ABSTRACT
The aim of this study is to address the outcomes of endoscopic resection compared with surgery in the treatment of ampullary adenomas. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations. For this purpose, the Medline, Embase, Cochrane, Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde (LILACS), Scopus and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases were scanned. Studies included patients with ampullary adenomas and data considering endoscopic treatment compared with surgery. The entire analysis was based on a fixed-effects model. Five retrospective cohort studies were selected (466 patients). All five studies (466 patients) had complete primary resection data available and showed a difference that favored surgical treatment (risk difference [RD] = -0.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.44 to -0.04). Primary success data were identified in all five studies as well. Analysis showed that the surgical approach outperformed endoscopic treatment for this outcome (RD = -0.37, 95% CI = -0.50 to -0.24). Recurrence data were found in all studies (466 patients), with a benefit indicated for surgical treatment (RD = 0.10, 95% CI = -0.01 to 0.19). Three studies (252 patients) presented complication data, but analysis showed no difference between the approaches for this parameter (RD = -0.15, 95% CI = -0.53 to 0.23). Considering complete primary resection, primary success and recurrence outcomes, the surgical approach achieves significantly better results. Regarding complication data, this systematic review concludes that rates are not significantly different.
Subject(s)
Humans , Adenoma/surgery , Ampulla of Vater/surgery , Common Bile Duct Neoplasms/surgery , Duodenal Neoplasms/surgery , Endoscopy/methods , Endoscopy/adverse effects , Pancreaticoduodenectomy/methods , Recurrence , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
A escolha da especialidade define a carreira profissional de um médico. Pesquisas que visem analisar os fatores que impulsionam os alunos nessa decisão são importantes para entendermos os anseios dos estudantes e planejar estratégias educacionais correspondentes à necessidade do sistema de saúde brasileiro. O presente estudo analisou os fatores que influenciam a escolha da especialidade, correlacionando-os ao ano letivo e com aspectos socioeconômicos dos estudantes de Medicina da Faculdade de Ciências Médicas da Santa Casa de São Paulo (FCMSCSP) . Trata-se de um estudo transversal, realizado com 456 alunos do primeiro ao sexto ano da FCMSCSP que responderam a um questionário, divididos em três grupos: primeiro ciclo (primeiro e segundo anos) , segundo ciclo (terceiro e quarto anos) e terceiro ciclo (quinto e sexto anos) . Os fatores estatisticamente significantes na comparação entre os ciclos foram: horas de trabalho, qualidade de vida, tempo livre para lazer, enriquecimento precoce, recompensa financeira, relação médico-paciente, conteúdo cognitivo da especialidade, conselhos de amigos e de parentes. Qualidade de vida, retorno financeiro e influências de terceiros foram os mais importantes para a escolha das especialidades.
The choice of specialty defines the career of a doctor. Studies to analyze the factors that contribute to the student's decision are important to reveal the students' expectations and to plan strategies relevant to the needs of the Brazilian health system. The present study analyzed the factors that influence the choice of specialty correlating them to the academic year and socioeconomic aspects of medical students of the Faculdade de Ciências Médicas da Santa Casa de São Paulo (FCMSCSP) . This is a cross-sectional study with 456 first to sixth year students at FCMSCSP who answered a questionnaire and were divided into 3 groups: First cycle (first and second years) , second cycle (third and fourth years) and third (fifth and sixth years) . Statistically significant factors in comparisons between the cycles were: hours of work, quality of life, free time for leisure activities, early enrichment, financial reward, doctor-patient relationship, the cognitive content of the specialty, advice from friends and relatives. Quality of life, financial return and third-party influences were shown to be the most important factors in the choice of specialties.