ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: This study focuses on evaluating the effectiveness, safety and efficacy of 2 surgical tissue extraction methods for treating bowel endometriosis: natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) and minilaparotomy. DATA SOURCES: A systematic search was conducted in MedLine, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases in October 2023, without date restrictions. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: This study included studies that directly compared NOSE and minilaparotomy in colectomy patients due to endometriosis. Primary outcomes were defined as operation duration, length of hospital stay, intraoperative blood loss, and major postoperative complication rates. The Clavien-Dindo classification was used to categorize complications. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager Software by Cochrane, with a DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model to account for anticipated high heterogeneity. Subgroup analysis was conducted for patients undergoing full laparoscopic (L/S) resection. TABULATION, INTEGRATION AND RESULTS: Out of 1236 identified studies, 6 met the inclusion criteria, comprising 372 patients. One study was a randomized controlled trial, and 5 were observational. Operation duration did not significantly differ between NOSE and minilaparotomy (MD: -10.85 min; 95% CI: [-23.33, 1.63]; p = .09). NOSE was associated with a significantly reduced length of hospital stay (MD: -0.76 day; 95% CI: [-1.21, -0.31]; p = .008). The major postoperative complication rates were 3.77% for NOSE and 5.55% for minilaparotomy, with no significant difference (OR: 0.84; 95% CI: [0.27, 2.60]; p = .76). Subgroup analysis revealed that Full L/S had significantly shorter operation duration (MD: -26.06 min; 95% CI: [-45.85, -6.27]; p = .01), reduced length of stay (MD: -0.75 day; 95% CI: [-1.25, -0.25]; p = .003), and lower blood loss (MD: -15.01 mL; 95% CI: [-29.64, -0.37]; p = .04). CONCLUSION: NOSE emerged as a potentially safer alternative to minilaparotomy for tissue extraction in colectomy for bowel endometriosis. However, standardization of the procedure and additional randomized controlled trials are needed to validate these findings.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to evaluate the prophylactic use of pravastatin in pregnant women with high-risk of preeclampsia. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central, and Web of Science were searched from inception to August 2023 with no language or filters restriction. The references from included studies, previous systematic reviews, and meta-analyses were manually searched for any additional studies. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials comparing pravastatin in any dose with placebo or no treatment in pregnant women with high risk for preeclampsia and up to 20 weeks of gestation were included in this meta-analysis. METHODS: We used RStudio version 4.2.2 with random effects models to compute pooled risk ratios for prespecified outcomes data. The quality assessment was conducted using version 2 of the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. We also performed a trial sequential analysis to evaluate the reliability of our findings. RESULTS: We included 3 randomized controlled trials comprising 213 patients, of whom 106 (49.8%) were allocated to the pravastatin group. There was no significant effect of pravastatin on the incidence of preeclampsia (risk ratio, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.33-1.14; P=.12). CONCLUSION: Our study was unable to demonstrate the benefit of pravastatin for preventing preeclampsia in high-risk pregnant women. Nevertheless, these findings comprised only preliminary studies with a small number of subjects, highlighting the need of well-designed, and adequately powered clinical trials.
