Up and down or side to side? A systematic review and meta-analysis examining the impact of incision on outcomes after abdominal surgery
University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, New Jersey School of Medicine, 205 South Orange Avenue, G-1222, Newark, NJ 07103, USA. Electronic address: .American journal of surgery (Impact Factor: 2.29). 04/2013; 206(3). DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2012.11.008
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to examine whether midline, paramedian, or transverse incisions offer potential advantages for abdominal surgery. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1966 to 2009 for randomized controlled trials comparing incision choice. METHODS: We systematically assessed trials for eligibility and validity and extracted data in duplicate. We pooled data using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies were included. Transverse incisions required less narcotics than midline incisions (weighted mean difference = 23.4 mg morphine; 95% confidence interval [CI], 6.9 to 39.9) and resulted in a smaller change in the forced expiratory volume in 1 second on postoperative day 1 (weighted mean difference = -6.94%; 95% CI, -10.74 to -3.13). Midline incisions resulted in higher hernia rates compared with both transverse incisions (relative risk = 1.77; 95% CI, 1.09 to 2.87) and paramedian incisions (relative risk = 3.41; 95% CI, 1.02 to 11.45). CONCLUSIONS: Both transverse and paramedian incisions are associated with a lower hernia rate than midline incisions and should be considered when exposure is equivalent.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Umbilical and epigastric hernias are primary midline defects that are present in up to 50% of the population. In the United States, only about 1% of the population carries this specific diagnosis, and only about 11% of these are repaired. Repair is aimed at symptoms relief or prevention, and the patient's goals and expectations should be explicitly identified and aligned with the health care team. This article details some relevant and interesting anatomic issues, reviews existing data, and highlights some common and important surgical techniques. Emphasis is placed on a patient-centered approach to the repair of umbilical and epigastric hernias.Surgical Clinics of North America 10/2013; 93(5):1057-89. DOI:10.1016/j.suc.2013.06.017 · 1.88 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Background Few larger studies have estimated the incidence of incisional hernia (IH) after abdominal surgery.Methods Patients who had abdominal surgery between November 2009 and February 2011 were included in the study. The incidence rate and risk factors for IH were monitored for at least 180 days.ResultsA total of 4305 consecutive patients were registered. Of these, 378 were excluded because of failure to complete follow-up and 3927 patients were analysed. IH was diagnosed in 318 patients. The estimated incidence rates for IH were 5·2 per cent at 12 months and 10·3 per cent at 24 months. In multivariable analysis, wound classification III and IV (hazard ratio (HR) 2·26, 95 per cent confidence interval 1·52 to 3·35), body mass index of 25 kg/m2 or higher (HR 1·76, 1·35 to 2·30), midline incision (HR 1·74, 1·28 to 2·38), incisional surgical-site infection (I-SSI) (HR 1·68, 1·24 to 2·28), preoperative chemotherapy (HR 1·61, 1·08 to 2·37), blood transfusion (HR 1·46, 1·04 to 2·05), increasing age by 10-year interval (HR 1·30, 1·16 to 1·45), female sex (HR 1·26, 1·01 to 1·59) and thickness of subcutaneous tissue for every 1-cm increase (HR 1·18, 1·03 to 1·35) were identified as independent risk factors. Compared with superficial I-SSI, deep I-SSI was more strongly associated with the development of IH.Conclusion Although there are several risk factors for IH, reducing I-SSI is an important step in the prevention of IH. Registration number: UMIN000004723 (University Hospital Medical Information Network, http://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/index.htm).British Journal of Surgery 08/2014; 101(11). DOI:10.1002/bjs.9600 · 5.54 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: AimThe aim of this study was to compare the methodological quality and input paper characteristics of systematic reviews and meta-analyses reported in the medical and surgical literature by performing a systematic “overview of reviews”. Ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD) were used as the framework for this comparison as they are relatively common serious conditions, with both medical and surgical therapy options.MethodMEDLINE, Embase, CINHAL and the Cochrane Database were searched to November 2013. Eligible papers were systematic reviews or meta-analyses that considered a question of therapy in CD or UC. Two independent reviewers selected the papers, extracted the data and scored their methodology using the AMSTAR scoring system. The papers were categorized into medical therapy (M), surgical therapy (S), or medical and surgical therapy (MS) groups. Following retrieval of the sample of meta-evidence papers, the original input studies used in their creation were identified and a search of MEDLINE, Embase, CINHAL and the Cochrane Database was performed. A team of researchers then examined the collection of papers for bibliographic and financial information.Results500 papers were identified in the meta-evidence search of which 118 were deemed eligible. There was a difference in the AMSTAR-rated average quality of the papers between the S and M group (S 7.36 v M 8.75, p=0.01). On average S papers were published in journals with a lower impact factor (S 3.26, M 5.04, MS 5.30, p<0.001). S papers also showed more heterogeneity (I2: S 37%, M 24%, MS 10%, p<0.001). Some 25% of S meta-analyses used data-sets with significant heterogeneity (I2 > 75%), compared to 8% of M meta-analyses and 3% of the MS meta-analyses. Some 5% of S papers were done on data sets that had I2 values > 90%. There was no difference in the average number of papers assessed in each group, the average number of patients per meta-paper, the average time over which the reviews covered, the average number of papers considered within each meta-analysis, nor the average number of patients considered within each meta-analysis. Considering the conclusions of each meta-analysis, S meta-evidence was 50% more likely than M meta-evidence to be unable to make recommendations for practice. 1,499 original input papers were identified, of which 283 were used in more than one review. Within the non-repeated papers (n=1,023) the average impact factor within the S group was lower than that of the M and the MS groups (3.720 vs 11.230 vs 7.563, ANOVA p<0.001). M papers had higher rates of pharmaceutical sponsorship compared with S papers (M 56% vs S 1%) and twice the level of government support (M 16% vs S 8%). Of note, 21% of M papers had corporate sponsorship but did not list any conflict of interest.Conclusion Compared with medical meta-analyses, surgical meta-analyses, in the UC and CD domain, are more likely to be of poorer methodological quality, are of a greater degree of heterogeneity and less often offer a positive conclusion. The papers used to generate meta-evidence in medical papers have a greater degree of corporate and government sponsorship, and are more likely to come from journals with higher impact factors.This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.Colorectal Disease 12/2014; 17(7). DOI:10.1111/codi.12882 · 2.35 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.