Aller au contenu principal
Accès ouvert déclaré 2024 review

Comparison of outcomes between preservation or division of the uterine round ligament in laparoscopic groin hernia repair in females: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

8Citations signalées, ce qui n’est pas une note de qualité
1Institutions déclarées
1Pays d’affiliation déclarés

Rattachement africain : cn. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.

Le résumé fourni par la source

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to perform a meta-analysis comparing the short-term and long-term outcomes in laparoscopic groin hernia repair with or without preservation of the uterine round ligament (URL) in females. METHODS: We searched several databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and and CNKI databases. This meta-analysis included randomized clinical trials, and retrospective comparative studies regarding preservation or division of the URL in laparoscopic groin hernia repair in females. Outcomes of interest were age, BMI, type of hernia, type of surgery, operating time, estimated blood loss, time of hospitalization, seroma, concomitant injury, mesh infection, recurrence, uterine prolapse, foreign body sensation, chronic pain, and pregnancy. Meta-analyses and trial sequential analysis were performed with Review Manager v5.3 and TSA software, respectively. RESULTS: Of 192 potentially eligible articles, 9 studies with 1104 participants met the eligibility criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. There were no significant difference in age (MD-6.58, 95% CI - 13.41 to 0.24; P = 0.06), BMI (MD 0.05, 95%CI - 0.31 to 0.40; P = 0.81), blood loss (MD-0.04, 95% CI - 0.75 to 0.66; P = 0.90), time of hospitalization (MD-0.22, 95% CI-1.13 to 0.69; P = 0.64), seroma (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.24; P = 0.23), concomitant injury (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.24; P = 0.68), mesh infection (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.61; P = 0.18), recurrence (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.18 to 7.25; P = 0.90), uterine prolapse(OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.07 to 6.94; P = 0.77), foreign body sensation (OR 1.95, 95% CI 0.53 to 7.23; P = 0.32) and chronic pain(OR 1.03 95% CI 0.4 to 2.69; P = 0.95). However, this meta-analysis demonstrated a statistically significant difference in operating time (MD 6.62, 95% CI 2.20 to 11.04; P = 0.0003) between the preservation group and division group. Trial sequential analysis showed that the cumulative Z value of the operating time crossed the traditional boundary value and the TSA boundary value in the third study, and the cumulative sample size had reached the required information size (RIS), indicating that the current conclusion was stable. CONCLUSION: In summary, laparoscopic groin hernia repair in women with the preservation of the round uterine ligament requires a longer operating time, but there was no advantage in short-term or long-term complications, and there was no clear evidence on whether it causes infertility and uterine prolapse.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.

Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert

DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.

Titre Crossref
Comparison of outcomes between preservation or division of the uterine round ligament in laparoscopic groin hernia repair in females: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis
Date Crossref
02/01/2024
Éditeur
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Type
journal-article

Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.

Les institutions déclarées

Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.

Les sujets associés

Hernia repair and managementMinimally Invasive Surgical TechniquesIntestinal and Peritoneal Adhesions

BNTIC News n’est pas le producteur de ces données. Les publications sont interrogées à la demande dans Crossref, OpenAIRE, DOAJ, Europe PMC, HAL, DataCite, AfricArXiv, ROR et la Banque mondiale, sans clé d’accès. OpenAlex reste optionnel. Aucun service payant n’est nécessaire et aucune donnée externe n’est enregistrée en base. Consulter les sources et leurs limites.