-
Surgical Endoscopy Jun 2017Preoperative colorectal tumor localization is crucial for appropriate resection and treatment planning. As the localization accuracy of conventional colonoscopy is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Preoperative colorectal tumor localization is crucial for appropriate resection and treatment planning. As the localization accuracy of conventional colonoscopy is considered to be low, several localization techniques have been developed. We systematically reviewed the tumor localization error rates of several preoperative endoscopic techniques and synthesized information on risk factors for localization errors and procedure-related adverse events.
METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and the grey literature were searched. Studies were included if they reported tumor localization errors in patients with colorectal cancer undergoing resection with curative intent. Using random-effects models, pooled incidence of tumor localization errors were derived for conventional colonoscopy and colonoscopic tattooing. Due to the lack of comparative studies, a direct comparison of the pooled estimates was performed. Procedure-related adverse events, risk factors for localization errors, and the localization outcomes of other techniques such as colonoscopic clip placement, radioguided occult colonic lesion identification, and the use of magnetic endoscope imaging were also synthesized.
RESULTS
A total of 38 non-randomized controlled and observational studies were included in this review (2578 patients underwent conventional colonoscopy and 643 colonoscopic tattooing). The pooled incidence of localization errors with conventional colonoscopy was 15.4 % (95 % CI 12.0-18.7), whereas that of colonoscopic tattooing was 9.5 % (95 % CI 5.7-13.3), mean difference 5.9 % (95 % CI 0.65-11.14, p = 0.03). Adverse events secondary to tattooing were infrequent, and most were cases of ink spillage. Limited information was available for other localization techniques.
CONCLUSION
Conventional colonoscopy has a higher incidence of localization error compared to colonoscopic tattooing for localization of colorectal cancer. Colonoscopic tattooing is safe and leads to fewer tumor localization errors. Given the widespread adoption of laparoscopic resections for colorectal cancer, routine colonoscopic tattooing should be adopted. However, studies directly comparing different localization techniques are needed.
Topics: Colonoscopy; Colorectal Neoplasms; Humans; Models, Statistical; Preoperative Care; Tattooing
PubMed: 27699516
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-016-5236-8 -
Journal of Crohn's & Colitis Apr 2018The impact of vedolizumab, a gut-selective monoclonal antibody, on postoperative outcomes is unclear. This study aimed to assess the impact of preoperative vedolizumab... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
The impact of vedolizumab, a gut-selective monoclonal antibody, on postoperative outcomes is unclear. This study aimed to assess the impact of preoperative vedolizumab treatment on the rate of postoperative complications in patients with inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] undergoing abdominal surgery.
METHODS
A systematic search of multiple electronic databases from inception until May 2017 identified studies reporting rates of postoperative complications in vedolizumab-treated IBD patients compared to no biologic exposure or anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) treated IBD patients. Outcomes of interest included postoperative infectious complications and overall postoperative complications. Pooled risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals were estimated using the random-effects model.
RESULTS
Five studies comprising 307 vedolizumab-treated IBD patients, 490 anti-TNF-treated IBD patients and 535 IBD patients not exposed to preoperative biologic therapy were included. The risk of postoperative infectious complications (risk ratio [RR] 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37-2.65) and overall postoperative complications [RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.46-2.15] were not significantly different between vedolizumab-treated patients and those who received no preoperative biologic therapy. In addition, the risk of postoperative infectious complications [RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.34-2.90] and overall postoperative complications [RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.44-1.92] were not significantly different between vedolizumab-treated vs anti-TNF-treated patients.
CONCLUSIONS
Preoperative vedolizumab treatment in IBD patients does not appear to be associated with an increased risk of postoperative infectious or overall postoperative complications compared to either preoperative anti-TNF therapy or no biologic therapy. Future prospective studies which include perioperative drug level monitoring are needed to confirm these findings.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Gastrointestinal Agents; Humans; Infections; Odds Ratio; Postoperative Complications; Preoperative Care; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha
PubMed: 29718245
DOI: 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjy022 -
Obesity Surgery Aug 2023Preoperative oesophagogastroduodenoscopy (OGD) in bariatric surgery remains a controversial topic, with a large variety in practice globally. An electronic database... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Preoperative oesophagogastroduodenoscopy (OGD) in bariatric surgery remains a controversial topic, with a large variety in practice globally. An electronic database search of Medline, Embase and PubMed was performed in an aim to categorise the findings of preoperative endoscopies in bariatric patients. A total of 47 studies were included in this meta-analysis resulting in 23,368 patients being assessed. Of patients assessed, 40.8% were found to have no novel findings, 39.7% had novel findings which did not affect surgical planning, 19.8% had findings that affected their surgery and 0.3% were ruled to not be suitable for bariatric surgery. Preoperative OGD is altering surgical planning in one-fifth of patients; however, further comparative studies are required to determine if each patient should undergo this procedure especially if asymptomatic.
Topics: Humans; Obesity, Morbid; Bariatric Surgery; Bariatrics; Preoperative Care; Endoscopy, Digestive System
PubMed: 37314649
DOI: 10.1007/s11695-023-06680-6 -
European Journal of Anaesthesiology Mar 2016Postoperative pain continues to be undertreated after noncardiac surgery. Preoperative analgesic administration may enhance postoperative analgesia. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Postoperative pain continues to be undertreated after noncardiac surgery. Preoperative analgesic administration may enhance postoperative analgesia.
OBJECTIVE
To determine the effects of preoperative administration of celecoxib in noncardiac surgery on pain and postoperative outcomes.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINHAL Web of Sciences and ProQuest databases were searched from inception to 2014. Reference lists of retrieved articles and grey literature were searched for additional trials.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Articles were included if they enrolled patients of at least 18 years of age and randomised patients to receive celecoxib within 4 h of noncardiac surgery. Studies were excluded if they were animal studies, reviews/meta-analyses, did not report pain as an outcome or used epidural analgesia.
RESULTS
Twenty trials met the eligibility criteria. Preoperative celecoxib in 14 studies (994 patients) amenable to meta-analysis demonstrated a significant decrease in 24-h parenteral morphine-equivalent consumption (mean difference -4.13 mg, 95% confidence interval -5.58 to -2.67, I = 94%). Eleven studies (755 patients) assessed postoperative pain scores at 24 h and found a significant decrease with celecoxib use [mean difference (on a 0-10 pain scale) -1.02, 95% confidence interval -1.54 to -0.50, I = 99%]. The risks of postoperative nausea and vomiting were also decreased by 44% (P = 0.01) and 38% (P = 0.03), respectively. Preoperative celecoxib did not improve patient satisfaction or length of recovery room stay, or increase intraoperative bleeding. Subgroup analyses indicated no difference between celecoxib 200 and 400 mg or between a single preoperative dose and continued postoperative dosing.
CONCLUSION
Results of this study are limited by significant heterogeneity and inclusion of mainly small trials. However, there appears to be a slight to modest benefit of preoperative celecoxib on reducing postoperative morphine consumption, pain, nausea and vomiting.
Topics: Celecoxib; Cyclooxygenase 2 Inhibitors; Humans; Pain Measurement; Pain, Postoperative; Preoperative Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26760402
DOI: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000000346 -
International Journal of Colorectal... Dec 2022Preoperative carbohydrate loading has been introduced as a component of many enhanced recovery after surgery programs. Evaluation of current evidence for preoperative... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Preoperative carbohydrate loading has been introduced as a component of many enhanced recovery after surgery programs. Evaluation of current evidence for preoperative carbohydrate loading in colorectal surgery has never been synthesized.
METHODS
MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched until May 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing patients undergoing colorectal surgery with and without preoperative carbohydrate loading were included. Primary outcomes were changes in blood insulin and glucose levels. A pairwise meta-analysis was performed using inverse variance random effects.
RESULTS
The search yielded 3656 citations, from which 12 RCTs were included. In total, 387 patients given preoperative carbohydrate loading (47.2% female, age: 62.0 years) and 371 patients in control groups (49.4% female, age: 61.1 years) were included. There was no statistical difference for blood glucose and insulin levels between both patient groups. Patients receiving preoperative carbohydrate loading experienced a shorter time to first flatus (SMD: - 0.48 days, 95% CI: - 0.84 to - 0.12, p = 0.008) and stool (SMD: - 0.50 days, 95% CI: - 0.86 to - 0.14, p = 0.007). Additionally, length of stay was shorter in the preoperative carbohydrate loading group (SMD: - 0.51 days, 95% CI: - 0.88 to - 0.14, p = 0.007). There was no difference in postoperative morbidity and patient well-being between both groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Preoperative carbohydrate loading does not significantly impact postoperative glycemic control in patients undergoing colorectal surgery; however, it may be associated with a shorter length of stay and faster return of bowel function. It merits consideration for inclusion within colorectal enhanced recovery after surgery protocols.
Topics: Female; Humans; Middle Aged; Male; Diet, Carbohydrate Loading; Colorectal Surgery; Preoperative Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Insulin; Length of Stay; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 36472671
DOI: 10.1007/s00384-022-04288-3 -
Physical Therapy Mar 2023Preoperative exercise (prehabilitation) is commonly used as a method to reduce pain and improve function postoperatively. The purpose of this systematic review was to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Preoperative exercise (prehabilitation) is commonly used as a method to reduce pain and improve function postoperatively. The purpose of this systematic review was to determine therapeutic benefits of preoperative exercise on postoperative pain, function, quality of life (QOL), and risk of complications across various types of surgeries.
METHODS
Three electronic databases were used to perform a literature search. Full articles with randomized designs comparing a preoperative exercise program vs no formal program were included. The primary outcome was postoperative pain. QOL, function, and postoperative complications were analyzed as secondary outcomes. The primary meta-analysis was performed in those with joint replacement surgery because there were only 5 with other surgical types.
RESULTS
A total of 28 articles were included, of which 23 were from individuals with total joint replacement surgery. Preoperative exercise resulted in lower pain ≤2 months and 3 to 5 months after joint replacement surgery with a moderate standardized mean difference (95% CI at <2 months = -0.34 [-0.59 to -0.09]; at 3 to 5 months = -0.41 [-0.70 to -0.11]) compared with nonexercised controls. However, ≥6 months after joint replacement surgery, preoperative exercise groups showed no significant differences in postoperative pain (standardized mean difference = -0.17 [-0.35 to 0.01]) compared with nonexercised controls. QOL and subjective and objective function were improved ≤2 months after joint replacement surgery but were not different ≥6 months post-surgery. Reduction in risk of postoperative complications was favored with preoperative exercise.
CONCLUSION
Preoperative exercise has a modest effect on postoperative pain, function, and quality of life within the first 6 months after surgery and reduces the risk of developing postoperative complications in individuals undergoing joint replacement surgery. The effect of preoperative exercise on other surgery types is inconclusive.
IMPACT
This systematic review supports using preoperative exercise to improve pain and function outcomes for those with joint replacement surgery.
Topics: Humans; Quality of Life; Preoperative Exercise; Preoperative Care; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee; Pain, Postoperative; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 37172124
DOI: 10.1093/ptj/pzac169 -
Surgical Endoscopy May 2017Recent evidence indicates that a preoperative warm-up is a potentially useful tool in facilitating performance. But what factors drive such improvements and how should a... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Recent evidence indicates that a preoperative warm-up is a potentially useful tool in facilitating performance. But what factors drive such improvements and how should a warm-up be implemented?
METHODS
In order to address these issues, we adopted a two-pronged approach: (1) we conducted a systematic review of the literature to identify existing studies utilising preoperative simulation techniques; (2) we performed task analysis to identify the constituent parts of effective warm-ups. We identified five randomised control trials, four randomised cross-over trials and four case series. The majority of these studies reviewed surgical performance following preoperative simulation relative to performance without simulation.
RESULTS
Four studies reported outcome measures in real patients and the remainder reported simulated outcome measures. All but one of the studies found that preoperative simulation improves operative outcomes-but this improvement was not found across all measured parameters. While the reviewed studies had a number of methodological issues, the global data indicate that preoperative simulation has substantial potential to improve surgical performance. Analysis of the task characteristics of successful interventions indicated that the majority of these studies employed warm-ups that focused on the visual motor elements of surgery. However, there was no theoretical or empirical basis to inform the design of the intervention in any of these studies.
CONCLUSIONS
There is an urgent need for a more rigorous approach to the development of "warm-up" routines if the potential value of preoperative simulation is to be understood and realised. We propose that such interventions need to be grounded in theory and empirical evidence on human motor performance.
Topics: Clinical Competence; Endoscopy; Humans; Medical Errors; Preoperative Care; Quality Assurance, Health Care
PubMed: 27633438
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-016-5218-x -
Orthopaedics & Traumatology, Surgery &... Jun 2023Planned overlapping surgery can improve efficiency, reduce costs and help manage long waiting lists; yet, this practice has been questioned due to patient safety... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Planned overlapping surgery can improve efficiency, reduce costs and help manage long waiting lists; yet, this practice has been questioned due to patient safety concerns. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to answer the question: (1) are there any differences in the risk of postoperative adverse outcomes; and (2) are there any differences in length of stay or length of surgery, in elective total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) performed either as non-overlapping surgery (NOS) or overlapping surgery (OS).
PATIENTS AND METHODS
A systematic search of literature in the databases of MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase and Cochrane from dates of inception was performed. All studies published in English were included. Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies-of Interventions (ROBINS-I) and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework were utilised. Relative risk (RR) was used for dichotomous outcomes, while mean difference (MD) was used for continuous variables, with 95% confidence intervals. Alpha was set at 0.05.
RESULTS
A total of nine studies with 120,625 patients were included for analyses. There were no statistically significant differences for overall rates of postoperative complications, dislocations, fractures, infections, readmissions or revision surgery nor with length of stay or length of surgery (p>0.05). Patient characteristics between groups were similar (p>0.05).
DISCUSSION
There were no differences in postoperative adverse outcomes for elective orthopaedic THA and TKA performed as NOS when compared to OS. Operating schedules for OS in elective lower limb arthroplasty appear to be safe, given appropriate patient selection processes and may be a useful method to improve hospital efficiency. Informed consent and preoperative patient education should remain paramount.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
IV.
Topics: Humans; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee; Postoperative Complications; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip; Reoperation; Preoperative Care; Length of Stay
PubMed: 35472455
DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2022.103299 -
International Journal of Cardiology Apr 2015In cardiac surgery, postoperative low cardiac output has been shown to correlate with increased rates of organ failure and mortality. Catecholamines have been the... (Review)
Review
In cardiac surgery, postoperative low cardiac output has been shown to correlate with increased rates of organ failure and mortality. Catecholamines have been the standard therapy for many years, although they carry substantial risk for adverse cardiac and systemic effects, and have been reported to be associated with increased mortality. On the other hand, the calcium sensitiser and potassium channel opener levosimendan has been shown to improve cardiac function with no imbalance in oxygen consumption, and to have protective effects in other organs. Numerous clinical trials have indicated favourable cardiac and non-cardiac effects of preoperative and perioperative administration of levosimendan. A panel of 27 experts from 18 countries has now reviewed the literature on the use of levosimendan in on-pump and off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting and in heart valve surgery. This panel discussed the published evidence in these various settings, and agreed to vote on a set of questions related to the cardioprotective effects of levosimendan when administered preoperatively, with the purpose of reaching a consensus on which patients could benefit from the preoperative use of levosimendan and in which kind of procedures, and at which doses and timing should levosimendan be administered. Here, we present a systematic review of the literature to report on the completed and ongoing studies on levosimendan, including the newly commenced LEVO-CTS phase III study (NCT02025621), and on the consensus reached on the recommendations proposed for the use of preoperative levosimendan.
Topics: Cardiac Surgical Procedures; Cardiotonic Agents; Cardiovascular Diseases; Clinical Trials as Topic; Europe; Humans; Hydrazones; Perioperative Care; Preoperative Care; Pyridazines; Simendan
PubMed: 25734940
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2015.02.022 -
Hernia : the Journal of Hernias and... Dec 2021Preoperative progressive pneumoperitoneum (PPP) is a technique that has been used since 1947 to expand the abdominal cavity volume, for presurgical preparation of... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Preoperative progressive pneumoperitoneum (PPP) is a technique that has been used since 1947 to expand the abdominal cavity volume, for presurgical preparation of patients with large hernias. This systematic review attempts to answer some unresolved questions about PPP, while using the evidence to clarify the different forms that the procedure has taken over time.
PURPOSE
The purpose of the paper was to analyze the literature about PPP and gather information about the procedure and its indications, advantages, and disadvantages.
METHODS
A systematic review was carried out according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) criteria. The database searches, in English and Spanish, were made using the terms "preoperative pneumoperitoneum," "progressive pneumoperitoneum," "preoperative pneumoperitoneum," and "progressive pneumoperitoneum," for the period between 1 January 1940 and 31 May 2019. Indications, techniques, results, and complications were registered. The statistical analysis was based on means, standard deviations, medians, mode, and interquartile ranges for quantitative variables, and frequencies and percentages for categories.
RESULTS
The qualitative synthesis was made on the basis of 53 articles that reported the treatment of a total of 1216 patients. The most frequent indication for PPP was a large incisional hernia with loss of domain. The most common technique employed a spinal needle or multipurpose catheter by the anatomical method in the left hypochondrium. In spite of the heterogeneity of the data and the management of different volumes of air and daily insufflations, 99.6% of visceral reintroduction and 86% of primary fascial closure was achieved. Complications had an incidence of 12%, mostly minor, and there were five mortalities.
CONCLUSION
Preoperative progressive pneumoperitoneum (PPP) is a beneficial and safe technique to use in preparing patients with large hernias, but the procedure is not free of complications. The technique has evolved through the years and, although many variations exist, it is possible to establish an algorithm for its application.
Topics: Hernia, Ventral; Herniorrhaphy; Humans; Incisional Hernia; Insufflation; Pneumoperitoneum; Pneumoperitoneum, Artificial; Preoperative Care
PubMed: 32519198
DOI: 10.1007/s10029-020-02247-x