ObjectiveTo systematically review the effectiveness and safety of laparoscopy with postoperative gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-a) versus laparoscopy alone for endometriosis. MethodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) on laparoscopy with postopertative GnRH-a versus laparoscopy alone in treatment of endometriosis were retrieved in the following databases:the Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2013), PubMed, EMbase, WanFang Data, CNKI, and CBM from inception to February, 2013. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the literature were screened, the data was extracted and the methodological quality of the included studies was also assessed by two reviewers independently. Then, meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.1.7 software. ResultsA total of 15 RCTs involving 1 761 patients were included. There were statistically significant differences between the laparoscopy with postoperative GnRH-a group and the laparoscopy alone group in the following 4 aspects:the symptom relief rate (RR=1.24, 95%CI 1.16 to 1.33, P < 0.000 01), the recurrence of lesion (RR=0.35, 95%CI 0.24 to 0.51, P < 0.000 01), the recurrence of pain (RR=0.70, 95%CI 0.53 to 0.92, P=0.01), and the pregnancy rate (RR=1.43, 95%CI 1.25 to 1.65, P < 0.000 01). ConclusionLaparoscopy postoperative GnRH-a for endometriosis can enhance the symptom relief rate, reduce the recurrence of lesion and the recurrence of pain, and increase the pregnancy rate. But because of the limitation of the quality of the included studies and publication bias, the above conclusion should be verified by conducting more high quality RCTs.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic operation versus laparotomy for stage I-IIa cervical cancer. MethodDatabases including PubMed, EMbase, Web of Knowledge, CBM, WanFang Data and CNKI were searched to collect controlled trials and cohort studies about laparoscopic operation versus laparotomy for stage I-IIa cervical cancer from inception to July 2014. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and evaluated the methodological quality of included studies. Then, meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.2 software. ResultsA total of 3 RCTs, 4 non-randomized controlled trials and 11 cohort studies involving 2 020 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that, compared with laparotomy, laparoscopy operation could reduce intraoperative blood loss (MD=-247.99, 95%CI -408.90 to -87.07, P=0.003) , the incidence of perioperative blood transfusion (OR=0.33, 95%CI 0.21 to 0.52, P<0.000 01) , haemoglobin level before and after surgery (MD=-0.98, 95%CI -0.13 to -0.93, P<0.000 01) , postoperative complication (OR=0.61, 95%CI 0.40 to 0.93, P=0.02) , and shorten postoperative exhaust time (MD=-17.41, 95%CI -32.79 to -2.03, P=0.03) and postoperative hospitalization days (MD=-2.51, 95%CI -3.25 to -1.78, P<0.000 01) . There were no significant differences between two groups in the number of pelvic lymph nodes removed, operative complications, as well as the recurrence rate, mortality and non-recurrence survivals after 2 to 5 years of follow-up. But the operation time of the laparoscopy operation group was longer than that of the laparotomy group. ConclusionsCurrent evidence shows that compared with laparotomy, laparoscopic operation for early stage cervical cancer has less trauma, less blood loss, shorter hospitalization days and less postoperative complications. Due to the limited quantity of the included studies, more studies are needed to verify the above conclusion.
ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of intra-articular injection of hyaluronic acid for knee osteoarthritis. MethodsDatabases including PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2016), WanFang Data, CBM, and CNKI were searched to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about intra-articular injection of hyaluronic acid for knee osteoarthritis from inception to February 2016. The meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.3 software. ResultsA total of 17 RCTs involving 4 070 patients were included. The results of metaanalysis showed that: there were no significant differences in WOMAC pain scores (7 weeks: MD=-0.01, 95%CI -0.46 to 0.44, P=0.98; 13 weeks: MD=-0.01, 95%CI -0.46to 0.43, P=0.95; 26 weeks: MD=0.32, 95%CI -0.04 to 0.67, P=0.08), stiffness scores (7 weeks: MD=0.10, 95%CI -0.26 to 0.45, P=0.59; 13 weeks: MD=0.24, 95%CI -0.11 to 0.60, P=0.17; 26 weeks: MD=0.06, 95%CI -0.09 to 0.22, P=0.42), and life function scores (7 weeks: MD=-0.20, 95%CI -0.75to 0.36, P=0.49; 13 weeks: MD=-0.02, 95%CI -0.57 to 0.52, P=0.93; 26 weeks: MD=0.30, 95%CI -0.07 to 0.67, P=0.11) between the hyaluronic acid group and the control group in 7-, 13- and 26 weeks. However, the hyaluronic acid group was superior to the control group in 50-step test (MD=-0.49，95%CI -7.36 to -3.61，P<0.000 01). ConclusionCurrent evidence suggests that intra-articular injection of hyaluronic acid has better effect than control treatment for pain at movement. However, due to the limited quantity of the included studies, the above conclusion still need to be verified by more high quality studies．
ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the effectiveness of arthroscopic debridement versus non-operative treatment for degenerative meniscal tear. MethodsDatabases including PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library (Issue 7, 2015), WanFang Data, CBM, and CNKI were searched to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about arthroscopic debridement versus non-operative treatment for degenerative meniscal tear from inception to July 2015. The meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.3 software. ResultsA total of nine RCTs involving 1 023 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that:there were no significant differences between two groups at different follow-up time points in knee scoring scale (less than 6 months:SMD=0.12, 95%CI -0.11 to 0.35, P=0.30; 1 year:SMD=-0.03, 95%CI -0.18 to 0.11, P=0.65; 2 years:SMD=-0.07, 95%CI -0.32 to 0.19, P=0.61) and pain score (less than 6 months:MD=0.30, 95%CI -0.10 to 0.70, P=0.14; 1 year:MD=0.10, 95%CI -0.40 to 0.60, P=0.70; 2 years:MD=0.02, 95%CI -0.52 to 0.92, P=0.90). ConclusionCurrent evidence suggests that arthroscopic debridement hasn't better effective than non-operative treatment for degenerative meniscal tear, however, due to the limited quantity of the included studies, the above conclusion still need more high quality research to be verified.