Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText. Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>

A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

10.1186/s12893-025-02981-y http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1186/s12893-025-02981-y 40611115!ä!40611115 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 219.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 219.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 219.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 219.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 219.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 219.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 253.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 253.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 253.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 253.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 253.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 253.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Warning: imagejpeg(C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\phplern\40611115.jpg): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 117       BMC+Surg 2025 ; 25 (1): 266 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=40611115|t=2025. Comparative analysis of extraperitoneal versus transabdominal cesarean sections: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and systematic review |pdf=|usr=}}{{40611115}} gab.com Text Comparative analysis of extraperitoneal versus transabdominal cesarean sections: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and systematic review JO: BMC Surg http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=40611115 #FOAvip OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to systematically evaluate the efficacy of Extraperitoneal Cesarean Section (ECS) compared to Transabdominal Cesarean Section (TCS) in pregnant women, and to assess the differences in treatment outcomes between the two surgical approaches. APPROACH AND TECHNIQUES: We conducted an extensive literature search, pulling up the most recent findings from reputable sources like the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and Web of Science, all the way up to October 2024. Our meta-analysis comprised seven randomized controlled trials. We followed a fixed-effects model for results with less heterogeneity and a random-effects model for those with more. We utilized Stata 18 to conduct data analysis. For continuous data, we computed weighted mean differences (WMD). For categorical data, we calculated odds ratios (OR). We also included 95% confidence intervals (CI) with all of our results. We also used the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool to check all of the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for bias. RESULTS: This meta-analysis did not find any statistically significant differences between the two groups when it came to baseline factors such as Body Mass Index (BMI), gestational week, and history of cesarean section. Statistical analysis revealed no significant differences in surgical outcomes (i.e., time to delivery(WMD 2.25, 95% CI -0.29 to 4.79, p = 0.083), time to operation (WMD 3.11, 95% CI -2.96 to 9.18, p = 0.316), neonatal weight (WMD -62.25, 95% CI -152.37 to 27.87, p = 0.176), 1-min Apgar score (WMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.45, p = 0.897), 5-min Apgar score (WMD 0.09, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.24, p = 0.296), blood loss (WMD 36.41, 95% CI -21.51 to 94.32, p = 0.218), etc.) between the TCS and ECS groups. However, the ECS group had a significantly shorter hospital stay (WMD -0.51, 95% CI -0.89 to -0.13, p=0.009) and less reduction in hemoglobin level (WMD -0.23, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.07, p=0.004) compared to TCS. CONCLUSION: To sum up, this meta-analysis shows that ECS may help with postoperative hemoglobin level changes and shortening hospital stays. ECS may improve recovery metrics without adversely affecting maternal or neonatal outcomes. This analysis provides valuable insights that can guide clinical decision-making, even though there was no statistically significant difference between the two surgical approaches in terms of delivery time, operative time, neonatal weight, Apgar scores, or blood loss. Twit Text FOAVip Comparative analysis of extraperitoneal versus transabdominal cesarean sections: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and systematic review ????BMC Surg http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=40611115 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=40611115 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|40611115}}</ref> Comparative analysis of extraperitoneal versus transabdominal cesarean sections: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and systematic review #MMPMID40611115 Jia M; Ji G; Wang R; Yan Z; Niu W; Chen J; Yu J BMC Surg 2025[Jul]; 25 (1): 266 PMID40611115show ga OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to systematically evaluate the efficacy of Extraperitoneal Cesarean Section (ECS) compared to Transabdominal Cesarean Section (TCS) in pregnant women, and to assess the differences in treatment outcomes between the two surgical approaches. APPROACH AND TECHNIQUES: We conducted an extensive literature search, pulling up the most recent findings from reputable sources like the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and Web of Science, all the way up to October 2024. Our meta-analysis comprised seven randomized controlled trials. We followed a fixed-effects model for results with less heterogeneity and a random-effects model for those with more. We utilized Stata 18 to conduct data analysis. For continuous data, we computed weighted mean differences (WMD). For categorical data, we calculated odds ratios (OR). We also included 95% confidence intervals (CI) with all of our results. We also used the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool to check all of the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for bias. RESULTS: This meta-analysis did not find any statistically significant differences between the two groups when it came to baseline factors such as Body Mass Index (BMI), gestational week, and history of cesarean section. Statistical analysis revealed no significant differences in surgical outcomes (i.e., time to delivery(WMD 2.25, 95% CI -0.29 to 4.79, p = 0.083), time to operation (WMD 3.11, 95% CI -2.96 to 9.18, p = 0.316), neonatal weight (WMD -62.25, 95% CI -152.37 to 27.87, p = 0.176), 1-min Apgar score (WMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.45, p = 0.897), 5-min Apgar score (WMD 0.09, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.24, p = 0.296), blood loss (WMD 36.41, 95% CI -21.51 to 94.32, p = 0.218), etc.) between the TCS and ECS groups. However, the ECS group had a significantly shorter hospital stay (WMD -0.51, 95% CI -0.89 to -0.13, p=0.009) and less reduction in hemoglobin level (WMD -0.23, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.07, p=0.004) compared to TCS. CONCLUSION: To sum up, this meta-analysis shows that ECS may help with postoperative hemoglobin level changes and shortening hospital stays. ECS may improve recovery metrics without adversely affecting maternal or neonatal outcomes. This analysis provides valuable insights that can guide clinical decision-making, even though there was no statistically significant difference between the two surgical approaches in terms of delivery time, operative time, neonatal weight, Apgar scores, or blood loss. |*Cesarean Section/methods[MESH] |Female[MESH] |Humans[MESH] |Pregnancy[MESH]Comparative analysis of extraperitoneal versus transabdominal cesarean(epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing