-
World Journal of Gastroenterology May 2015To investigate whether prophylactic abdominal drainage is necessary after pancreatic resection. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
To investigate whether prophylactic abdominal drainage is necessary after pancreatic resection.
METHODS
PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched to obtain relevant articles published before January 2014. Publications were retrieved if they met the selection criteria. The outcomes of interest included: mortality, morbidity, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), clinically relevant pancreatic fistula (CR-PF), abdominal abscess, reoperation rate, the rate of interventional radiology drainage, and the length of hospital stay. Subgroup analyses were also performed for pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) and for distal pancreatectomy. Begg's funnel plot and the Egger regression test were employed to assess potential publication bias.
RESULTS
Nine eligible studies involving a total of 2794 patients were identified and included in this meta-analysis. Of the included patients, 1373 received prophylactic abdominal drainage. A fixed-effects model meta-analysis showed that placement of prophylactic drainage did not have beneficial effects on clinical outcomes, including morbidity, POPF, CR-PF, reoperation, interventional radiology drainage, and length of hospital stay (Ps > 0.05). In addition, prophylactic drainage did not significantly increase the risk of abdominal abscess. Overall analysis showed that omitting prophylactic abdominal drainage resulted in higher mortality after pancreatectomy (OR = 1.56; 95%CI: 0.93-2.92). Subgroup analysis of PD showed similar results to those in the overall analysis. Elimination of prophylactic abdominal drainage after PD led to a significant increase in mortality (OR = 2.39; 95%CI: 1.22-4.69; P = 0.01).
CONCLUSION
Prophylactic abdominal drainage after pancreatic resection is still necessary, though more evidence from randomized controlled trials assessing prophylactic drainage after PD and distal pancreatectomy are needed.
Topics: Abdominal Abscess; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Chi-Square Distribution; Drainage; Female; Humans; Length of Stay; Male; Middle Aged; Odds Ratio; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Reoperation; Risk Factors; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 25987799
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i18.5719 -
Endoscopic Ultrasound 2021EUS-guided pelvic abscess drainage (EUS-PAD) is a procedure that utilizes an echoendoscope to visualize an area of interest for needle insertion and placement of a...
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
EUS-guided pelvic abscess drainage (EUS-PAD) is a procedure that utilizes an echoendoscope to visualize an area of interest for needle insertion and placement of a stent, catheter, or both for drainage of the target abscess. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis for the safety and efficacy of EUS-PAD.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We conducted a comprehensive search of several databases and conference proceedings including PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and Web of Science databases (earliest inception to February 2020). The primary outcomes for this study were the technical and clinical success of EUS-PAD. The secondary outcomes assessed for this study were adverse events of the procedure and subgroup analysis of individual adverse events.
RESULTS
Eight studies with a total of 135 patients combined were included in our analysis. The rate of technical success was 100% and the calculated pooled rate of clinical success was 92% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 87%, 98%; P = 0.31; I = 15%). The calculated pooled rate of adverse events was 9.4% (±17.9%), with stent migration (5.5 ± 18.06%) being the most common adverse event.
CONCLUSION
EUS-PAD offers a viable alternative that can minimize the need for surgical intervention in the drainage of pelvic abscesses. EUS-PAD has also demonstrated long-term clinical success with an acceptable rate of complications.
PubMed: 33463556
DOI: 10.4103/eus.eus_71_20 -
Endoscopic Ultrasound 2020ERCP is the current procedure of choice for patients with jaundice caused by biliary obstruction. EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has emerged as an alternative to... (Review)
Review
ERCP is the current procedure of choice for patients with jaundice caused by biliary obstruction. EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has emerged as an alternative to ERCP in patients requiring biliary drainage. The aim of the study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to report the overall efficacy and safety of EUS-BD. We conducted a comprehensive search of several databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and LILACS databases (earliest inception to June 2018) to identify studies that reported EUS-BD in patients. The primary outcome was to look at the technical and clinical success of the procedure. The secondary analysis focused on calculating the pooled rate of re-interventions and all adverse-events, along with the commonly reported adverse-event subtypes. Twenty-three studies reporting on 1437 patients were identified undergoing 1444 procedures. Majority of the patient population were male (53.86%), with an average age of 67.22 years. The pooled technical success rates and clinical success rates were 91.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 87.7-94.2, I = 76.5) and 87% (95% CI: 82.3-90.6, I = 72.4), respectively. The total adverse event rates were 17.9% (95% CI: 14.3-22.2, I = 69.1). Subgroup analysis of three major individual adverse events was bile leak: 4.1% (2.7-6.2, I = 46.7), stent migration: 3.9% (2.5-6.2, I = 43.5), and infection: 3.8% (2.8-5.1, I = 0) Substantial heterogeneity was noted in the analysis. EUS-BD has high technical and clinical success rate and hence a very effective procedure. Concerns about publication bias exist. Careful consideration should be given to the adverse events and weighing the risks and benefits of the alternative nonsurgical/surgical approaches.
PubMed: 32295967
DOI: 10.4103/eus.eus_80_19 -
Journal of Investigative Surgery : the... Dec 2023Our objective is to compare the early outcomes associated with passive (gravity) drainage (PG) and active drainage (AD) after surgery. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Our objective is to compare the early outcomes associated with passive (gravity) drainage (PG) and active drainage (AD) after surgery.
METHODS
Studies published until April 28, 2022 were retrieved from the PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, Web of Science databases.
RESULTS
Nine studies with 14,169 patients were identified. Two groups had the same intra-abdominal infection rate (RR: 0.55; = 0.13); In subgroup analysis of pancreaticoduodenectomy, active drainage had no significant effect on postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) rate (RR: 1.21; = 0.26) and clinically relevant POPF (CR-POPF) (RR: 1.05; = 0.72); Active drainage was not associated with lower percutaneous drainage rate (RR: 1.00; = 0.96), incidence of sepsis (RR: 1.00; = 0.99) and overall morbidity (RR: 1.02; = 0.73). Both groups had the same POPF rate (RR: 1.20; = 0.18) and CR-POPF rate (RR: 1.20; = 0.18) after distal pancreatectomy. There was no difference between two groups on the day of drain removal after pancreaticoduodenectomy (Mean difference: -0.16; = 0.81) and liver surgery (Mean difference: 0.03; = 0.99).
CONCLUSIONS
Active drainage is not superior to passive drainage and both drainage methods can be considered.
Topics: Humans; Abdomen; Pancreas; Drainage; Pancreatectomy; Postoperative Complications; Pancreaticoduodenectomy
PubMed: 37733388
DOI: 10.1080/08941939.2023.2180115 -
Journal of Minimal Access Surgery 2022Ultrasound (US)- or computed tomography-guided drainage for abdominal abscess is currently the first-line options for drainage, but both options have disadvantages.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Ultrasound (US)- or computed tomography-guided drainage for abdominal abscess is currently the first-line options for drainage, but both options have disadvantages. Patients without adequate windows for drainage mostly undergo surgical drainage. However, surgical drainage is invasive and expensive. Endoscopic US (EUS)-guided drainage is a minimally invasive alternative for abdominal abscess, but there is less consensus on its efficacy, safety and complications. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate EUS-guided drainage for abdominal abscess.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We retrieved relevant papers on EUS-guided drainage for abdominal abscess from the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and EMBASE databases. Each paper was reviewed, and data were extracted. We used R software version 3.6.3 to perform the meta-analysis. Fixed effects models were used for merging data.
RESULTS
A total of 11 papers met the inclusion criteria, with a total sample population of 264 patients. The meta-analysis showed that the pooled clinical success rate was 90% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85-0.95), the technical success rate was 99% (95% CI, 0.97-1.00) and the recurrence rate was 1% (95% CI, 0.00-0.03). Three studies reported the complications, including perforation, bleeding and stent migration; none of the other eight studies reported complications. There were no significant differences between subgroups. There was no publication bias in either the clinical or the technical success rates.
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis showed that EUS-guided drainage for abdominal abscess was effective and safe, with an excellent technical success rate. In addition, EUS-guided drainage could be used for abscesses with complex anatomy. Nevertheless, complications and stent type should be considered.
PubMed: 35915535
DOI: 10.4103/jmas.jmas_349_21 -
The Turkish Journal of Pediatrics 2023Acute mastoiditis (AM) is a severe infection of the mastoid air cells that occurs in cases of acute, sub-acute, or chronic middle ear infections. No definitive consensus... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Acute mastoiditis (AM) is a severe infection of the mastoid air cells that occurs in cases of acute, sub-acute, or chronic middle ear infections. No definitive consensus regarding the management of AM has been identified. The current guidelines include a conservative approach (parenteral antibiotics alone, antibiotics plus minor surgical procedures such as myringotomy with a ventilation tube inserted or drainage of the subperiosteal abscess through retro-auricolar incision or needle aspiration) or surgical treatment (mastoidectomy). The main aim of this review was to evaluate and summarize the current knowledge about the management of pediatric AM by analyzing the current evidence in the literature.
METHODS
We examined the following bibliographic electronic databases: Pubmed and the Cochrane Library, from the inception date until February 2023. The search was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISM). The key words used for the search across electronic databases were: `mastoiditis` and `management`; `mastoiditis` and `surgery`; `mastoiditis` and `conservative`; `mastoiditis` and `antibiotics`; `mastoiditis` and `myringotomy`; `mastoiditis` and `grommet`; `mastoiditis` and `drainage`; and `mastoiditis` and `mastoidectomy`.
RESULTS
We selected 12 articles involving 1124 episodes of mastoiditis. Some of these studies considered medical therapy alone as a valid first step, whereas others considered a minor surgical intervention as an initial approach along with antibiotic therapy. Considering the studies that evaluated medical therapy as the initial sole treatment option, the success rate of antibiotics alone was 24.6%. Overall, the success rate of minor surgical procedures, excluding mastoidectomy, was 87.7%, whereas the mastoidectomy success rate was 97%.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, there is no shared consensus on the diagnostic or therapeutic approach to mastoiditis. Conservative therapy has gained considerable ground in recent times, quite limiting the predominant role of mastoidectomy. Further studies will be necessary to definitely develop standardized protocols shared in the scientific community.
Topics: Humans; Child; Mastoiditis; Abscess; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Conservative Treatment
PubMed: 38204305
DOI: 10.24953/turkjped.2023.320 -
PloS One 2018Breast tuberculosis in male is a rarely reported and poorly described condition. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
SETTING
Breast tuberculosis in male is a rarely reported and poorly described condition.
OBJECTIVE
To quantify the number of breast tuberculosis in men, to describe clinical presentation and to present the diagnostic and therapeutic procedures applied.
DESIGN
A systematic review of the literature including reports published in English, Spanish and French until December 2017.
RESULTS
The search yielded 26 cases of male breast tuberculosis, median age 56.5 years. Most presented with an isolated breast lump (89%), associated with axillary lymphadenitis (27.8%) and skin inflammation (33.3%). The most common constitutional symptoms were pain (64.7%) and fever (35.3%). Fine-needle aspiration cytology and culture were the most common diagnostic modality (61.5%). Standard anti-tuberculosis regimen was the main treatment, alone or accompanied or preceded by incision and drainage.
CONCLUSIONS
The risk of breast tuberculosis in men appears to be low, but the condition can be difficult to diagnose and the diagnostic delays can be long. Overall prognosis is good following standard anti-tuberculosis regimen with or without incision/drainage.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Biopsy, Fine-Needle; Breast Diseases; Combined Modality Therapy; Female; Geography, Medical; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Publication Bias; Sex Factors; Symptom Assessment; Tuberculosis
PubMed: 29614082
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0194766 -
Annals of Medicine Dec 2023Pancreatic fluid collections (PFC) are debris or fluid of the pancreas that needs to be drained out. This may result from surgery or necrotizing pancreatitis. This... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND/AIMS
Pancreatic fluid collections (PFC) are debris or fluid of the pancreas that needs to be drained out. This may result from surgery or necrotizing pancreatitis. This meta-analysis compared the outcomes of PFC through endoscopic and percutaneous interventions.
METHODS
A medical database was searched up to June 2022, comparing the outcomes of endoscopic drainage (ED) and percutaneous drainage (PD) for the PFC. Eligible studies reporting clinical and technical success and adverse events were selected.
RESULTS
Seventeen studies with 1170 patients were included for meta-analysis, of which 543 patients underwent ED and 627 underwent PD. The odd ratio (OR) of technical success was 0.81 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31, 2.1) and clinical success was in the favor of the ED group at OR 2.23 (95% CI 1.45, 3.41). Adverse events OR 0.62 (95% CI 0.27, 1.39) and stent migration OR 0.61 (95% CI 0.10, 3.88) were the same in both groups, but hospital stay pooled mean difference of 15.02 days (95% CI 9.86, 20.18), mortality OR 0.24 (95% CI 0.09, 0.67), and re-interventions OR 0.25 (95% CI 0.16, 0.40) favored ED.
CONCLUSIONS
ED is safe and efficient for PFC with higher clinical success, lower mortality rate, hospital stay, and re-interventions compared with PD.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatic Diseases; Pancreas; Endoscopy; Stents; Drainage; Treatment Outcome; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 37243522
DOI: 10.1080/07853890.2023.2213898 -
Neurosurgical Review Sep 2023Chronic subdural hematoma (cSDH) is a common neurosurgical condition that can cause severe morbidity and mortality. cSDH recurs after surgical evacuation in 5-30% of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Chronic subdural hematoma (cSDH) is a common neurosurgical condition that can cause severe morbidity and mortality. cSDH recurs after surgical evacuation in 5-30% of patients, but drains may help reduce this risk. We aimed to investigate the effect of drainage versus no drainage on the rates of recurrence and mortality, as well as the clinical outcomes of cSDH. Following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, we searched four electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science) to identify eligible studies reported up to June 2022. Using Review Manager software, we reported four primary outcomes as odds ratios (ORs) and confidence intervals (CIs). The meta-analysis included a total of 10 studies with 1961 patients. The use of drainage was found to be significantly more effective than non-drainage in reducing the "mortality rate" (OR = 0.65, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.97; P = 0.04), the "recurrence rate" (OR = 0.39, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.55; P < 0.00001), and occurrence of "gross focal neurological deficit" (OR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.89; P = 0.01). No significant difference was found in the occurrence of a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 15 (OR = 1.21, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.76; P = 0.30). The use of drains after burr-hole irrigation reduces the recurrence, mortality, and gross focal neurological deficit rates of chronic subdural hematomas.
Topics: Humans; Hematoma, Subdural, Chronic; Drainage; Databases, Factual; Glasgow Coma Scale; Odds Ratio
PubMed: 37726502
DOI: 10.1007/s10143-023-02153-7 -
Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery Oct 2023The use of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) is almost inevitable in cardiac surgery. However, it can cause complications, including hemolysis. Until now, there have not been... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The use of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) is almost inevitable in cardiac surgery. However, it can cause complications, including hemolysis. Until now, there have not been any standards for reducing hemolysis from CPB. Therefore, this systematic review was conducted to determine the factors that increase or reduce hemolysis in the use of CPB.
METHODS
Keywords Earches (cardiac surgery AND cardiopulmonary bypass AND hemolysis) were done on PubMed databases and Cochrane CENTRAL from 1990-2021 for published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that studied interventions on CPB, in cardiac surgery patients, and measured hemolysis as one of the outcomes. Studies involving patients with preoperative hematological disorders, prosthetic valves, preoperative use of intra-aortic balloon pumps and extracorporeal circulation, emergency and minimally invasive surgery are excluded RESULTS: The search yielded 64 studies that met the inclusion criteria, which involved a total of 3,434 patients. The most common surgery was coronary revascularization (75%). Out of 64 studies, 33 divided into 7 analyses. Remaining 31 studies were synthesized qualitatively. Significant decreases were found in centrifugal vs roller pumps for PFHb (p = 0.0006) and Hp (p < 0.0001) outcomes, separated vs combined suctioned blood (p = 0.003), CPB alternatives vs conventional CPB (p < 0.0001), and mini extracorporeal circulation (MiniECC) vs conventional CPB for LDH (p = 0.0008). Significant increases were found in pulsatility (p = 0.03) and vacuum-assisted venous drainage (VAVD) vs gravity-assisted venous drainage (GAVD) (p = 0.002).
CONCLUSION
The review shows that hemolysis could be caused by several factors and efforts have been made to reduce it, combining significant efforts could be beneficial. However, this review has limitations, such as heterogeneity due to no standards available for conducting CPB. Therefore, further research with standardized guidelines for CPB is needed to yield more comparable studies. Meta-analyses with more specific parameters should be done to minimize heterogeneity.
Topics: Humans; Cardiopulmonary Bypass; Hemolysis; Cardiac Surgical Procedures; Extracorporeal Circulation; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 37833747
DOI: 10.1186/s13019-023-02406-y