Accepted for/Published in: JMIR Research Protocols
Date Submitted: Jan 17, 2019
Date Accepted: Jun 3, 2019
Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.
Radiofrequency-Assisted Liver Resection Versus Clamp-Crush Liver Resection: Protocol for an Updated Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review
Background:
Malignancy of the liver has historically meant a poor prognosis and remains the second most common cause of cancer-related deaths globally. Traditionally, hepatectomy has utilized the clamp-crush technique; however, this is associated with high incidence of postoperative complications. Many novel techniques have been developed—radiofrequency ablation and transarterial chemoembolization; however, these are not applicable to numerous cases. Clamp-crush liver resection (CCLR) remains the gold standard. Radiofrequency-assisted liver resection (RFLR) is a technique that aims to reduce mortality through bloodless liver resection. A systematic review was previously performed on RFLR but the results neither recommended nor refuted the use of RFLR owing to the lack of sufficient evidence from well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) at the time.
Objective:
The aim of the study is the meta-analysis and systematic review of recent studies comparing RFLR against CCLR.
Methods:
Articles comparing RFLR and CCLR that were published from 2014 until 2019 will be reviewed and relevant data will be extracted and statistically analyzed through Review Manager 5 (by the Cochrane Collaboration) together with the results of the previous meta-analysis.
Results:
Data collection is currently underway, with papers being screened. We hope to publish the results in 2019.
Conclusions:
Given the high mortality rates currently associated with liver resection, it is imperative that novel surgical techniques are undertaken and investigated so we can improve best practice guidance and outcomes.
International Registered Report:
DERR1-10.2196/13437
Citation
Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.
Copyright
© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.