A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Harmonic Scalpel Versus Conventional Techniques of Appendiceal Stump Closure in Laparoscopic Appendicectomy.
appendicectomy
harmonic scalpel
laparoscopic
meta-analysis
sutureless
Journal
Cureus
ISSN: 2168-8184
Titre abrégé: Cureus
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101596737
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2022
Sep 2022
Historique:
accepted:
03
09
2022
entrez:
26
9
2022
pubmed:
27
9
2022
medline:
27
9
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Acute appendicitis is one of the most commonly encountered surgical emergencies worldwide. The laparoscopic approach for managing acute appendicitis is gaining popularity over open appendicectomy in the current surgical practice. The advantages of laparoscopic appendectomy are early recovery, fewer wound complications, less pain and better cosmesis. One of the most critical steps in laparoscopic appendicectomy is a secure appendicular stump closure. Life-threatening postoperative complications are often encountered following the breakdown of appendicular stump closure. There are several methods to achieve appendicular stump closure such as intra-corporeal knotting, endoloops, external corporeal knotting and pushing knot inside, endoscopic linear cutting stapler (endo GIA), and endoclips. A meta-analysis on the technique of appendicular stump closure in laparoscopic appendicectomy failed to demonstrate the superiority of one method over the other. In the last few years, many authors have evaluated the outcome of sutureless appendicectomy performed using devices like a harmonic scalpel. This systematic review and meta-analysis is aimed to summarise the current evidence regarding the utility and safety of harmonic scalpel in sutureless appendicectomy. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted as per the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A systematic, detailed search was carried out by the authors in the electronic database, including Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, Scopus, Google scholar and clinical trial registry. Studies were selected and compared based on outcomes such as operative time, hospital stay, postoperative paralytic ileus, wound infection, and total complications. Statistical analysis was performed using the random effect model, fixed-effect model, pooled risk ratio, pooled mean difference and I
Identifiants
pubmed: 36159348
doi: 10.7759/cureus.28759
pmc: PMC9498932
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
e28759Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022, Borkar et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Surg Endosc. 2008 Sep;22(9):2084-7
pubmed: 18071796
BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n71
pubmed: 33782057
Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2004 Aug;14(4):201-3
pubmed: 15472547
BMC Gastroenterol. 2015 Apr 15;15:48
pubmed: 25884671
J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2016 Jun;66(3):209-10
pubmed: 27298535
Medicine (Baltimore). 2018 Dec;97(51):e13735
pubmed: 30572514
BMJ. 2005 Nov 5;331(7524):1064-5
pubmed: 16230312
J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2016 Dec;26(12):950-953
pubmed: 27120107
J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2002 Apr;12(2):111-3
pubmed: 12019569
J Indian Assoc Pediatr Surg. 2014 Jan;19(1):28-30
pubmed: 24604981
Asian J Endosc Surg. 2020 Oct;13(4):556-559
pubmed: 32185867
World J Surg. 1997 Mar-Apr;21(3):313-7
pubmed: 9015177
Cureus. 2021 Apr 6;13(4):e14316
pubmed: 33968526
Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2021 Feb;406(1):153-162
pubmed: 33241426
Can J Surg. 2012 Oct;55(5):317-21
pubmed: 22854112
Int J Surg Case Rep. 2019;65:259-261
pubmed: 31743842
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Nov 13;11:CD006437
pubmed: 29190038
Can J Ophthalmol. 2008 Apr;43(2):180-7
pubmed: 18347620
J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2020 Apr;30(4):429-432
pubmed: 32069162
Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2022 Mar;407(2):779-787
pubmed: 34841456
Ann Ital Chir. 2017;88:562-566
pubmed: 29339585