PDF(Sci-hub)
Abstract：
To compare the clinical efficiency between aspiration-sclerotherapy (AS) and laparoscopic de-roofing (LD) in the management of renal cysts through meta-analysis of comparative studies.
A comprehensive literature search was performed by PubMed, MEDLINE, Ovid and Web of Science for relevant studies published up to January 2020. The statistical analyses were conducted with Review Manager 5.3.0 and Stata 15.1. The sensitivity analysis was also carried out to confirm the reliability of this Meta-analysis.
Our searches of literature generated 6 studies (1547 patients incorporated) comparing AS with LD in the impacts of renal cyst therapy. Of these, 6 studies contained 1106 and 441 patients who were treated with AS and LD, respectively. The outcome of this meta-analysis indicated that LD group was superior in symptomatic successful rate [Odds Ratio (OR): 0.28; 95%Confidence Interval (CI): 0.09 to 0.86; P = 0.03), radiological successful rate (OR: 0.06; 95%CI: 0.02 to 0.15; P < 0.01) and recurrence rate (OR: 6.08; 95%CI: 2.81 to 13.15; p < 0.01). Nevertheless, AS group had shorter treatment time [Mean Difference (MD):-51.10; 95% CI:-73.01 to - 29.20; p < 0.01]. No statistically significant difference was showed in the rate of complications (OR: 3.19; 95% CI: 0.39 to 25.88; P = 0.28).
In our meta-analysis, LD had higher symptomatic successful rate, radiological successful rate as well as lower recurrence rate than AS, while the treatment time was longer.
A comprehensive literature search was performed by PubMed, MEDLINE, Ovid and Web of Science for relevant studies published up to January 2020. The statistical analyses were conducted with Review Manager 5.3.0 and Stata 15.1. The sensitivity analysis was also carried out to confirm the reliability of this Meta-analysis.
Our searches of literature generated 6 studies (1547 patients incorporated) comparing AS with LD in the impacts of renal cyst therapy. Of these, 6 studies contained 1106 and 441 patients who were treated with AS and LD, respectively. The outcome of this meta-analysis indicated that LD group was superior in symptomatic successful rate [Odds Ratio (OR): 0.28; 95%Confidence Interval (CI): 0.09 to 0.86; P = 0.03), radiological successful rate (OR: 0.06; 95%CI: 0.02 to 0.15; P < 0.01) and recurrence rate (OR: 6.08; 95%CI: 2.81 to 13.15; p < 0.01). Nevertheless, AS group had shorter treatment time [Mean Difference (MD):-51.10; 95% CI:-73.01 to - 29.20; p < 0.01]. No statistically significant difference was showed in the rate of complications (OR: 3.19; 95% CI: 0.39 to 25.88; P = 0.28).
In our meta-analysis, LD had higher symptomatic successful rate, radiological successful rate as well as lower recurrence rate than AS, while the treatment time was longer.
摘要：
通过比较研究的荟萃分析，比较抽吸硬化疗法（AS）和腹腔镜去顶术（LD）在肾囊肿治疗中的临床疗效。
PubMed进行了全面的文献检索，MEDLINE,Ovid和WebofScience的相关研究发表于2020年1月。使用ReviewManager5.3.0和Stata15.1进行统计分析。还进行了敏感性分析，以证实该Meta分析的可靠性。
我们的文献搜索产生了6项研究（纳入1547名患者），比较了AS和LD对肾囊肿治疗的影响。其中,6项研究包含1106例和441例接受AS和LD治疗的患者，分别。这项荟萃分析的结果表明，LD组在症状成功率方面优于[赔率（OR）：0.28;95％置信区间（CI）：0.09至0.86;P=0.03），放射学成功率（OR：0.06；95CI：0.02至0.15；P<0.01）和复发率（OR：6.08；95CI：2.81至13.15；P<0.01）。然而，AS组治疗时间较短[平均差(MD):-51.10;95%CI:-73.01至-29.20;p<0.01]。并发症发生率差异无统计学意义(OR:3.19;95%CI:0.39~25.88;P=0.28)。
在我们的荟萃分析中，LD有较高的症状成功率，放射学成功率以及低于AS的复发率，而治疗时间较长。
PubMed进行了全面的文献检索，MEDLINE,Ovid和WebofScience的相关研究发表于2020年1月。使用ReviewManager5.3.0和Stata15.1进行统计分析。还进行了敏感性分析，以证实该Meta分析的可靠性。
我们的文献搜索产生了6项研究（纳入1547名患者），比较了AS和LD对肾囊肿治疗的影响。其中,6项研究包含1106例和441例接受AS和LD治疗的患者，分别。这项荟萃分析的结果表明，LD组在症状成功率方面优于[赔率（OR）：0.28;95％置信区间（CI）：0.09至0.86;P=0.03），放射学成功率（OR：0.06；95CI：0.02至0.15；P<0.01）和复发率（OR：6.08；95CI：2.81至13.15；P<0.01）。然而，AS组治疗时间较短[平均差(MD):-51.10;95%CI:-73.01至-29.20;p<0.01]。并发症发生率差异无统计学意义(OR:3.19;95%CI:0.39~25.88;P=0.28)。
在我们的荟萃分析中，LD有较高的症状成功率，放射学成功率以及低于AS的复发率，而治疗时间较长。
