Laparoscopic vs. open surgery for diverticular disease: A meta-analysis of nonrandomized studies
Diseases of the Colon and Rectum, ISSN: 0012-3706, Vol: 49, Issue: 4, Page: 446-463
2006
- 62Citations
- 29Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations62
- Citation Indexes58
- 58
- CrossRef48
- Clinical Citations2
- PubMed Guidelines2
- Policy Citations2
- Policy Citation2
- Captures29
- Readers29
- 29
Article Description
PURPOSE: This study was designed to compare outcomes between laparoscopic and open surgery for patients with diverticular disease by using meta-analytic techniques. METHODS: Comparative studies published between 1996 and 2004 of open vs. laparoscopic surgery for diverticular disease were included. The end points that were evaluated are operative and functional outcomes and adverse events. A random effects model was used during analysis of these outcomes; heterogeneity was assessed and sensitivity analysis was performed to account for bias in patient selection. RESULTS: Twelve nonrandomized studies, incorporating 19,608 patients, were included in the analysis. One study with 18,444 patients accounted for 94.5 percent of the total sample. Laparoscopic surgery resulted in reduced infective (odds ratio, 0.61; P = 0.01), pulmonary (odds ratio, 0.4; P < 0.001), gastrointestinal tract (odds ratio, 0.75; P = 0.03), and cardiovascular complications (odds ratio, 0.28; P = 0.0008) with no significant heterogeneity. Operative time was longer with laparoscopic surgery (weighted mean difference, 67.59; P = 0.04), and length of stay was significantly shorter (weighted mean difference, -3.81; P < 0.0001); however, these outcomes demonstrated significant heterogeneity. These results remained significant throughout all the sensitivity analyses except when evaluating high-quality studies (when the study with 18,444 patients was excluded), in which only blood loss and length of stay were significantly in favor of the laparoscopic group. CONCLUSIONS: The results for patients selected for laparoscopic surgery compared with open surgery for diverticular disease are equivalent with a potential reduction in complications and hospital stay. Laparoscopic surgery for diverticular disease performed by appropriately experienced surgeons in the elective setting may be safe and feasible; because of the potential of significant bias arising from the included studies, a randomized, controlled trial is recommended. © The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons 2006.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=33645340326&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10350-005-0316-1; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16534656; https://journals.lww.com/00003453-200649040-00004; http://www.springerlink.com/index/10.1007/s10350-005-0316-1; http://www.springerlink.com/index/pdf/10.1007/s10350-005-0316-1; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10350-005-0316-1; https://journals.lww.com/dcrjournal/Abstract/2006/49040/Laparoscopicvs_Open_Surgery_for_Diverticular.4.aspx
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know