Skip to main content
. 2023 Mar 29;6:18. doi: 10.1186/s42155-023-00360-3

Table 3.

Clinical and technical success rate in each study analysed

First author, year Number of patients Technical success rate (%) Clinical success rate (%)
Aina et al., 2001 (2001) 29 98.7% 76%
Arrayeh et al., 2012 (2012) 56 - -
Defreyne et al., 2001 (2001) 6 100% 83%
Dempsey et al., 1990 (1990) 39 - -
Dixon et al., 2013 (2013) 20 95% 80%
Encarnacion et al., 1992 (1992) 29 62% 82%
Heianna et al., 2014 (2014) 6 100% 100%
Holme et al., 2005 (2006) 28 100% 61%
Ichiro et al., 2011 (2011) 36 100% 83%
Kaminskis et al., 2019 (2019) 58 100% 96.6%
Katano et al., 2012 (2012) 2 100% 100%
Kim et al., 2009 (2009) 75 100% 86%
Lang et al., 1992 (1992) 7 100% 86%
Lau et al., 2019 (2019) 96 100% 94%
Laursen et al., 2014 (2014) 49 - -
Lee et al., 2012 (2012) 10 - -
Ljungdahl et al., 2002 (2002) 4 100% 100%
Mille et al., 2015 (2015) 75 98% 87%
Morris et al., 1986 (1986) 9 100% 67%
Muhammad et al., 2019 (2019) 32 96.9% 92%
Padia et al., 2009 (2009) 72 - -
Peynircioglu et al., 2011 (2011) 42 100% 62.5%
Poultisides et al., 2008 (2008) 22 94% 51%
Schenker et al., 2001 (2001) 103 95% 75%
Shi et al., 2017 (2017) 5 100% 60%
Sildiroglu et al., 2014 (2014) 18 100% 67%
Song et al., 2011 (2011) 6 100% 67%
Spiliopoulos et al., 2018 (2018) 10 100% -
Tandberg et al., 2012 (2012) 25 100% 68%
Toyoda et al., 1995 (1995) 5 100% 80%
Yap et al., 2013 (2013) 38 99% 76%
Yata et al., 2013 (Yata et al. 2013) 7 100% 96%