RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Splenectomy was traditionally performed to dissect the splenic hilar lymph nodes. Considering the important functions of spleen, whether splenectomy would bring beneficial to gastric cancer patients is debatable. This meta-analysis aimed to make an updated evaluation on the effectiveness and safety of splenectomy. METHODS: Literature searches were performed to identify eligible RCTs concerning effectiveness or safety of splenectomy with gastrectomy from PubMed, MEDLINE, CBMdisc, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Two reviewers completed the study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment independently. The meta-analyses were performed by RevMan 5.3. RESULTS: A total of 971 patients from four studies were included (485 in splenectomy group and 486 in spleen preservation group). Splenectomy did not increase 5-year overall survival rate (RR=1.05, 95% CI: 0.96, 1.16) or increase postoperative mortality (RR=1.21, 95% CI: 0.41, 3.54). However, the analysis demonstrated that gastrectomy with splenectomy had significantly higher incidence of postoperative complications (RR=1.80, 95% CI: 1.33, 2.45). No significant differences were found in terms of the number of resected lymph nodes and reoperation rate; however, splenectomy had a tendency to prolong the duration of surgery and hospital stays. Subgroup analyses indicated that splenectomy could not increase overall survival rate for either whole or proximal gastric cancer. Sensitivity analyses also found similar results compared to the primary analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Splenectomy cannot benefit the survival of patients with tumor located at lesser curvature, and it could instead increase postoperative morbidity.
RESUMEN
Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is one of the treatable causes for pregnant women with recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL). This review compares the efficacy of a few treatment interventions (low-dose aspirin (LDA), aspirin plus low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), or unfractionated heparin (UFH)) in preventing complications during pregnancy and miscarriages for women with RPL and APS, and the potential differences in therapeutic effects of UFH and LMWH when combined with aspirin. We searched randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and performed a systematic review and a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA). Finally, we found aspirin alone had a lower live birth rate compared to LMWH plus aspirin (OR = 0.37; 95% CrI, 0.17, 0.71), and UFH plus aspirin showed a higher live birth rate than aspirin alone (OR = 2.63; 95% CrI, 1.04, 5.39) in NMA, treating with UFH plus aspirin or LMWH plus aspirin did not have difference on live birth. Furthermore, LDA alone resulted in a lower birthweight compared to heparin plus aspirin, while higher birthweight was found when compared UFH plus aspirin to LMWH plus aspirin (MD = 895.40; 95% CrI, 817.40, 988.57) in NMA. Additionally, in women with RPL and APS and without a prior thrombosis, heparin plus aspirin improved birthweight but could not promote live birth rate compared to aspirin alone. In conclusion, heparin plus aspirin is recommended for women with RPL and APS. Notably UFH plus aspirin demonstrates the most significant therapeutic efficacy among these interventions in improving birthweight.
