Background:To evaluate the short-term and long-term outcomes after laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) compared with abdominal hysterectomy (AH) in case of benign gynecological disease. Methods:A multi-center cohort retrospective comparative study of population among 4,895 hysterectomies (3,539 LH vs.1,356 AH) between 2007 and 2013 was involved. Operative time (OT), estimated blood loss (EBL), intra-operative and post-operative complications, passing flatus; days with indwelling catheter, questionnaires covering pelvic floor functions and sexual functions were assessed.Results:The EBL (174.1±157.4 vs. 263.1±183.2 cc, LH and AH groups, respectively), passing flatus (38.7±14.1 vs. 48.1±13.2 hours), days with indwelling catheter (1.5±0.6 vs. 2.2±0.8 days), use of analgesics (6.5% vs. 73.1%), intra-operative complication rate (2.4% vs. 4.1%), post-operative complication rate (2.3% vs. 5.7%), post-operative constipation (12.1% vs. 24.6%), mild and serious stress urinary incontinence (SUI) post-operative (P<0.001; P=0.014), and proportion of Female Sexual Functioning Index (FSFI) total score <26.55 post-operative (P<0.001) of the LH group were significantly less than those of AH group. There were no significant differences in OT (106.5±34.5 vs. 106.2±40.3 min) between the two groups.Conclusions:LH is a safe and efficient operation for improving patients?long-term quality of life (QoL), and LH is a cost-effectiveness procedure for treating benign gynecological disease. LH is superior to AH due to reduced EBL, reduced post-operative pain and earlier passing flatus.
Background: Although the advantages of single-incision laparoscopic surgery have been reported in several meta-analyses, the low quality of studies included in the meta-analyses limits the reliability of such a conclusion. In recent years, the number of randomized controlled trials on the efficacy of SILS in colorectal cancer has been on the rise. This update systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs aims to compare efficacy and safety of SILS and CLS in the patients with colorectal cancer.Methods: Relevant data was searched on the CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, Sinomed, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases from inception until February 5th, 2021. All RCTs comparing SILS and CLS were included. The main outcomes were 30 days of mortality, postoperative complications, intraoperative complications, whereas secondary outcomes were the number of lymph nodes removed, duration of hospital stay, intraoperative blood loss, abdominal incision length, reoperation, readmission, conversion to laparotomy, operation time and anastomotic leakage.Results: A total of 10 RCTs were included, involving 1,133 participants. The quality of the included studies was generally high. No significant difference was found between SILS and CLS in the 30 days mortality rate. The results showed that SILS group had a lower rate of postoperative complications (RR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.49–0.92), higher rate of intraoperative complications (RR = 2.26, 95%CI: 1.00–5.10), shorter length of abdominal incision (MD = −2.01, 95% CI:−2.42–1.61) (cm), longer operation time (MD = 11.90, 95% CI: 5.37–18.43) (minutes), shorter hospital stay (MD = −1.12, 95% CI: −1.89–0.34) (days) compared with CLS group. However, intraoperative blood loss (MD = −8.23, 95% CI: −16.75–0.29) (mL), number of lymph nodes removed (MD = −0.17, 95% CI: −0.79–0.45), conversion to laparotomy (RR=1.31, 95% CI: 0.48–3.60), reoperation (RR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.30–3.33) and readmission (RR =1.15, 95% CI: 0.12–10.83) and anastomotic leakage were not significantly different between the two groups.Conclusion: These results indicate that SILS did not has a comprehensive and obvious advantage over the CLS. Surgeons and patients should carefully weigh the pros and cons of the two surgical procedures. Further RCTs are needed to prove long-term outcomes of SILS in colorectal cancer.
Introduction Trastuzumab, as the gold standard for HER2-positive BC treatment, was the first-line HER2 targeted drug. However, some studies reported patients benefited more from lapatinib and lapatinib plus trastuzumab therapy than standard trastuzumab therapy. This study presents an update of a systematic review and meta-analysis involving comparison of lapatinib and lapatinib plus trastuzumab therapy versus trastuzumab therapy. Aim We determined whether trastuzumab plus lapatinib or lapatinib therapy is not inferior to trastuzumab therapy in HER2-positive breast cancer patients. Methods Relevant trials were searched in CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, Sinomed, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases from inception until October 25, 2021. Primary outcomes were OS, DFS/EFS, and PFS while secondary outcomes were pCR (ypT0/is ypN0), pCR (ypT0/is ypN0/+), ORR, DCR, rate of BCS, RFS, cardiac toxicities, and other toxicities. Results Thirteen randomized controlled trials were included in this study. Trastuzumab combined with lapatinib therapy was found to be superior to standard trastuzumab therapy alone with regard to overall survival, disease-free survival/event-free survival, pathologic complete response (ypT0/is ypN0), pathologic complete response (ypT0/is ypN0/+), recurrence-free survival, higher incidences of diarrhea, and rash/skin toxicity. Lapatinib therapy was established to be inferior to trastuzumab therapy in overall survival, progression-free survival, disease-free survival/event-free survival, pathologic complete response (ypT0/is ypN0) and pathologic complete response (ypT0/is ypN0/+), diarrhea, and rash/skin toxicity and had a low incidence of left ventricular ejection fraction decline. Conclusions The efficacy of trastuzumab combined with lapatinib therapy is superior to standard trastuzumab therapy alone; however, it has more non-cardiac grade III/IV toxicities. Moreover, the efficacy of lapatinib therapy is inferior to that of standard trastuzumab therapy alone.
Introduction It is critical to select subsequent treatments for patients after the failure of trastuzumab therapy. Following the failure of standard trastuzumab therapy guidelines in the Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology, pyrotinib and capecitabine is a grade I recommended regimen for treating patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. Concurrently, in treating patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer, lapatinib and capecitabine are also recommended regimens for those who have previously received taxanes, anthracyclines, and trastuzumab therapy. However, there is currently no systematic review and meta-analysis comparing pyrotinib with lapatinib among HER2+ MBC patients. Therefore, this study aims to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis and assess whether pyrotinib is superior to lapatinib in efficacy and safety. Methods Relevant trials were searched in CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases from inception until March 27th, 2022. The primary outcomes were PFS and OS, and the secondary outcomes were ORR and grade ≥3 AEs. Results Five relevant studies were included in this study, including 2 RCTs and 3 retrospective cohort studies. Pyrotinib combined with chemotherapy is superior to lapatinib combined with chemotherapy among HER2+ metastatic breast cancer patients, with a significant improvement in PFS (prior trastuzumab therapy) (HR: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.39–0.57, p<0.001, I2 = 0%, FEM), PFS (trastuzumab resistance) (HR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.39–0.68, p<0.001, I2 = 40%, FEM) and ORR (RR: 1.45, 95% CI: 1.26–1.67, p<0.001, I2 = 8%, FEM), but has higher grade ≥3 diarrhea incidence (RR: 2.68, 95% CI: 1.85–3.90, p<0.001, I2 = 44%, FEM). Conclusions The efficacy of pyrotinib combined with chemotherapy is superior to lapatinib combined with chemotherapy but has more safety risks.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.