Minimally invasive surgery versus open surgery for the treatment of solid abdominal and thoracic neoplasms in children

Dalen, Elvira C. van; Lijster, Manou S. de; Leijssen, Lieve G.J.; Michiels, Erna; Kremer, Leontien C. M.; Caron, Huib N.; Aronson, Daniël C.

doi:10.1002/14651858.cd008403.pub3

Cited by 39 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Only two reviews achieved perfect scores with regards the AMSTAR criteria [122,157]; no articles were considered perfect in relation to their PRISMA score. We, the authors, are no less guilty of failing to report all items on the PRISMA checklist to their entirety in the past [80,173]; with the current study, best attempts were made to follow the checklist.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review of the quality of conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in paediatric surgery

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveOur objective was to evaluate quality of conduct and reporting of published systematic reviews and meta-analyses in paediatric surgery. We also aimed to identify characteristics predictive of review quality.BackgroundSystematic reviews summarise evidence by combining sources, but are potentially prone to bias. To counter this, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) was published to aid in reporting. Similarly, the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) measurement tool was designed to appraise methodology. The paediatric surgical literature has seen an increasing number of reviews over the past decade, but quality has not been evaluated.MethodsAdhering to PRISMA guidelines, we performed a systematic review with a priori design to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses of interventions in paediatric surgery. From 01/2010 to 06/2016, we searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, Web of Science, Google Scholar, reference lists and journals. Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data. We assessed conduct and reporting using AMSTAR and PRISMA. Scores were calculated as the sum of reported items. We also extracted author, journal and article characteristics, and used them in exploratory analysis to determine which variables predict quality.Results112 articles fulfilled eligibility criteria (53 systematic reviews; 59 meta-analyses). Overall, 68% AMSTAR and 56.8% PRISMA items were reported adequately. Poorest scores were identified with regards a priori design, inclusion of structured summaries, including the grey literature, citing excluded articles and evaluating bias. 13 reviews were pre-registered and 6 in PRISMA-endorsing journals. The following predicted quality in univariate analysis:, word count, Cochrane review, journal h-index, impact factor, journal endorses PRISMA, PRISMA adherence suggested in author guidance, article mentions PRISMA, review includes comparison of interventions and review registration. The latter three variables were significant in multivariate regression.ConclusionsThere are gaps in the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews in paediatric surgery. More endorsement by journals of the PRISMA guideline may improve review quality, and the dissemination of reliable evidence to paediatric clinicians.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review of the quality of conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in paediatric surgery

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The only prospective, randomized, controlled study for determining the role of MIS in pediatric cancer failed because of lack of accrual. [35] In their recent Cochrane review, van Dalen et al [10] pointed out that the published reports on solid abdominal and thoracic neoplasms are all case series, retrospective studies, or cohort studies, thus restricting the viability of MIS for pediatric solid tumor and indicating the need for a high-quality randomized, controlled trial.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[1,5–9] However, MIS is not generally accepted as an option in such cases, and its use for solid tumors in this population remains limited. [5,10] Therefore, we compared MIS and open surgery for diagnostic exploration and curative resection to determine the safety and feasibility of MIS in pediatric patients with abdominal tumors seen at our center.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Abdominal tumors in children

Youn

Han

et al. 2016

Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in pediatric patients has been steadily increasing in recent years. However, its use for diagnosing and treating abdominal tumors in children is still limited compared with adults, especially when malignancy is a matter of debate. Here, we describe the experience at our center with pediatric abdominal tumors to show the safety and feasibility of MIS.Based on a retrospective review of patient records, we selected for study those pediatric patients who had undergone diagnostic exploration or curative resection for abdominal tumors at a single center from January 2010 through August 2015.Diagnostic exploration for abdominal tumors was performed in 32 cases and curative resection in 173 cases (205 operations). MIS was performed in 11 cases of diagnostic exploration (34.4%) and 38 cases of curative resection (21.9%). The mean age of the children who underwent MIS was 6.09 ± 5.2 years. With regard to diagnostic exploration, patient characteristics and surgical outcomes were found to be similar for MIS and open surgery. With regard to curative resection, however, the mean age was significantly lower among the patients who underwent open surgery (4.21 ± 4.20 vs 6.02 ± 4.99 for MIS, P = 0.047), and the proportion of malignancies was significantly higher (80% vs 39.4% for MIS, P < 0.001). MIS compared favorably with open surgery with respect to the rate of recurrence (6.7% vs 35.1%, P = 0.035), the rate of intraoperative transfusions (34.2% vs 58.5%, P = 0.01), the median amount of blood transfused (14 vs 22 mL/kg, P = 0.001), and the mean number of hospital days (4.66 ± 2.36 vs 7.21 ± 5.09, P < 0.001). Complication rates did not differ significantly between the MIS and open surgery groups. The operation was converted to open surgery in 3 cases (27.2%) of diagnostic MIS and in 5 cases (13.1%) of curative MIS.MIS was found to be both feasible and effective for the diagnosis and curative treatment of pediatric abdominal tumors. However, to determine the surgical role and guidelines for MIS for each specific tumor, a multicenter prospective study with a long-term follow-up is warranted.

show abstract

“…Studies have shown better pulmonary function, earlier return of bowel function and more rapid normalisation of the immune function after MIS. The risk of wound infection is reduced, and a ten-fold decreased risk of incisional hernias has been reported (24,25). The rapid recovery that follows MIS has the additional benefit of an earlier start of chemotherapy and radiotherapy post-operatively, potentially improving the prognosis for patient following MIS (1,20,24,26).…”

Section: Laparoscopic Nephrectomy (Ln)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The short-term advantages of a quicker recovery in MIS may be less in children when compared to adults, as children recover faster following an open procedure. Laparoscopy is also associated with lower hospital costs (25,27).…”

Section: Laparoscopic Nephrectomy (Ln)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Minimally invasive surgery in management of renal tumours in children

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in the management of malignant and benign renal tumours in children is gradually becoming more common. Experience is limited and restricted to case reports, retrospective chart reviews and a few cohort studies. There are currently no randomized controlled trials or controlled clinical trials comparing the laparoscopic and open surgical approach for the management of renal tumours in children. MIS may offer the same oncologic outcome in malignant renal tumours whilst providing the advantages associated with MIS in correctly selected cases. The technique for tumour resection has been shown to be feasible in regards to the recommended oncologic principles, although lymph node sampling can be inadequate in some cases. Preliminary reports do not show an increased risk of tumour rupture or inferior oncologic outcomes after MIS. However, the sample size remains small and duration of follow-up inadequate to draw any firm conclusions. Implementation of MIS is lacking in the protocols of the major study groups, and standardized recommendations for the indications and contra-indications remain undefined. The objective of this article is to present a review of the literature on the role of MIS in the management of renal tumours in children, with the main focus on Wilms' tumour (WT). Further studies on MIS in renal tumours are required to evaluate the incidence of oncological complications such as complete tumour resection and intra-operative tumour spillage. A long-term follow-up of patients managed by MIS is essential to compare recurrence rates and overall survival rates.

show abstract

Minimally invasive surgery versus open surgery for the treatment of solid abdominal and thoracic neoplasms in children

Abstract: Minimally invasive surgery versus open surgery for the treatment of solid abdominal and thoracic neoplasms in children (Review)

Cited by 39 publications

References 34 publications

A systematic review of the quality of conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in paediatric surgery

A systematic review of the quality of conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in paediatric surgery

Abdominal tumors in children

Minimally invasive surgery in management of renal tumours in children

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About