• Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

A systematic review and meta-analysis on the management of concomitant abdominal aortic aneurysms and renal tumours

K. Lawrie, A. Whitley, P. Balaz

. 2022 ; 30 (4) : 661-668. [pub] 20210617

Jazyk angličtina Země Anglie, Velká Británie

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, metaanalýza, systematický přehled

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc22025129

OBJECTIVES: The treatment of concomitant abdominal aortic aneurysms and renal tumours is controversial. The aim of this study was to ascertain which of the following three strategies, one-stage open aneurysm repair and nephrectomy, two-stage open aneurysm repair and nephrectomy or two-stage endovascular aneurysm repair and nephrectomy, is the best approach. METHODS: systematic review and meta-analysis of articles published between January 1992 and April 2021 describing the treatment of concomitant abdominal aortic aneurysms and renal tumours. RESULTS: A total of 1168 records were identified. After the selection process, 12 studies with data on 89 patients were included. Sixty-two patients underwent one-stage open procedures, 18 patients underwent two-stage open procedures and nine underwent two-stage endovascular procedures. The overall postoperative mortality was 0.82% (95% CI, 0.00-4.61). The postoperative mortality for one-stage open procedures was 3.09% (95% CI, 0.00-10.11). No deaths occurred in the postoperative period open two-stage procedures or two-stage endovascular procedures. The weighted postoperative morbidity for all procedures was 23.86% (95% CI, 12.64-35.08) and for open one-stage procedures was 37.40% (95% CI, 14.33-60.47). Data concerning postoperative complications of two-stage open procedures were extractable from only one patient in whom no complications were reported. Two postoperative complications were reported after two-stage endovascular procedures from a total of six patients with extractable postoperative data. We were unable to perform meta-analysis on long-term outcomes as the data were reported non-uniformly. CONCLUSION: There is currently no evidence to suggest that any procedure is associated with better outcomes. However, a one-stage open approach was the most commonly used option, favoured as it avoids delaying treatment of either of the conditions. Two-stage open procedures were preferred in cases where the surgical risk of a one-stage procedure was higher than the potential benefit. For such cases, two-stage endovascular repair is becoming more popular as a less invasive approach.

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc22025129
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20221031100232.0
007      
ta
008      
221017s2022 enk f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1177/17085381211026827 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)34137330
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a enk
100    1_
$a Lawrie, Katerina $u Department of Surgery, 385317University Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady, Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
245    12
$a A systematic review and meta-analysis on the management of concomitant abdominal aortic aneurysms and renal tumours / $c K. Lawrie, A. Whitley, P. Balaz
520    9_
$a OBJECTIVES: The treatment of concomitant abdominal aortic aneurysms and renal tumours is controversial. The aim of this study was to ascertain which of the following three strategies, one-stage open aneurysm repair and nephrectomy, two-stage open aneurysm repair and nephrectomy or two-stage endovascular aneurysm repair and nephrectomy, is the best approach. METHODS: systematic review and meta-analysis of articles published between January 1992 and April 2021 describing the treatment of concomitant abdominal aortic aneurysms and renal tumours. RESULTS: A total of 1168 records were identified. After the selection process, 12 studies with data on 89 patients were included. Sixty-two patients underwent one-stage open procedures, 18 patients underwent two-stage open procedures and nine underwent two-stage endovascular procedures. The overall postoperative mortality was 0.82% (95% CI, 0.00-4.61). The postoperative mortality for one-stage open procedures was 3.09% (95% CI, 0.00-10.11). No deaths occurred in the postoperative period open two-stage procedures or two-stage endovascular procedures. The weighted postoperative morbidity for all procedures was 23.86% (95% CI, 12.64-35.08) and for open one-stage procedures was 37.40% (95% CI, 14.33-60.47). Data concerning postoperative complications of two-stage open procedures were extractable from only one patient in whom no complications were reported. Two postoperative complications were reported after two-stage endovascular procedures from a total of six patients with extractable postoperative data. We were unable to perform meta-analysis on long-term outcomes as the data were reported non-uniformly. CONCLUSION: There is currently no evidence to suggest that any procedure is associated with better outcomes. However, a one-stage open approach was the most commonly used option, favoured as it avoids delaying treatment of either of the conditions. Two-stage open procedures were preferred in cases where the surgical risk of a one-stage procedure was higher than the potential benefit. For such cases, two-stage endovascular repair is becoming more popular as a less invasive approach.
650    12
$a aneurysma břišní aorty $x komplikace $x diagnostické zobrazování $x chirurgie $7 D017544
650    12
$a cévy - implantace protéz $x škodlivé účinky $7 D019917
650    12
$a endovaskulární výkony $7 D057510
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    12
$a nádory ledvin $x komplikace $x diagnostické zobrazování $x chirurgie $7 D007680
650    _2
$a pooperační komplikace $7 D011183
650    _2
$a rizikové faktory $7 D012307
650    _2
$a výsledek terapie $7 D016896
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a metaanalýza $7 D017418
655    _2
$a systematický přehled $7 D000078182
700    1_
$a Whitley, Adam $u Department of Surgery, 385317University Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady, Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic $u Department of Anatomy, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic $1 https://orcid.org/https://orcid.org/000000024415172X
700    1_
$a Balaz, Peter $u Department of Surgery, 385317University Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady, Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic $u Department of Vascular Surgery, National Institute for Cardiovascular Disease, Bratislava, Slovakia $1 https://orcid.org/https://orcid.org/0000000245470714
773    0_
$w MED00007624 $t Vascular $x 1708-539X $g Roč. 30, č. 4 (2022), s. 661-668
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34137330 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y p $z 0
990    __
$a 20221017 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20221031100229 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1854701 $s 1176419
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2022 $b 30 $c 4 $d 661-668 $e 20210617 $i 1708-539X $m Vascular $n Vasc $x MED00007624
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20221017

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Nahrávání dat ...

Možnosti archivace

Nahrávání dat ...