ABSTRACT
Introducción: La resección hepática sigue siendo el método más efectivo de tratamiento de tumores hepáticos. Actualmente, el abordaje laparoscópico se considera como el estándar de oro frente al abordaje abierto; sin embargo, el surgimiento de la cirugía robótica brinda una nueva opción de abordaje mínimamente invasiva con aparentes mejores resultados. El objeti-vo de esta revisión sistemática es valorar los beneficios de la hepatectomía robótica frente a la hepatectomía laparoscópica en la resección de tumores hepáticos. Metodología: En esta revisión sistemática se incluirán estudios comparativos, de cohorte, de casos y controles, con recolección de datos prospectivos o retrospectivos. Los participantes de los estudios serán pacientes diagnosticados con tumores hepáticos benignos o malignos, in-cluidos niños y adolescentes, no cirróticos o cirróticos compensados sometidos a intervencio-nes de hepatectomía robótica y hepatectomía laparoscópica. Las medidas de resultado pri-marias son: 1. Pérdida de sangre estimada durante el acto quirúrgico, 2. Tiempo operatorio, 3. Tasa de conversión a laparotomía, 4. Tasa de mortalidad intraoperatoria, 5. Tasa de morbili-dad (complicaciones postquirúrgicas), 6. Estancia hospitalaria postquirúrgica. Las búsquedas electrónicas se realizarán en PUBMED, MEDLINE, SCIENCEDIRECT (2010 hasta el presente). Se usará la evaluación del riesgo de sesgo de estudios de Cochrane. Como medidas de efecto del tratamiento se utilizarán las diferencias de medias (DM) y los intervalos de confianza (IC) del 95. La evaluación de heterogeneidad se realizará mediante la inspección visual del diagrama de embudo. La evaluación de la calidad de la evidencia y tablas de 'Resumen de hallazgos' se usará el test GRADE.
Introduction: Liver resection remains the most effective method of treating liver tumors. Currently, the laparoscopic approach is considered the gold standard compared to the open approach; however, the emergence of robotic surgery offers a new minimally invasive approach option with apparently better re-sults. The objective of this systematic review is to assess the benefits of robotic hepatectomy versus laparo-scopic hepatectomy in the resection of liver tumors. Methodology: This systematic review will include comparative, cohort, case-control studies with prospec-tive or retrospective data collection. Study participants will be patients diagnosed with benign or malignant liver tumors, including children and adolescents, noncirrhotic or compensated cirrhotic, undergoing robotic hepatectomy and laparoscopic hepatectomy procedures. The primary outcome measures are: 1. Estimated blood loss during surgery, 2. Operative time, 3. Laparotomy conversion rate, 4. Intraoperative mortality rate, 5. Morbidity rate (postoperative complications), 6. Post-surgical hospital stay. Electronic searches will be conducted on PubMed, Medline, and ScienceDirect (2010 to present). The Cochrane study risk of bias as-sessment will be used. The mean differences (MD) and the 95 confidence intervals (CI) will be used as measures of the treatment effect. The evaluation of heterogeneity will be carried out by visual inspection of the funnel diagram. The evaluation of the quality of the evidence and 'Summary of findings' tables will be used by the GRADE test.
Subject(s)
Humans , Child , Adolescent , Adult , Robotic Surgical Procedures , Hepatectomy , Treatment Outcome , Laparoscopy , Liver NeoplasmsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The recent scale-up in malaria control measures in Latin America has resulted in a significant decrease in the number of reported cases in several countries including Ecuador, where it presented a low malaria incidence in recent years (558 reported cases in 2015) with occasional outbreaks of both Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium vivax in the coastal and Amazonian regions. This success in malaria control in recent years has led Ecuador to transition its malaria policy from control to elimination. RESULTS: This study evaluated the general knowledge, attitude and practices (KAP) about malaria, as well as its prevalence in four communities of an endemic area in northwest Ecuador. A total of 258 interviews to assess KAP in the community indicated that most people in the study area have a basic knowledge about the disease but did not use to contribute to its control. Six hundred and forty-eight blood samples were collected and analysed by thick blood smear and real-time PCR. In addition, the distribution of the infections was mapped in the study communities. Although, no parasites were found by microscopy, by PCR the total malaria prevalence was 7.5% (6.9% P. vivax and 0.6% P. falciparum), much higher than expected and comparable to that reported in endemic areas of neighbouring countries with higher malaria transmission. Serology using ELISA and immunofluorescence indicated 27% respondents for P. vivax and 22% respondents for P. falciparum. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that despite a great malaria reduction in Ecuador, transition from control to elimination would demand further improvement in malaria diagnostics, including active case detection to identify and treat parasite asymptomatic carriers, as well as community participation in its elimination.
