Comparison of Ultrasonic Scalpel versus Conventional Techniques in Open Gastrectomy for Gastric Carcinoma Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Xiao-Long Chen, Xin-Zu Chen, Zheng-Hao Lu, Li Wang, Kun Yang, Jian-Kun Hu, Bo Zhang, Zhi-Xin Chen, Jia-Ping Chen and Zong-Guang Zhou

PLOS ONE, 2014, vol. 9, issue 7, 1-16

Abstract: Objectives: To compare surgical efficacy and postoperative recovery of ultrasonic scalpel (USS) with conventional techniques for the resection of gastric carcinoma. Methods: A systematic search of major medical databases (PubMed, Embase, CCRT and CNKI) was conducted. Both randomized and non-randomized controlled trials (RCTs and nRCTs) were considered eligible. Operation time (OT), intraoperative blood loss (BL) and postoperative complications (POC) rates as well as postoperative hospitalization days, number of dissected lymph nodes, abdominal drainage volume and time for recovery of gastrointestinal functions were synthesized and compared. Results: Nineteen studies were included (7 RCTs and 12 nRCTs), in which 1930 patients were enrolled totally (946 in the USS group and 984 in the conventional group). Monopolar electrocautery and ligation were used as the conventional methods. Comparative meta-analysis showed perioperative outcomes were significantly improved using USS compared with conventional surgical instrumentation. OT was reduced from a weighted mean of 185.3 min in the conventional group to 151.0 min in the USS group (MD = −33.30, 95% CI [−41.75, −24.86], p

Date: 2014
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0103330 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 03330&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pone00:0103330

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0103330

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone ().