4.5 Review

Surgical Treatment of Genital Manifestations of Lymphatic Filariasis: A Systematic Review

期刊

WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGERY
卷 39, 期 12, 页码 2885-2899

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00268-015-3220-4

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Genital manifestations of lymphatic filariasis (genital LF) are a significant cause of disfigurement and disability in the developing world. Surgery is the standard treatment; however, definitive publications are lacking and best practice remains unclear. An exhaustive search strategy using keyword and subject headings was applied to Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Scopus. Additionally citation lists, Google and Google Scholar, archives of relevant journals and websites were searched systematically. Studies with data on one or more human patient(s) who underwent surgery for genital LF were included. Articles were screened and data extracted by the first author with data verification by the second author. Fifty-seven studies were included: 18 series of ablative surgery, four series of non-ablative surgery and 35 case reports. Poor study quality, heterogeneous case definitions, lack of severity grading and limited follow-up precluded meta-analysis. Two series of simple hydrocelectomies performed in resource-limited settings reported early complication rates of 3.0-3.5 % using eversion and 5-7 % using excision, with recurrence of 7 % and 3-5 %, respectively. Complications were minimal for single-surgeon series and greater (12-18 %) when scrotal reconstruction was performed. There is little useful evidence for lymphatic bypass procedures in genital LF. Under-recognition of atypical manifestation of genital LF leads to potentially unnecessary surgeries. Surgery for genital LF is safe in resource-limited settings; however, more well-designed studies with better follow-up are needed. Research priorities include validation of case definitions and severity grading systems, and solutions to improve post-operative follow-up in resource-limited settings.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据