-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2015Laparoscopy is a common procedure in many surgical specialities. Complications arising from laparoscopy are often related to initial entry into the abdomen.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Laparoscopy is a common procedure in many surgical specialities. Complications arising from laparoscopy are often related to initial entry into the abdomen. Life-threatening complications include injury to viscera e.g. the bowel or bladder, or to vasculature e.g. major abdominal and anterior abdominal wall vessels. Minor complications can also occur, such as postoperative wound infection, subcutaneous emphysema, and extraperitoneal insufflation. There is no clear consensus as to the optimal method of laparoscopic entry into the peritoneal cavity.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and risks of different laparoscopic entry techniques in gynaecological and non-gynaecological surgery.
SEARCH METHODS
This updated review has drawn on the search strategy developed by the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group. In addition, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and PsycINFO were searched through to September 2014.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which one laparoscopic entry technique was compared with another.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We expressed findings as Peto odds ratios (Peto ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed statistical heterogeneity using the I² statistic. We assessed the overall quality of evidence for the main comparisons using GRADE methods.
MAIN RESULTS
The review included 46 RCTs including three multi-arm trials (7389 participants) and evaluated 13 laparoscopic entry techniques. Overall there was no evidence of advantage using any single technique for preventing major vascular or visceral complications. The evidence was generally of very low quality; the main limitations were imprecision and poor reporting of study methods. Open-entry versus closed-entry There was no evidence of a difference between the groups for vascular (Peto OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.82, three RCTs, n = 795, I(2) = n/a; very low quality evidence) or visceral injury (Peto OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.06 to 6.08, three RCTs, n = 795, I(2) = 0%; very low quality evidence). There was a lower risk of failed entry in the open-entry group (Peto OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.63, n = 665, two RCTs, I(2) = 0%; very low quality evidence). This suggests that for every 1000 patients operated on, 31 patients in the closed-entry group will have failed entry compared to between 1 to 20 patients in the open-entry group. No events were reported in any of the studies for mortality, gas embolism or solid organ injury. Direct trocar versus Veress needle entry There was a lower risk of vascular injury in the direct trocar group (Peto OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.66, five RCTs, n = 1522, I(2) = 0%; low quality evidence) and failed entry (Peto OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.30, seven RCTs, n = 3104; I ²= 0%; moderate quality evidence). This suggests that for every 1000 patients operated on, 8 patients in the Veress needle group will experience vascular injury compared to between 0 to 5 patients in the direct trocar group; and that 64 patients in the Veress needle group will experience failed entry compared to between 10 to 20 patients in the direct trocar group. The vascular injury significance is sensitive to choice of statistical analysis and may be unreliable. There was no evidence of a difference between the groups for visceral (Peto OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.06 to 16.24, four RCTs, n = 1438, I(2) = 49%; very low quality evidence) or solid organ injury (Peto OR 0.16, 95% Cl 0.01 to 2.53, two RCTs, n = 998, I(2) = n/a; very low quality evidence). No events were recorded for mortality or gas embolism. Direct vision entry versus Veress needle entry There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in the rates of visceral injury (Peto OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.34, one RCT, n = 194; very low quality evidence). Other primary outcomes were not reported. Direct vision entry versus open-entry There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in the rates of visceral injury (Peto OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.50, two RCTs, n = 392; low quality evidence), solid organ injury (Peto OR 6.16, 95% CI 0.12 to 316.67, one RCT, n = 60, I(2) = n/a; very low quality evidence), or failed entry (Peto OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.04 to 4.09, one RCT, n = 60; low quality evidence). Vascular injury was reported, however no events occurred. Our other primary outcomes were not reported. Radially expanding (STEP) trocars versus non-expanding trocars There was no evidence of a difference between the groups for vascular injury (Peto OR 0.24, 95% Cl 0.05 to 1.21, two RCTs, n = 331, I(2) = 0%; low quality evidence), visceral injury (Peto OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.37, two RCTs, n = 331, I(2) = n/a; low quality evidence), or solid organ injury (Peto OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.07 to 16.91, one RCT, n = 244; very low quality evidence). Other primary outcomes were not reported. Comparisons of other laparoscopic entry techniquesThere was a higher risk of failed entry in the group in which the abdominal wall was lifted before Veress needle insertion than in the not-lifted group (Peto OR 4.44, 95% CI 2.16 to 9.13, one RCT, n = 150; very low quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of visceral injury or extraperitoneal insufflation. The studies had small numbers and excluded many patients with previous abdominal surgery, and women with a raised body mass index. These patients may have unusually high complication rates.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Overall, there is insufficient evidence to recommend one laparoscopic entry technique over another.An open-entry technique is associated with a reduction in failed entry when compared to a closed-entry technique, with no evidence of a difference in the incidence of visceral or vascular injury.An advantage of direct trocar entry over Veress needle entry was noted for failed entry and vascular injury. The evidence was generally of very low quality with small numbers of participants in most studies; our findings should be interpreted with caution.
Topics: Abdominal Wall; Blood Vessels; Female; Gynecologic Surgical Procedures; Humans; Intestines; Intraoperative Complications; Laparoscopy; Peritoneal Cavity; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Urinary Bladder
PubMed: 26329306
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006583.pub4 -
Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) Jul 2021Intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) is defined as the steady-state pressure within the abdominal cavity. Elevated IAP has been implicated in many medical complications. This... (Review)
Review
Intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) is defined as the steady-state pressure within the abdominal cavity. Elevated IAP has been implicated in many medical complications. This article reviews the current state-of-the-art in innovative sensors for the measurement of IAP. A systematic review was conducted on studies on the development and application of IAP sensors. Publications from 2010 to 2021 were identified by performing structured searches in databases, review articles, and major textbooks. Sixteen studies were eligible for the final systematic review. Of the 16 articles that describe the measurement of IAP, there were 5 in vitro studies (31.3%), 7 in vivo studies (43.7%), and 4 human trials (25.0%). In addition, with the advancement of wireless communication technology, an increasing number of wireless sensing systems have been developed. Among the studies in this review, five presented wireless sensing systems (31.3%) to monitor IAP. In this systematic review, we present recent developments in different types of intra-abdominal pressure sensors and discuss their inherent advantages due to their small size, remote monitoring, and multiplexing.
Topics: Abdominal Cavity; Humans; Monitoring, Physiologic; Wireless Technology
PubMed: 34300564
DOI: 10.3390/s21144824 -
European Journal of Surgical Oncology :... Apr 2022The hepatic flexure and transverse colon have a complex intermingled lymphovascular anatomy crossing between mesocolon and mesogastrium. Few studies have investigated... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
The hepatic flexure and transverse colon have a complex intermingled lymphovascular anatomy crossing between mesocolon and mesogastrium. Few studies have investigated the oncological relevance of metastatic infrapyloric and gastroepiploic lymph nodes (IGLN) from hepatic flexure and transverse colon tumors. This study aimed to evaluate the incidence and risk factors for IGLN metastases, and the indications, surgical morbidities, and oncological outcome following extended lymphadenectomy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
According to the PRISMA statement, a systematic review on IGLN lymphadenectomy for colon cancer was conducted into PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases. A critical appraisal of study was performed according to the Joanna Briggs Institute Tools.
RESULTS
Nine studies were included. IGLN metastases incidence ranged 0.7-22%. IGLN positivity for patients with metastatic mesocolic lymph nodes ranged 1.7-33.3%. Postoperative complication rate ranged 8.5-36.9%, mostly low grade according to Clavien-Dindo's classification. Postoperative mortality rate ranged 0-5.4% at 30-days. IGLN metastases were associated with advanced disease with a 5-year progression-free survival rate up to 33.9%. Two authors reported perineural invasion and N stage as risk factors, while another reported endoscopic obstruction, signet ring adenocarcinoma, CEA level ≥17 ng/ml, and M1 stage to be risk factors for IGLN involvement. Apart from one study, all other studies were of moderate/high quality.
CONCLUSIONS
Metastatic IGLNs are not uncommon and should be highly considered. IGLN metastases could be potentially associated with an aggressive disease. IGLN dissection is not associated with higher morbidity and mortality than standard CME. Preoperative risk factors of IGLN involvement could guide surgical indication for extended lymphadenectomy.
Topics: Colectomy; Colon, Ascending; Colon, Transverse; Colonic Neoplasms; Humans; Laparoscopy; Lymph Node Excision; Lymph Nodes; Mesocolon
PubMed: 34893366
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2021.12.005 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2021The use of surgical drains is a very common practice after pancreatic surgery. The role of prophylactic abdominal drainage to reduce postoperative complications after... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The use of surgical drains is a very common practice after pancreatic surgery. The role of prophylactic abdominal drainage to reduce postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery is controversial. This is the third update of a previously published Cochrane Review to address the uncertain benifits of prophylactic abdominal drainage in pancreatic surgery.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of routine abdominal drainage after pancreatic surgery, compare the effects of different types of surgical drains, and evaluate the optimal time for drain removal.
SEARCH METHODS
In this updated review, we re-searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) on 08 February 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared abdominal drainage versus no drainage in people undergoing pancreatic surgery. We also included RCTs that compared different types of drains and different schedules for drain removal in people undergoing pancreatic surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently identified the studies for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias. We conducted the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For all analyses, we used the random-effects model. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for important outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified a total of nine RCTs with 1892 participants. Drain use versus no drain use We included four RCTs with 1110 participants, randomised to the drainage group (N = 560) and the no drainage group (N = 550) after pancreatic surgery. Low-certainty evidence suggests that drain use may reduce 90-day mortality (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.90; two studies, 478 participants). Compared with no drain use, low-certainty evidence suggests that drain use may result in little to no difference in 30-day mortality (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.99; four studies, 1055 participants), wound infection rate (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.41; four studies, 1055 participants), length of hospital stay (MD -0.14 days, 95% CI -0.79 to 0.51; three studies, 876 participants), the need for additional open procedures for postoperative complications (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.23; four studies, 1055 participants), and quality of life (105 points versus 104 points; measured with the pancreas-specific quality of life questionnaire (scale 0 to 144, higher values indicating a better quality of life); one study, 399 participants). There was one drain-related complication in the drainage group (0.2%). Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that drain use probably resulted in little to no difference in morbidity (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.13; four studies, 1055 participants). The evidence was very uncertain about the effect of drain use on intra-abdominal infection rate (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.80; four studies, 1055 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and the need for additional radiological interventions for postoperative complications (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.87; three studies, 660 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Active versus passive drain We included two RCTs involving 383 participants, randomised to the active drain group (N = 194) and the passive drain group (N = 189) after pancreatic surgery. Compared with a passive drain, the evidence was very uncertain about the effect of an active drain on 30-day mortality (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.30 to 5.06; two studies, 382 participants; very low-certainty evidence), intra-abdominal infection rate (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.21 to 3.66; two studies, 321 participants; very low-certainty evidence), wound infection rate (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.90; two studies, 321 participants; very low-certainty evidence), morbidity (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.77; two studies, 382 participants; very low-certainty evidence), length of hospital stay (MD -0.79 days, 95% CI -2.63 to 1.04; two studies, 321 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and the need for additional open procedures for postoperative complications (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.83; two studies, 321 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There was no drain-related complication in either group. Early versus late drain removal We included three RCTs involving 399 participants with a low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula, randomised to the early drain removal group (N = 200) and the late drain removal group (N = 199) after pancreatic surgery. Compared to late drain removal, the evidence was very uncertain about the effect of early drain removal on 30-day mortality (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.45; three studies, 399 participants; very low-certainty evidence), wound infection rate (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.45 to 3.85; two studies, 285 participants; very low-certainty evidence), hospital costs (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.59 to 0.14; two studies, 258 participants; very low-certainty evidence), the need for additional open procedures for postoperative complications (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.10; three studies, 399 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and the need for additional radiological procedures for postoperative complications (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.21 to 4.79; one study, 144 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We found that early drain removal may reduce intra-abdominal infection rate (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.89; two studies, 285 participants; very low-certainty evidence), morbidity (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.81; two studies, 258 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and length of hospital stay (MD -2.20 days, 95% CI -3.52 to -0.87; three studies, 399 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence was very uncertain. None of the studies reported on drain-related complications.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Compared with no drain use, it is unclear whether routine drain use has any effect on mortality at 30 days or postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery. Compared with no drain use, low-certainty evidence suggests that routine drain use may reduce mortality at 90 days. Compared with a passive drain, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of an active drain on mortality at 30 days or postoperative complications. Compared with late drain removal, early drain removal may reduce intra-abdominal infection rate, morbidity, and length of hospital stay for people with low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula, but the evidence is very uncertain.
Topics: Abdomen; Drainage; Humans; Length of Stay; Pancreas; Pancreatic Fistula
PubMed: 34921395
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010583.pub5 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Feb 2017The increased popularity of paravertebral block (PVB) can be attributed to its relative safety and comparable efficacy when compared with epidural analgesia. It has thus... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The increased popularity of paravertebral block (PVB) can be attributed to its relative safety and comparable efficacy when compared with epidural analgesia. It has thus been recommended for open cholecystectomy and other less painful surgeries such as inguinal herniorraphy and appendectomy. We performed a systematic review of PVB in paediatric abdominal conditions to assess its clinical efficacy and side effects compared with other analgesic therapies.A search of Medline, Embase, and Web of Science and hand-searching references from inception date to May 2016 was done. Relevant studies were randomized clinical trials in patients 0-18 years old comparing PVB (single shot or continuous catheter) with any comparator and analgesic medication. Pain scores, rescue analgesia and adverse events were compared.The systematic reviews identified six trials enrolling 358 paediatric patients. PVB medications included bupivacaine, ropivacaine, lidocaine, and fentanyl. Surgical procedures included inguinal herniorraphy, cholecystectomy, and appendectomy. The standardized mean difference in early pain scores favoured PVB: 0.85 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12-1.58] at 4-6 h and 0.64 (95% CI 0.28-1.00) at 24 h. One study reported a reduced length of stay. Parental [odds ratio (OR) 5.12 (95% CI 2.59-10.1)] and surgeon [OR 6.05 (95% CI 2.25-16.3)] satisfaction were higher in those receiving a PVB. No major complications occurred with a PVB.PVB resulted in minimally improved pain scores for up to 24 h after surgery, reduced rescue analgesia requirements, and increased surgeon and parental satisfaction. PVB is a good alternative to caudal and ilioinguinal block in paediatric abdominal surgery.
Topics: Abdomen; Adolescent; Child; Child, Preschool; Humans; Nerve Block; Pain, Postoperative; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 28100519
DOI: 10.1093/bja/aew387 -
Acta Obstetricia Et Gynecologica... Apr 2016Enhanced recovery pathways have been widely accepted and implemented for different types of surgery. Their overall effect in abdominal gynecologic surgery is still... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Enhanced recovery pathways have been widely accepted and implemented for different types of surgery. Their overall effect in abdominal gynecologic surgery is still underdetermined. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to provide an overview of current evidence and to examine their effect on postoperative outcomes in women undergoing open gynecologic surgery.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Searches were conducted using Embase, Medline, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library up to 27 June 2014. Reference lists were screened to identify additional studies. Studies were included if at least four individual items of an enhanced recovery pathway were described. Outcomes included length of hospital stay, complication rates, readmissions, and mortality. Quantitative analysis was limited to comparative studies. Effect sizes were presented as relative risks or as mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
RESULTS
Thirty-one records, involving 16 observational studies, were included. Diversity in reported elements within studies was observed. Preoperative education, early oral intake, and early mobilization were included in all pathways. Five studies, with a high risk of bias, were eligible for quantitative analysis. Enhanced recovery pathways reduced primary (MD -1.57 days, 95% CI CI -2.94 to -0.20) and total (MD -3.05 days, 95% CI -4.87 to -1.23) length of hospital stay compared with traditional perioperative care, without an increase in complications, mortality or readmission rates.
CONCLUSION
The available evidence based on a broad range of non-randomized studies at high risk of bias suggests that enhanced recovery pathways may reduce length of postoperative hospital stay in abdominal gynecologic surgery.
Topics: Abdomen; Female; Gynecologic Surgical Procedures; Hospital Mortality; Humans; Length of Stay; Patient Readmission; Perioperative Care; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 26613531
DOI: 10.1111/aogs.12831 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2016Tuberculosis (TB) of the gastrointestinal tract and any other organ within the abdominal cavity is abdominal TB, and most guidelines recommend the same six-month regimen... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Tuberculosis (TB) of the gastrointestinal tract and any other organ within the abdominal cavity is abdominal TB, and most guidelines recommend the same six-month regimen used for pulmonary TB for people with this diagnosis. However, some physicians are concerned whether a six-month treatment regimen is long enough to prevent relapse of the disease, particularly in people with gastrointestinal TB, which may sometimes cause antituberculous drugs to be poorly absorbed. On the other hand, longer regimens are associated with poor adherence, which could increase relapse, contribute to drug resistance developing, and increase costs to patients and health providers.
OBJECTIVES
To compare six-month versus longer drug regimens to treat people that have abdominal TB.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following electronic databases up to 2 September 2016: the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase (accessed via OvidSP), LILACS, INDMED, and the South Asian Database of Controlled Clinical Trials. We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing trials. We also checked article reference lists.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared six-month regimens versus longer regimens that consisted of isoniazid, rifampicin, pyrazinamide, and ethambutol to treat adults and children that had abdominal TB. The primary outcomes were relapse, with a minimum of six-month follow-up after completion of antituberculous treatment (ATT), and clinical cure at the end of ATT.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias in the included trials. For analysis of dichotomous outcomes, we used risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Where appropriate, we pooled data from the included trials in meta-analyses. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included three RCTs, with 328 participants, that compared six-month regimens with nine-month regimens to treat adults with intestinal and peritoneal TB. All trials were conducted in Asia, and excluded people with HIV, those with co-morbidities and those who had received ATT in the previous five years. Antituberculous regimens were based on isoniazid, rifampicin, pyrazinamide, and ethambutol, and these drugs were administered daily or thrice weekly under a directly observed therapy programme. The median duration of follow-up after completion of treatment was between 12 and 39 months.Relapse was uncommon, with two cases among 140 participants treated for six months, and no events among 129 participants treated for nine months. The small number of participants means we do not know whether or not there is a difference in risk of relapse between the two regimens (very low quality evidence). At the end of therapy, there was probably no difference in the proportion of participants that achieved clinical cure between six-month and nine-month regimens (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.08; 294 participants, 3 trials, moderate quality evidence). For death, there were 2/150 (1.3%) in the six-month group and 4/144 (2.8%) in the nine-month group. All deaths occurred in the first four months of treatment, so was not linked to the duration of treatment in the included trials. Similarly, the number of participants that defaulted from treatment was small in both groups, and there may be no difference between them (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.59; 294 participants, 3 trials, low quality evidence). Only one trial reported on adherence to treatment, with only one participant allocated to the nine-month regimen presenting poor adherence to treatment. We do not know whether six-month regimens are associated with fewer people experiencing adverse events that lead to treatment interruption (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.55; 318 participants, 3 trials, very low quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found no evidence to suggest that six-month treatment regimens are inadequate for treating people that have intestinal and peritoneal TB, but numbers are small. We did not find any incremental benefits of nine-month regimens regarding relapse at the end of follow-up, or clinical cure at the end of therapy, but our confidence in the relapse estimate is very low because of size of the trials. Further research is required to make confident conclusions regarding the safety of six-month treatment for people with abdominal TB. Larger studies that include HIV-positive people, with long follow-up for detecting relapse with reliability, would help improve our knowledge around this therapeutic question.
Topics: Abdomen; Antitubercular Agents; Drug Administration Schedule; Ethambutol; Humans; Isoniazid; Pyrazinamide; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Rifampin; Time Factors; Tuberculosis, Gastrointestinal
PubMed: 27801499
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012163.pub2 -
Clinical Journal of Gastroenterology Apr 2017Sclerosing mesenteritis includes a spectrum of inflammatory disorders involving the adipose tissue of the bowel mesentery. (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Sclerosing mesenteritis includes a spectrum of inflammatory disorders involving the adipose tissue of the bowel mesentery.
AIM
To perform a systematic review of previously reported cases of sclerosing mesenteritis (SM) to determine the epidemiology, risk factors, methods of diagnosis, treatment patterns and outcomes for this disease.
METHODS
Medline, PubMed, Google Scholar and Cochrane database were searched using keywords mesenteric panniculitis, retractile mesenteritis, mesenteric lipodystrophy and sclerosing mesenteritis. Data was collated into a single excel database, transferred into SPSS (Version 21.0) and analyzed.
RESULTS
Patients diagnosed with SM were between ages of 3 and 88 with a mean age of 55 ± 19.2 years. SM was more common in Caucasians (n = 28, 60.8% of those reporting ethnicity) and men (n = 133, 69.3%) with a male to female ratio of 2.3:1. 28.6% (n = 55) of patients reported a prior abdominal surgery or abdominal trauma, 8.9% (n = 17) had a history of malignancy, and 5.7% (n = 11) of autoimmune disease. 85.4% (n = 164) underwent surgical abdominal exploration (open or laparoscopic); 41.7% (n = 80) had surgery with resection of the involved bowel and mesentery. 34.9% (n = 67) of patients received medical treatment with the majority of them receiving steroids (n = 56, 83.5%). Symptom duration of more than a month (66.7% vs 40.4%, p < 0.05), underlying autoimmune disorder (14.3% vs 4.0%, p < 0.05) or low protein (14.3% vs 4.0%, p < 0.05) at presentation were seen more frequently in those with poor treatment response whereas patients with tender abdomen (45.0% vs 19.0%, p < 0.05) or leukocytosis (20.5% vs 0.0%, p < 0.05) at presentation were likely to have good response to therapy. The most common complications included bowel obstruction/ileus/ischemia (n = 10, 23.8%) and obstructive uropathy/renal failure (n = 10, 23.8%). There were a total of 14 deaths, 12 (85.7%) of which were secondary to SM related complications.
CONCLUSION
SM is a poorly understood chronic inflammatory disease. Our study is the first systematic review of the published cases of SM. Future work is required to better understand this disease and its optimal therapy.
Topics: Humans; Lipodystrophy; Mesentery; Panniculitis, Peritoneal; Prognosis; Terminology as Topic
PubMed: 28197781
DOI: 10.1007/s12328-017-0716-5 -
The Journal of Surgical Research Jul 2022Globally, abdominal adhesions constitute a significant burden of morbidity and mortality. They represent the commonest complication of abdominal operations with a... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Globally, abdominal adhesions constitute a significant burden of morbidity and mortality. They represent the commonest complication of abdominal operations with a lifelong risk of multiple pathologies, including adhesive small bowel obstruction, female infertility, and chronic pain. Adhesions represent a problem of the entire abdomen, forming at the time of injury and progressing through multiple complex pathways. Clinically available preventative strategies are limited to barrier technologies. Significant knowledge gaps persist in the characterization and mitigation of the involved molecular pathways underlying adhesion formation. Thus, the objectives of this scoping review are to describe the known molecular pathophysiology implicated in abdominal adhesion formation and summarize novel preclinical regenerative medicine preventative strategies for potential future clinical investigation.
METHODS
A literature review was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews Extension for Scoping Reviews. Included peer-reviewed publications were published within the last 5 y and contained in vivo preclinical experimental studies of postoperative adhesions with the assessment of underlying mechanisms of adhesion formation and successful therapy for adhesion prevention. Studies not involving regenerative medicine strategies were excluded. Data were qualitatively synthesized.
RESULTS
A total of 1762 articles were identified. Of these, 1001 records were excluded by the described screening criteria. Sixty-eight full-text articles were evaluated for eligibility, and 11 studies were included for review.
CONCLUSIONS
Novel and reliable preventative strategies are urgently needed. Recent experimental data propose novel regenerative medicine targets for adhesion prevention.
Topics: Abdomen; Female; Humans; Intestinal Obstruction; Intestine, Small; Postoperative Complications; Regenerative Medicine; Tissue Adhesions
PubMed: 35306261
DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2022.02.005 -
Oncotarget Oct 2016Laparoscopy is a revolutionary technique in modern surgery. However, the comparative efficacy between two-dimensional laparoscopy and three-dimensional laparoscopy... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Laparoscopy is a revolutionary technique in modern surgery. However, the comparative efficacy between two-dimensional laparoscopy and three-dimensional laparoscopy remains in uncertainty. Therefore we performed this systematic review and meta-analysis in order to seek for answers.
METHODS
Databases of PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were carefully screened. Clinical trials comparing two-dimensional versus three-dimensional laparoscopy were included for pooled analysis. Observational and randomized trials were methodologically appraised by Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Revised Jadad's Scale respectively. Subgroup analyses were additionally conducted to clarify the potential confounding elements. Outcome stability was examined by sensitivity analysis, and publication bias was analyzed by Begg's test and Egger's test.
RESULTS
21 trials were screened out from the preliminary 3126 records. All included studies were high-quality in methodology, except for Bilgen 2013 and Ruan 2015. Three-dimensional laparoscopy was superior to two-dimensional laparoscopy in terms of surgical time (P < 0.00001), blood loss (P = 0.01), perioperative complications (P = 0.04) and hospital stay (P = 0.03). Additionally, both techniques demonstrated comparable results of secondary endpoints, including drainage volume (P = 0.74), drainage time (P = 0.26), numbers of retrieved lymphnodes (P = 0.85), hospital expenses (P = 0.49), anastomosis time in prostatectomy (P=0.15) and 6-month continence rate (P = 0.61). The pooled outcomes of primary endopoints were verified to be stable by sensitivity analysis. Although Begg's test (P = 0.215) and Egger's test (P = 0.003) revealed that there was publication bias across included studies, Trim-and-Fill method confirmed that the results remained stable.
CONCLUSION
Three-dimensional laparoscopy is a preferably surgical option against two-dimensional laparoscopy due to its better surgical efficacy.
Topics: Abdomen; Blood Loss, Surgical; Clinical Trials as Topic; Drainage; Humans; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Operative Time; Postoperative Complications; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27486967
DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.10916