PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: There is still no consensus regarding the role of laparoscopy in trauma cases. The purpose of this paper is to assess the value of diagnostic and therapeutic laparoscopy for patients with blunt or penetrating abdominal trauma by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis.
UNASSIGNED: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane library were systemically searched for the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCT comparative studies on effectiveness and safety of laparoscopy vs. laparotomy for the two authors independently performed the search, data extraction, and quality assessment.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 5,517 patients were enrolled in 23 eligible studies that were published in English. Meta-analysis results suggest that there is no significant difference in the incidence of missed injury and mortality between abdominal trauma patients receiving laparoscopy and those receiving laparotomy. Concerning postoperative complications, compared with patients in the open surgery group, those in the laparoscopy group are at a similar risk of intra-abdominal abscesses, thromboembolism, and ileus, while there is a decreased incidence of wound infection and pneumonia. Besides, patients in the laparoscopy group experience shorter hospitalization times and procedure times. For most outcomes, the sensitivity analysis yielded similar results to the primary analysis.
UNASSIGNED: Laparoscopic surgery is a practical alternative to laparotomy for appropriate patients. The decision to perform laparoscopy should be based on the experience of the surgeon and the resources available.
UNASSIGNED: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane library were systemically searched for the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCT comparative studies on effectiveness and safety of laparoscopy vs. laparotomy for the two authors independently performed the search, data extraction, and quality assessment.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 5,517 patients were enrolled in 23 eligible studies that were published in English. Meta-analysis results suggest that there is no significant difference in the incidence of missed injury and mortality between abdominal trauma patients receiving laparoscopy and those receiving laparotomy. Concerning postoperative complications, compared with patients in the open surgery group, those in the laparoscopy group are at a similar risk of intra-abdominal abscesses, thromboembolism, and ileus, while there is a decreased incidence of wound infection and pneumonia. Besides, patients in the laparoscopy group experience shorter hospitalization times and procedure times. For most outcomes, the sensitivity analysis yielded similar results to the primary analysis.
UNASSIGNED: Laparoscopic surgery is a practical alternative to laparotomy for appropriate patients. The decision to perform laparoscopy should be based on the experience of the surgeon and the resources available.
摘要：
UNASSIGNED：关于腹腔镜在创伤病例中的作用仍未达成共识。本文旨在通过系统回顾和荟萃分析，评估腹腔镜对钝性或穿透性腹部创伤患者的诊断和治疗价值。
未经授权：PubMed，Embase,系统搜索Cochrane库，以进行关于腹腔镜与腹腔镜的有效性和安全性的随机对照试验（RCT）和非RCT比较研究。两名作者的剖腹手术独立进行了搜索，数据提取,和质量评估。
UNASSIGNED：共有5,517名患者参加了23项以英文发表的符合条件的研究。Meta分析结果提示，腹腔镜与开腹手术腹部外伤患者的损伤漏诊发生率和死亡率差异无统计学意义。关于术后并发症，与开放手术组的患者相比，腹腔镜组的患者有类似的腹内脓肿风险，血栓栓塞,和肠梗阻，而伤口感染和肺炎的发病率有所下降。此外,腹腔镜组患者的住院时间和手术时间较短。对于大多数结果，敏感性分析的结果与主要分析相似.
UNASSIGNED：腹腔镜手术是适合患者的剖腹手术的实用替代方法。进行腹腔镜检查的决定应基于外科医生的经验和可用资源。
未经授权：PubMed，Embase,系统搜索Cochrane库，以进行关于腹腔镜与腹腔镜的有效性和安全性的随机对照试验（RCT）和非RCT比较研究。两名作者的剖腹手术独立进行了搜索，数据提取,和质量评估。
UNASSIGNED：共有5,517名患者参加了23项以英文发表的符合条件的研究。Meta分析结果提示，腹腔镜与开腹手术腹部外伤患者的损伤漏诊发生率和死亡率差异无统计学意义。关于术后并发症，与开放手术组的患者相比，腹腔镜组的患者有类似的腹内脓肿风险，血栓栓塞,和肠梗阻，而伤口感染和肺炎的发病率有所下降。此外,腹腔镜组患者的住院时间和手术时间较短。对于大多数结果，敏感性分析的结果与主要分析相似.
UNASSIGNED：腹腔镜手术是适合患者的剖腹手术的实用替代方法。进行腹腔镜检查的决定应基于外科医生的经验和可用资源。
