed the clinical questions of this analysis were further assessed using either fixed effects or random effects models. RESULTS: Two RCTs and six controlled clinical trials involving 807 patients met the predefined inclusion criteria. A total of 363 patients underwent AAH and 444 underwent CAH. Meta-analysis indicated that the AAH group had fewer requirements for transfusion (OR = 0.37, 95%CI: 0.21-0.63), less recurrence (OR = 0.57, 95%CI: 0.37-0.87), and lower mortality (OR = 0.29, 95%CI: 0.13-0.63). There were no significant differences between AAH and CAH with regard to perioperative complications (OR = 0.94, 95%CI: 0.58-1.51), intraoperative tumor rupture (OR = 0.98, 95%CI: 0.40-2.40), or length of hospital stay (weighted mean difference = -0.17, 95%CI: -2.36-2.02). CONCLUSION: AAH has advantages of decreased transfusion, mortality and recurrence compared to CAH. It is a safe and effective method for large cancers requiring right hepatectomy. (C) 2014 Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
文摘Background:Although the utility of laser fiber in microscopic stapes surgery has been documented in the past,their role can be highly emphasized in endoscopic stapes surgery,especially in difficult anatomical situations.Methods:This is a retrospective analysis of cases where a total of 46 patients(22 in conventional stapedotomy and 24 in CO_(2) laser‐assisted stapedotomy)were included in the study.The clinical parameters were assessed both in the preoperative and postoperative periods in the respective groups and later compared 12 weeks after stapedotomy.Results:A total of 90.90%(20/22)of the patients in the conventional stapedotomy and 95.83%(23/24)of patients in laser‐assisted stapedotomy had<20 dB of AB gap in the postoperative period(P=0.71).Canaloplasty was required in six patients in the conventional stapedotomy and none of the patients in the laser group needed the same(P=0.01).Chorda tympani nerve was manipulated in 59.09%(13/22)and 25.00%(6/24)of cases in the conventional group and in the CO_(2) laser group,respectively(P=0.01).Conclusion:Although the audiological outcomes with fiber‐enabled CO_(2) laser in endoscopic stapedotomy are comparable to conventional surgery,it is a better tool in a narrow auditory canal,requiring minimal manipulation of the chorda tympani nerve.
基金Science and Technology Planning Project of Guangzhou,No.201604020001
文摘AIM To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on minimally vs conventional invasive techniques for harvesting grafts for living donor liver transplantation. METHODS PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched comprehensively for studies comparing MILDH with conventional living donor hepatectomy (CLDH). Intraoperative and postoperative outcomes (operative time, estimated blood loss, postoperative liver function, length of hospital stay, analgesia use, complications, and survival rate) were analyzed in donors and recipients. Articles were included if they: (1) compared the outcomes of MILDH and CLDH; and (2) reported at least some of the above outcomes. RESULTS Of 937 articles identified, 13, containing 1592 patients, met our inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. For donors, operative time [weighted mean difference (WMD) = 20.68, 95% CI: -6.25-47.60, p = 0.13] and blood loss (WMD = -32.61, 95% CI: -80.44-5.21, p = 0.18) were comparable in the two groups. In contrast, analgesia use (WMD = -7.79, 95% CI: -14.06-1.87, p = 0.01), postoperative complications [odds ratio (OR) = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.44-0.89, p = 0.009], and length of hospital stay (WMD): -1.25, 95% CI: -2.35-0.14, p = 0.03) significantly favored MILDH. No differences were observed in recipient outcomes, including postoperative complications (OR = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.66-1.31, p = 0.68) and survival rate (hr = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.27-3.47, p = 0.95). Funnel plot and statistical methods showed a low probability of publication bias. CONCLUSION MILDH is safe, effective, and feasible for living donor liver resection with fewer donor postoperative complications, reduced length of hospital stay and analgesia requirement than CLDH.
