Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Obes Surg ; 33(7): 2210-2218, 2023 07.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37209388

RESUMO

Weight non-response after sleeve gastrectomy is an emerging issue. This systematic review compared revisional procedures for weight-related outcomes. We searched several databases for relevant articles and included adult patients with revisional bariatric procedures after primary sleeve gastrectomy. Twelve trials with 1046 patients were included, covering five revisional procedures. There were no randomised controlled trials, and 10 studies had a critical risk of bias. Significant variations in inclusion criteria, therapy benchmarks, follow-up schemes, and outcome measurements were observed, preventing meaningful comparison of results. Evidence-based treatment strategies for weight non-response after sleeve gastrectomy cannot be deduced from the current literature. Prospective studies with well-defined indications, standardised techniques, and strict adherence to outcome measurements are needed.


Assuntos
Cirurgia Bariátrica , Bariatria , Derivação Gástrica , Laparoscopia , Obesidade Mórbida , Adulto , Humanos , Obesidade Mórbida/cirurgia , Estudos Prospectivos , Resultado do Tratamento , Reoperação/métodos , Derivação Gástrica/métodos , Cirurgia Bariátrica/métodos , Gastrectomia/métodos , Estudos Retrospectivos , Laparoscopia/métodos
2.
Surg Endosc ; 31(11): 4370-4381, 2017 11.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28411342

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The issue of mesh fixation in endoscopic inguinal hernia repair is frequently debated and still no conclusive data exist on differences between methods regarding long-term outcome and postoperative complications. The quantity of trials and the simultaneous lack of high-quality evidence raise the question how future trials should be planned. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched, using the filters "randomised clinical trials" and "humans". Trials that compared one method of mesh fixation with another fixation method or with non-fixation in endoscopic inguinal hernia repair were eligible. To be included, the trial was required to have assessed at least one of the following primary outcome parameters: recurrence; surgical site infection; chronic pain; or quality-of-life. RESULTS: Fourteen trials assessing 2161 patients and 2562 hernia repairs were included. Only two trials were rated as low risk for bias. Eight trials evaluated recurrence or surgical site infection; none of these could show significant differences between methods of fixation. Two of 11 trials assessing chronic pain described significant differences between methods of fixation. One of two trials evaluating quality-of-life showed significant differences between fixation methods in certain functions. CONCLUSION: High-quality evidence for differences between the assessed mesh fixation techniques is still lacking. From a socioeconomic and ethical point of view, it is necessary that future trials will be properly designed. As small- and medium-sized single-centre trials have proven unable to find answers, register studies or multi-centre studies with an evident focus on methodology and study design are needed in order to answer questions about mesh fixation in inguinal hernia repair.


Assuntos
Endoscopia/métodos , Hérnia Inguinal/cirurgia , Herniorrafia/métodos , Telas Cirúrgicas/efeitos adversos , Endoscopia/efeitos adversos , Feminino , Herniorrafia/efeitos adversos , Humanos , Masculino , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/epidemiologia , Qualidade de Vida , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Recidiva , Resultado do Tratamento
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...