ObjectiveTo compare the cost and efficacy of ambulatory versus hospitalized surgery for lung tumor patients. MethodsTwo researchers independently conducted a computer search on February 14, 2025, in databases including CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure), PubMed, Web of Science, Ovid Medline, Cochrane Library, and Wanfang Database, with the search period covering from the inception of these databases to February 2025. The outcome indicators were postoperative complication rate, length of hospital stay, and hospitalization costs. For the included randomized controlled trials and non-randomized controlled trials, we used the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool and the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) respectively to evaluate the quality of the literature, and extracted data from the included studies for meta-analysis using RevMan 5.4 and Stata 18.0 software. ResultsA total of 12 articles were ultimately included, all of which were evaluated as high-quality, consisting of 2 randomized controlled trials, 2 prospective cohort studies, and 8 retrospective cohort studies, involving a total of 76 403 patients. Meta-analysis showed that the ambulatory surgery group had advantages over the hospitalized surgery group in terms of operation time [MD=−21.07, 95%CI (−30.55, −11.58), P<0.001], length of hospital stay [MD=−2.17, 95%CI (−3.25, −1.09), P<0.001], hospitalization costs [SMD=−1.22, 95%CI (−2.18, −0.26), P=0.01], and overall postoperative complications [OR=0.48, 95%CI (0.32, 0.74), P<0.001]. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of postoperative hoarseness [OR=0.62, 95%CI (0.24, 1.61), P=0.33] and postoperative chylothorax [OR=0.27, 95%CI (0.07, 1.07), P=0.06]. ConclusionCompared to conventional hospitalized lung tumor resection, ambulatory lung tumor resection can significantly reduce the patient’s surgery and hospital stay time, decrease hospitalization costs, and reduce the incidence of postoperative complications. While improving hospital efficiency and reducing the economic burden on patients, it is worthy of further promotion and application.
ObjectiveTo explore the effects of perioperative autologous platelet transfusion on postoperative complications and prognosis of adult cardiac surgery patient.MethodsUsing the method of systematic review of Cochrane Collaboration, we searched PubMed, Web of Science, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CNKI and Wangfang databases, retrieving the literature from January 1970 to June 2020 to collect clinical randomized controlled trials on the effects of autologous platelet transfusion on complications and prognosis of adult cardiac surgery patients. The extracted valid data was analyzed by RevMan5.3 software.ResultsTen studies were included, with a total of 1 083 patients. The results of meta-analysis showed that there were statistical differences in the perioperative blood loss (MD=−195.15, 95%CI −320.48-−69.83, P=0.002) and perioperative blood transfusion (MD=−0.88, 95%CI −1.23-−0.52, P<0.001). There was no statistical difference in the death rate 30 days after the operation (RR=0.90, 95%CI 0.48-1.70, P=0.75), reoperations (OR=0.48, 95%CI 0.23-1.02, P=0.06), postoperative myocardial infarction (OR=1.29, 95%CI 0.48-3.51, P=0.61), postoperative infection (OR=1.71, 95%CI 0.89-3.29, P=0.11) or postoperative ICU retention time (MD=−0.31, 95%CI −0.67-0.05, P=0.09).ConclusionPerioperative autologous platelet transfusion can reduce perioperative blood loss and blood transfusion in adult cardiac surgery patients, but has no significant impact onprognosis and postoperative complications, which indicates that perioperative autologous platelet transfusion is a safe and beneficial blood protection measure for patients undergoing cardiac surgery.