LigaSure small jaw versus conventional neck dissection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Electrothermal bipolar vessel sealing
LigaSure small jaw
LigaSure vessel sealing system
Neck dissection
Neck lymphadenectomy
Journal
Journal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-faciale
ISSN: 1916-0216
Titre abrégé: J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101479544
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
29 Mar 2021
29 Mar 2021
Historique:
received:
08
09
2020
accepted:
22
02
2021
entrez:
30
3
2021
pubmed:
31
3
2021
medline:
6
11
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Neck dissection has a central role in the management of head and neck cancers. This systematic review aimed to compare the intraoperative and postoperative parameters between conventional and LigaSure Small Jaw (LSJ)-assisted neck dissection. PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched. independently by two authors for relevant articles comparing the outcomes of conventional and LSJ-assisted neck dissection. Data from each study were extracted, and a random-effects model was used in the pooled analysis. Compared with conventional techniques, LSJ-assisted neck dissection was associated with a significantly reduced operative time. The rates of postoperative hematoma, infection, amount of intraoperative blood loss, the length of hospital stay and the drainage amount showed no significant intergroup differences. The meta-analysis provides evidence that properly using LSJ may reduce the operative time compared with that of conventional techniques. Surgeons may consider using LSJ in neck dissection according to personal experiences.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Neck dissection has a central role in the management of head and neck cancers. This systematic review aimed to compare the intraoperative and postoperative parameters between conventional and LigaSure Small Jaw (LSJ)-assisted neck dissection.
METHODS
METHODS
PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched. independently by two authors for relevant articles comparing the outcomes of conventional and LSJ-assisted neck dissection. Data from each study were extracted, and a random-effects model was used in the pooled analysis.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Compared with conventional techniques, LSJ-assisted neck dissection was associated with a significantly reduced operative time. The rates of postoperative hematoma, infection, amount of intraoperative blood loss, the length of hospital stay and the drainage amount showed no significant intergroup differences.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The meta-analysis provides evidence that properly using LSJ may reduce the operative time compared with that of conventional techniques. Surgeons may consider using LSJ in neck dissection according to personal experiences.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33781344
doi: 10.1186/s40463-021-00504-2
pii: 10.1186/s40463-021-00504-2
pmc: PMC8008542
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
21Références
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011 Nov 24;11:160
pubmed: 22114982
Head Neck Oncol. 2009 Oct 12;1:35
pubmed: 19822010
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2016 Nov;273(11):3835-3838
pubmed: 27007131
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2013 Jul;270(7):2109-14
pubmed: 23241823
J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2018 Dec;17(4):495-501
pubmed: 30344392
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2009 Oct;141(4):496-501
pubmed: 19786219
Arch Surg. 2009 Dec;144(12):1167-74
pubmed: 20026837
Arch Surg. 2008 Jun;143(6):575-80; discussion 581
pubmed: 18559751
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014 Jun;150(6):943-8
pubmed: 24671461
Surg Endosc. 1998 Jun;12(6):876-8
pubmed: 9602010
Auris Nasus Larynx. 2006 Dec;33(4):365-74
pubmed: 16889923
BMJ. 2011 Oct 18;343:d5928
pubmed: 22008217
Laryngoscope. 2007 Oct;117(10):1756-63
pubmed: 17690609
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2002 Jul;128(7):751-8
pubmed: 12117328
J Laryngol Otol. 2012 Aug;126(8):815-7
pubmed: 22697050
Clin Otolaryngol. 2005 Apr;30(2):198-201
pubmed: 15839877
Einstein (Sao Paulo). 2012 Jul-Sep;10(3):354-9
pubmed: 23386017
Clin Otolaryngol. 2017 Apr;42(2):245-251
pubmed: 27390305
Korean J Intern Med. 2016 Jan;31(1):162-9
pubmed: 26767870
Int J Surg. 2018 Oct;58:60-64
pubmed: 30248411
Chirurgia (Bucur). 2014 Sep-Oct;109(5):608-12
pubmed: 25375045
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2013 Mar;270(4):1489-92
pubmed: 23053386
Acta Otolaryngol. 2018 Aug;138(8):759-762
pubmed: 29869559
J Laryngol Otol. 2018 Apr;132(4):341-348
pubmed: 29248016
Indian J Surg. 2010 Aug;72(4):294-7
pubmed: 21938191
Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2011 Jan-Feb;77(1):65-9
pubmed: 21340191
Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2016 Sep;401(6):851-9
pubmed: 27222244
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2019 May;160(5):829-838
pubmed: 30857478
Head Neck. 2010 Oct;32(10):1321-7
pubmed: 20073074