We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Splenic Flexure Mobilization in Sigmoid and Rectal Resections: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies.
Surgical Technology International 2019 May 16
OBJECTIVE: There is no consensus regarding whether splenic flexure mobilization (SFM) should be performed selectively or routinely for sigmoid and rectal resections. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of SFM on anastomotic leak and surgical site infection rates in sigmoid and rectal resections.
METHODS: PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases were searched by two independent researchers. Anastomotic leak was the primary endpoint. Inclusion criteria were clinical studies comparing SFM to non-SFM during sigmoid and rectal resections. The Mantel-Haenszel method with a random-effects model was used. The odds ratio (OR) was used for dichotomous variables, whereas the mean difference (MD) was used for continuous variables.
RESULTS: Six of 74 potentially eligible studies totaling 12,398 patients (4,356 with SFM and 8,042 without SFM) were selected for further examination. The overall bias risk was found to be high. There was no significant difference in anastomotic leak rates when SFM patients were compared to their non-SFM counterparts [OR (95%CI) = 2.00 (0.95, 4.18); p=0.07]. SFM patients had a longer operating time [MD (95%CI) = 31.62 (24.51, 38.72); p<0.001] and increased incisional SSI rates compared to their non-SFM counterparts [11.1% vs. 9.1%; OR (95%CI) = 1.23 (1.09, 1.40); p=0.0008]. A subgroup analysis of rectal cancer cases found significantly higher anastomotic leak rates with SFM [5.4% vs. 1.5%; OR (95%CI) = 2.37 (1.09, 5.16); p=0.03].
CONCLUSION: This systematic review found that SFM was not associated with significantly decreased anastomotic leak rates. SSI rates were significantly increased in patients undergoing SFM.
METHODS: PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases were searched by two independent researchers. Anastomotic leak was the primary endpoint. Inclusion criteria were clinical studies comparing SFM to non-SFM during sigmoid and rectal resections. The Mantel-Haenszel method with a random-effects model was used. The odds ratio (OR) was used for dichotomous variables, whereas the mean difference (MD) was used for continuous variables.
RESULTS: Six of 74 potentially eligible studies totaling 12,398 patients (4,356 with SFM and 8,042 without SFM) were selected for further examination. The overall bias risk was found to be high. There was no significant difference in anastomotic leak rates when SFM patients were compared to their non-SFM counterparts [OR (95%CI) = 2.00 (0.95, 4.18); p=0.07]. SFM patients had a longer operating time [MD (95%CI) = 31.62 (24.51, 38.72); p<0.001] and increased incisional SSI rates compared to their non-SFM counterparts [11.1% vs. 9.1%; OR (95%CI) = 1.23 (1.09, 1.40); p=0.0008]. A subgroup analysis of rectal cancer cases found significantly higher anastomotic leak rates with SFM [5.4% vs. 1.5%; OR (95%CI) = 2.37 (1.09, 5.16); p=0.03].
CONCLUSION: This systematic review found that SFM was not associated with significantly decreased anastomotic leak rates. SSI rates were significantly increased in patients undergoing SFM.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app