Safety and efficiency of gasless laparoscopy: a systematic review protocol.
Abdominal wall
Efficiency
Gasless laparoscopy
Insufflation
Laparotomy
Minimally invasive surgery
Pneumoperitoneum
Safety
Journal
Systematic reviews
ISSN: 2046-4053
Titre abrégé: Syst Rev
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101580575
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 04 2020
30 04 2020
Historique:
received:
07
10
2019
accepted:
20
04
2020
entrez:
2
5
2020
pubmed:
2
5
2020
medline:
25
6
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Gasless laparoscopy, developed in the early 1990s, was a means to minimize the clinical and financial challenges of pneumoperitoneum and general anaesthesia. It has been used in a variety of procedures such as in general surgery and gynecology procedures including diagnostic laparoscopy. There has been increasing evidence of the utility of gasless laparoscopy in resource limited settings where diagnostic imaging is not available. In addition, it may help save costs for hospitals. The aim of this study is to conduct a systematic review of the available evidence surrounding the safety and efficiency of gasless laparoscopy compared to conventional laparoscopy and open techniques and to analyze the benefits that gasless laparoscopy has for low resource setting hospitals. This protocol is developed by following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis-Protocols (PRISMA-P). The PRISMA statement guidelines and flowchart will be used to conduct the study itself. MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central, and Global Index Medicus (WHO) will be searched and the National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials database. The articles that will be found will be pooled into Covidence article manager software where all the records will be screened for eligibility and duplicates removed. A data extraction spreadsheet will be developed based on variables of interest set a priori. Reviewers will then screen all included studies based on the eligibility criteria. The GRADE tool will be used to assess the quality of the studies and the risk of bias in all the studies will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk assessment tool. The RoB II tool will assed the risk of bias in randomized control studies and the ROBINS I will be used for the non-randomized studies. This study will be a comprehensive review on all published articles found using this search strategy on the safety and efficiency of the use of gasless laparoscopy. The systematic review outcomes will include safety and efficiency of gasless laparoscopy compared to the use of conventional laparoscopy or laparotomy. The study has been registered in PROSPERO under registration number: CRD42017078338.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Gasless laparoscopy, developed in the early 1990s, was a means to minimize the clinical and financial challenges of pneumoperitoneum and general anaesthesia. It has been used in a variety of procedures such as in general surgery and gynecology procedures including diagnostic laparoscopy. There has been increasing evidence of the utility of gasless laparoscopy in resource limited settings where diagnostic imaging is not available. In addition, it may help save costs for hospitals. The aim of this study is to conduct a systematic review of the available evidence surrounding the safety and efficiency of gasless laparoscopy compared to conventional laparoscopy and open techniques and to analyze the benefits that gasless laparoscopy has for low resource setting hospitals.
METHODS
This protocol is developed by following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis-Protocols (PRISMA-P). The PRISMA statement guidelines and flowchart will be used to conduct the study itself. MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central, and Global Index Medicus (WHO) will be searched and the National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials database. The articles that will be found will be pooled into Covidence article manager software where all the records will be screened for eligibility and duplicates removed. A data extraction spreadsheet will be developed based on variables of interest set a priori. Reviewers will then screen all included studies based on the eligibility criteria. The GRADE tool will be used to assess the quality of the studies and the risk of bias in all the studies will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk assessment tool. The RoB II tool will assed the risk of bias in randomized control studies and the ROBINS I will be used for the non-randomized studies.
DISCUSSION
This study will be a comprehensive review on all published articles found using this search strategy on the safety and efficiency of the use of gasless laparoscopy. The systematic review outcomes will include safety and efficiency of gasless laparoscopy compared to the use of conventional laparoscopy or laparotomy.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
The study has been registered in PROSPERO under registration number: CRD42017078338.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32354349
doi: 10.1186/s13643-020-01365-y
pii: 10.1186/s13643-020-01365-y
pmc: PMC7193343
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
98Références
Surg Endosc. 2001 Jun;15(6):597-9
pubmed: 11591949
N J Med. 2000 May;97(5):29-34
pubmed: 10832363
J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2014 Aug;24(8):538-42
pubmed: 24960173
Lancet. 2017 Sep 16;390(10100):1151-1210
pubmed: 28919116
Surg Today. 2016 Mar;46(3):319-25
pubmed: 25916325
Lancet Glob Health. 2015 Oct;3(10):e646-53
pubmed: 26278186
J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 2004 May;11(2):197-203
pubmed: 15200775
World J Emerg Surg. 2006 Aug 31;1:24
pubmed: 16945124
BMJ. 2016 Oct 12;355:i4919
pubmed: 27733354
J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2010 Nov;20(9):725-9
pubmed: 20969456
Surg Endosc. 2011 Jan;25(1):298-304
pubmed: 20607566
Lancet. 2015 Aug 8;386(9993):569-624
pubmed: 25924834
J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 1994 May;1(3):265-8
pubmed: 9050498
World J Emerg Surg. 2014 Jan 08;9(1):3
pubmed: 24401566
Br J Surg. 2004 Jul;91(7):848-54
pubmed: 15227690
BMJ. 2015 Jan 02;350:g7647
pubmed: 25555855
Surg Technol Int. 2008;17:203-7
pubmed: 18802903
Surg Endosc. 2000 Jan;14(1):16-21
pubmed: 10653229
Surg Endosc. 2001 Oct;15(10):1093-7
pubmed: 11727077
J Zhejiang Univ Sci B. 2009 Nov;10(11):805-12
pubmed: 19882754
Surg Endosc. 1996 Sep;10(9):944-6
pubmed: 8703160
Surg Endosc. 2001 May;15(5):477-83
pubmed: 11353965
Obstet Gynecol. 1997 Sep;90(3):416-20
pubmed: 9277655
Surg Endosc. 2000 Aug;14(8):769-70
pubmed: 10954828
Asian J Endosc Surg. 2012 May;5(2):63-8
pubmed: 22776366
Ann Surg. 1996 Dec;224(6):694-700; discussion 700-1
pubmed: 8968224
Surg Clin North Am. 2000 Aug;80(4):1127-49
pubmed: 10987028
J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2010 Oct;20(8):699-703
pubmed: 20809818
J Reprod Med. 1999 Nov;44(11):929-32
pubmed: 10589402
J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2003 Feb;29(1):38-44
pubmed: 12696626
JSLS. 2009 Oct-Dec;13(4):574-80
pubmed: 20202400
BMJ. 2011 Oct 18;343:d5928
pubmed: 22008217
J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 1998 May;5(2):149-53
pubmed: 9564062
Surg Endosc. 2003 Jun;17(6):899-902
pubmed: 12618933
Injury. 2014 May;45(5):850-4
pubmed: 24268191
Am J Surg. 1999 Jun;177(6):515-7
pubmed: 10414705
J Korean Surg Soc. 2012 Jan;82(1):35-9
pubmed: 22324044
BMJ. 2020 Jan 16;368:l6890
pubmed: 31948937
Int J Colorectal Dis. 2010 Aug;25(8):997-1004
pubmed: 20407779