Objective To assess the safety and effectiveness of laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) for women with benign gynecological diseases. Methods Such databases as CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library, Issue 5, 2012), MEDLINE, EMbase, CNKI, WanFang Data, VIP and CBM were searched from the date of their establishment to May 2012, meanwhile the relevant gray literature was also retrieved to identify the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about LH versus abdominal hysterectomy (AH) for benign gynecological diseases. The literature was screened according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria by two reviewers independently, and the methodology quality was evaluated after extracting the data, then RevMan 5.1 software was used for meta-analysis. Results A total of 22 RCTs involving 3 304 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that, compared with AH, LH was shorter in the time of both hospital stay (MD=–2.31, 95%CI –3.03 to –1.60, Plt;0.000 01) and postoperative recovery (MD=−13.86, 95%CI −17.70 to −10.03, Plt;0.000 01), and lower in the incidences of both postoperative fever and other nonspecific infections (OR=0.72, 95%CI 0.54 to 0.95, P=0.02), but it was higher in the incidence rate of intraoperative urinary systematic injuries (OR=2.41, 95%CI 1.21 to 4.82, P=0.012), and longer in the operation time (MD=20.27, 95%CI 3.95 to 36.59, P=0.03). There were no significant differences between the two groups in the incidence of complications such as intraoperative intestinal injuries, vessel injuries, postoperative fistulizaion, postoperative urethral dysfunction, postoperative vaginal infection, etc. (Pgt;0.05). Conclusion This systematic review shows when treating benign gynecological diseases, LH is superior to AH in shortening the time of hospital stay and postoperative recovery, and in decreasing the incidence of operative fever and other nonspecific infections, but it results in a higher incidence of intraoperative urinary systematic injuries and longer operative time. Because there is no result regarding to the postoperative long-term life quality, so it expects to be further proved by more high quality RCTs.
Objective To investigate the cl inical effect of Meek technique skin graft in treating exceptionally large area burns. Methods The cl inical data were retrospectively analysed from 10 cases of exceptionally large area burns treated with Meek technique skin graft from April 2009 to February 2010 (Meek group), and were compared with those from 10 casesof exceptionally large area burns treated with the particle skin with large sheet of skin allograft transplantation from January 2002 to December 2006 (particle skin group). In Meek group, there were 8 males and 2 females with an average age of 34.5 years (range, 5-55 years), including 6 cases of flame burns, 2 cases of hot l iquid burns, 1 case of electrical burn, and 1 case of hightemperature dust burn. The burn area was 82.6% ± 3.1% of total body surface area (TBSA). The most were deep II degree to III degree burns. The time from burn to hospital ization was (3.5 ± 1.3) hours. In particle skin group, there were 8 males and 2 females with an average age of 36.8 years (range, 18-62 years), including 5 cases of flame burns, 2 cases of hot l iquid burns, and 3 cases of gunpowder explosion injury. The burn area was 84.1% ± 7.4% of TBSA. The most were deep II degree to III degree burns. The time from burn to hospital ization was (4.9 ± 2.2) hours. There was no significant difference in general data between 2 groups (P gt; 0.05). Results The skin graft survival rate, the time of skin fusion, the systemic wound heal ing time, and the treatment cost of 1% of burn area were 91.23% ± 5.61%, (11.14 ± 2.12) days, (38.89 ± 10.36) days, and (5 113.28 ± 552.44) yuan in Meek group, respectively; and were 78.65% ± 12.29%, (18.37 ± 4.63）days, (48.73 ± 16.92) days, and (7 386.36 ± 867.64) yuan in particle skin group; showing significant differences between 2 groups (P lt; 0.05). Conclusion Meek technique skin graft has good effect in treating exceptionally large area burns with the advantages of high survival rate of skin graft, short time of skin fusion, and low treatment cost of 1% of burn area.