| Literature DB >> 33387226 |
Tang Weigang1,2, Xu Wei3,4, Gong Lifeng1,2, Lu Jingkui1,2, Li Yani1,2, Jiang Huaqin1,2, Li Hui1,2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Functional vein end to arterial side (ETS) anastomosis uses vein side to arterial side (STS) anastomosis with distal vein ligation, which can achieve similar effects as those of ETS after STS anastomosis. The purpose of the study was to provide a meta-analysis to compare the clinical outcomes between traditional and functional ETS anastomosis in radiocephalic fistula for dialysis access.Entities:
Keywords: Arteriovenous fistula; Dialysis access; Functional end-to-side anastomosis; Meta-analysis
Year: 2021 PMID: 33387226 PMCID: PMC8192352 DOI: 10.1007/s11255-020-02691-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int Urol Nephrol ISSN: 0301-1623 Impact factor: 2.370
Fig. 1a Traditional ETS anastomosis uses vein end to arterial side anastomosis. b Functional ETS anastomosis uses side-to-side anastomosis with distal vein ligation. a cephalic vein; b radial artery
Fig. 2Flow diagram of the literature search
Characteristics of the included studies
| Study (year) | Sample size | Mean age (years) | Male/Female | Diabetic nephropathy (%) | Scr (μmol/L) | Bun (mmol/L) | HB (g/L) | Surgical site | Vein size | The size of the anastomosis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Guan Sheng (2010) | Experimental group: 63 Traditional group:61 | 60.2 ± 12.5 62.1 ± 15.2 | 36/27 32/29 | – | 1008.6 ± 456.2 998.6 ± 500.2 | 36.5 ± 12.9 39.5 ± 15.1 | 89.2 ± 12.5 86.1 ± 15.8 | Radiocephalic fistulas on the snuff nest or wrist | ≥ 1.6 mm | 5–8 mm 5–8 mm |
| Zhang Caixia (2017) | Experimental group: 70 Traditional group:70 | 61.5 ± 11.1 62.2 ± 9.8 | 40/30 42/38 | 25(35.7%) 20(28.6%) | 689.5 ± 154.9 702.4 ± 163.4 | – | 92.7 ± 19.0 89.2 ± 21.1 | Radiocephalic fistulas on the wrist | – | 5–8 mm 5–8 mm |
| Tang Weigang (2019) | Experimental group:110 Traditional group:40 | 56.8 ± 14.8 57.5 ± 15.1 | 61/49 23/17 | – | – | 29.3 ± 11.7 30.2 ± 12.4 | 89.1 ± 13.6 87.4 ± 15.8 | Radiocephalic fistulas on the forearm | 24 patients < 2.5 mm 8 patients < 2.5 mm | 6–10 mm 5–6 mm |
| Xu Hui (2017) | Experimental group:60 Traditional group:60 | 59.7 ± 9.2 60.5 ± 10.3 | 34/26 35/25 | – | 999.5 ± 477.4 1002.3 ± 491.2 | 37.9 ± 13.2 38.5 ± 14.5 | 88.5 ± 12.7 87.6 ± 13.5 | Radiocephalic fistulas on the wrist | ≥ 1.6 mm | 5–8 mm 5–8 mm |
| Chen Junzhu (2018) | Experimental group:40 Traditional group:40 | 58.3 ± 8.5 58.3 ± 8.5 | 27/13 24/16 | 13(32.5%) 14(41.4%) | 948.29 ± 361.65 923.43 ± 372.43 | 36.8 ± 14.8 36.2 ± 15.2 | 85.7 ± 12.1 86.4 ± 11.4 | Radiocephalic fistulas on the snuff nest or wrist | ≥ 1.6 mm | 6–7 mm 6 mm |
| Sun Yibing (2014) | Experimental group:83 Traditional group:83 | 55.3 ± 6.4 | 96/70 | – | – | – | – | Radiocephalic fistulas on the wrist | – | 7–8 mm – |
| O'Banion (2015) | Experimental group:32 Traditional group:29 | 58 ± 12.5 55 ± 14.6 | 25/7 19/10 | 22(68%) 22(76%) | – | – | – | Radiocephalic fistulas on the forearm | 1.9 ± 0.59 mm 2.6 ± 0.68 mm | 1.3–1.5 cm – |
Quality assessment of cohort studies
| Studies | Selection | Comparability | Outcome | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tang Weigang 2019 | ★★★ | ★ | ★★★ | 7 |
| O’Banion 2015 | ★★★ | ★ | ★ | 6 |
Risk of bias of randomized control trial
| Study | Random sequence generation | Allocation concealment | Blinding of participants and personnel | Incomplete outcome data | Selective reporting | Other bias |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Zhang Caixia (2017) | Low risk | Unclear | Unclear | Low risk | Low risk | Unclear |
Xu Hui (2017) | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Unclear |
Guan Sheng (2010) | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Unclear |
Chen Junzhu (2018) | Low risk | Unclear | Unclear | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk |
Sun Yibing (2014 | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Low risk | Low risk | Unclear |
Fig. 3Forest plot of anastomosis time between functional ETS group and traditional ETS group. Control group: traditional ETS anastomosis; Experimental group: functional ETS anastomosis
Fig. 4Forest plot of succesful rate of surgery between functional ETS group and traditional ETS group. Control group: traditional ETS anastomosis; Experimental group: functional ETS anastomosis
Fig. 5Forest plot of maturation time of AVF between functional ETS group and traditional ETS group. Control group: traditional ETS anastomosis; Experimental group: functional ETS anastomosis
Fig. 6Forest plot of patency rate after 1 month between functional ETS group and traditional ETS group. Control group: traditional ETS anastomosis; Experimental group: functional ETS anastomosis
Fig. 7Forest plot of patency rate after 3 month between functional ETS group and traditional ETS group. Control group: traditional ETS anastomosis; Experimental group: functional ETS anastomosis
Fig. 8Forest plot of patency rate after 6 month between functional ETS group and traditional ETS group. Control group: traditional ETS anastomosis; Experimental group: functional ETS anastomosis
Fig. 9Forest plot of patency rate after 12 months between functional ETS group and traditional ETS group. Control group: traditional ETS anastomosis; Experimental group: functional ETS anastomosis
Fig. 10Forest plot of complications between functional ETS group and traditional ETS group. Control group: traditional ETS anastomosis; Experimental group: functional ETS anastomosis