-
Orthopedic Research and Reviews 2021The purpose of this study was to systematically review the outcomes of arthroscopic management of meniscal cysts and to compare the results across the reported surgical... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
The purpose of this study was to systematically review the outcomes of arthroscopic management of meniscal cysts and to compare the results across the reported surgical techniques.
METHODS
Following the PRISMA methodology, 3 databases (PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science) were searched from inception to June 2021 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies reporting outcomes on patients with meniscal cysts who underwent arthroscopic surgery. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used to evaluate the study quality.
RESULTS
Eighteen studies examining 753 patients (761 meniscal cysts; 92.5% in the lateral meniscus) were included. Overall, 486/736 (66.0%) patients underwent purely arthroscopic decompression, 174/736 (23.6%) received arthroscopic excision, 58/736 (7.9%) received arthroscopy assisted percutaneous drainage, and 18/736 (2.4%) received a combined procedure. The recurrence rate for meniscal cysts was 7.1% across all arthroscopic procedures; 8.3%, 3.4%, and 0% for arthroscopic decompression, arthroscopic excision, and arthroscopy assisted percutaneous drainage, respectively. A total of 79.3% of patients returned to the same level of sport and 85.7% had resolution or minimal knee symptoms after arthroscopic surgery for meniscal cysts. Patient perception of surgical outcomes after any type of arthroscopic surgery for meniscal cysts was reported by 5 studies, with 189/203 (93.1%) reporting satisfaction with their surgical procedure.
CONCLUSION
Based on current evidence, arthroscopic management of meniscal cysts yields satisfactory patient outcomes, low cyst recurrence rates and high return to sport rates regardless of the surgical technique. Rates of cyst recurrence were relatively higher with arthroscopic decompression versus excision and percutaneous drainage; however, prospective studies using modern surgical techniques are necessary to better evaluate the surgical outcomes and to compare those with nonoperative modalities, given that a significant proportion of the included articles in this review were relatively outdated.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Systematic review of level II and IV studies.
PubMed: 34557043
DOI: 10.2147/ORR.S321893 -
Medicine Dec 2017Our objective is to assess the function of peritoneal drainage, which is placed after pancreatic surgery. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
Our objective is to assess the function of peritoneal drainage, which is placed after pancreatic surgery.
BACKGROUND
With the medical advancement some study put forward that peritoneal drainage is not the necessary after pancreatic surgery; it cannot improve the complications of postoperation even leading to more infection and so on. However, there is no one study can clear and definite whether omitting the drainage after surgery or not.
METHOD
Searching databases consist of all kinds of searching tools, such as Medline, The Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, etc. All the included studies should meet our demand of this meta-analysis. In the all interest outcomes blow we take the full advantage of RevMan5 to assess, the main measure is odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence, the publication bias are assessed by Egger test and Begg test.
RESULT
The rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) in no drainage group is much lower than that in routine drainage group (OR = 0.47, I = 43%, P < .00001). The result of the 2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in this pool are almost accord with the former (OR = 0.57, I = 0%, P = .05). In subgroup the result suggest that the peritoneal drainage can increase the morbidity (OR = 0.71, I = 15%, P = .0002) after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), but reduce the mortality (OR = 1.92, I = 8%, P = .03) after PD. In distal pancreatectomy (DP) the rate of POPF and clinically relevant pancreatic fistula (CR-PF) is lower without drainage; there is no significant difference in the CR-PF, hospital stay, intra-abdominal abscess, radiologic invention, and the reoperation.
CONCLUSION
In the current meta-analysis, we cannot make a clear conclusion whether to abandon the routine drainage or not, but from the subgroup we can see something is safer than nothing to routine peritoneal drainage. And the patients who underwent DP can attempt to omit the drainage. But it still needs more RCTs to assess the necessity of drainage.
Topics: Abdominal Abscess; Drainage; Female; Humans; Male; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Postoperative Complications; Prognosis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Reoperation; Risk Assessment; Survival Analysis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29390482
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000009245 -
Surgical Endoscopy Jun 2022The outcomes of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided drainage (EUSD) in treatment of pancreas fluid collection (PFC) after pancreas surgeries have not been evaluated... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The outcomes of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided drainage (EUSD) in treatment of pancreas fluid collection (PFC) after pancreas surgeries have not been evaluated systematically. The current systematic review and meta-analysis aim to evaluate the outcomes of EUSD in patients with PFC after pancreas surgery and compare it with percutaneous drainage (PCD).
METHODS
PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched for studies reporting outcomes EUSD in treatment of PFC after pancreas surgeries, from their inception until January 2022. Two meta-analyses were performed: (A) a systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis of EUSD (meta-analysis A) and (B) two-arm meta-analysis comparing the outcomes of EUSD and PCD (meta-analysis B). Pooled proportion of the outcomes in meta-analysis A as well as odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD) in meta-analysis B was calculated to determine the technical and clinical success rates, complications rate, hospital stay, and recurrence rate. ROBINS-I tool was used to assess the risk of bias.
RESULTS
The literature search retrieved 610 articles, 25 of which were eligible for inclusion. Included clinical studies comprised reports on 695 patients. Twenty-five studies (477 patients) were included in meta-analysis A and eight studies (356 patients) were included in meta-analysis B. In meta-analysis A, the technical and clinical success rates of EUSD were 94% and 87%, respectively, with post-procedural complications of 14% and recurrence rates of 9%. Meta-analysis B showed comparable technical and clinical success rates as well as complications rates between EUSD and PCD. EUSD showed significantly shorter duration of hospital stay compared to that of patients treated with PCD.
CONCLUSION
EUSD seems to be associated with high technical and clinical success rates, with low rates of procedure-related complications. Although EUSD leads to shorter hospital stay compared to PCD, the certainty of evidence was low in this regard.
Topics: Drainage; Endosonography; Humans; Length of Stay; Pancreas; Pancreatic Diseases
PubMed: 35246738
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-022-09137-6 -
World Journal of Emergency Surgery :... Jan 2023A series of randomized controlled trials have investigated the efficacy and safety of different timings of interventions and methods of intervention. However, the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
A series of randomized controlled trials have investigated the efficacy and safety of different timings of interventions and methods of intervention. However, the optimal treatment strategy is not yet clear.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov and the Cochrane Library until November 30, 2022. A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis were performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Trials comparing different treatment strategies for necrotizing pancreatitis were included. This study was registered in the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42022364409) to ensure transparency.
RESULTS
We analyzed a total of 10 studies involving 570 patients and 8 treatment strategies. Although no statistically significant differences were identified comparing odds ratios, trends were confirmed by the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) scores. The interventions with a low rate of mortality were delayed surgery (DS), delayed surgical step-up approach (DSU) and delayed endoscopic step-up approach (DEU), while the interventions with a low rate of major complications were DSU, DEU and DS. According to the clustered ranking plot, DSU performed the best overall in reducing mortality and major complications, while DD performed the worst. Analysis of the secondary endpoints confirmed the superiority of DEU and DSU in terms of individual components of major complications (organ failure, pancreatic fistula, bleeding, and visceral organ or enterocutaneous fistula), exocrine insufficiency, endocrine insufficiency and length of stay. Overall, DSU was superior to other interventions.
CONCLUSION
DSU was the optimal treatment strategy for necrotizing pancreatitis. Drainage alone should be avoided in clinical practice. Any interventions should be postponed for at least 4 weeks if possible. The step-up approach was preferred.
Topics: Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Bayes Theorem; Pancreatitis, Acute Necrotizing; Drainage
PubMed: 36707836
DOI: 10.1186/s13017-023-00479-7 -
Polski Przeglad Chirurgiczny Jun 2021An ongoing debate concerns the need for routine placement of prophylactic intra-abdominal drains following kidney transplantation. <br/><br/>Aim: We... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
An ongoing debate concerns the need for routine placement of prophylactic intra-abdominal drains following kidney transplantation. <br/><br/>Aim: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether such an approach brings any advantages in the prevention of perirenal transplant fluid collection, surgical site infection, lymphocele, hematoma, urinoma, wound dehiscence, graft loss, and need for reoperation. <br/><br/>Methods: We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis of non-randomized studies of intervention comparing drained and drain-free adult renal graft recipients regarding perirenal transplant fluid collection and other wound complications. ROBINS-I tool and funnel plot asymmetry analysis were used to assess the risk of bias. <br/><br/>Results: Five studies at moderate to critical risk of bias were included. A total of 2094 renal graft recipients were evaluated. Our analysis revealed no significant differences between drained and drain-free patients regarding perirenal transplant fluid collection (pooled odds ratio [OR], 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28-2.17; I 2 = 72%), surgical site infection (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 0.11-24.88; I 2 = 80%), lymphocele (OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.02-15.27; I 2 = 0%), hematoma (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.12-3.99; I 2 = 71%), and wound dehiscence (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.21-2.70; I 2 = 0%). There was insufficient data concerning urinoma, graft loss, and need for reoperation. <br/><br/>Conclusions: The available evidence is weak. Our findings show that the use of intra-abdominal drains after kidney transplantation seems to have neither beneficial nor harmful effects on perirenal transplant fluid collection and other wound complications. The present study does not support the routine placement of surgical drains after kidney transplantation. <i>In this systematic review and meta-analysis we summarize the most up-to-date evidence for and against the routine use of intra-abdominal drain following renal transplantation.</i>.
Topics: Adult; Drainage; Hematoma; Humans; Kidney Transplantation; Reoperation; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 34515654
DOI: 10.5604/01.3001.0014.9166 -
Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) 2023Biliary drainage for Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma (PCCA) can be performed either by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography or Percutaneous Transhepatic Biliary... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Endoscopic Biliary Darinage (EBD) versus Percutaneous Transhepatic Biliary Drainage (PTBD) for biliary drainage in patients with Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma (PCCA): A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Biliary drainage for Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma (PCCA) can be performed either by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography or Percutaneous Transhepatic Biliary Drainage (PTBD). To date there is no consensus about which method is preferred. Taking that into account, the aim of this study is to compare Endoscopic Biliary Drainage (EBD) versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage in patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma through a systematic review and metanalysis. A comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases was performed. Evaluated outcomes included technical success, clinical success, post drainage complications (cholangitis, pancreatitis, bleeding, and major complications), crossover, hospital length stay, and seeding metastases. Data extracted from the studies were used to calculate Mean Differences (MD). Seventeen studies were included, with a total of 2284 patients (EBD = 1239, PTBD = 1045). Considering resectable PCCA, the PTBD group demonstrated lower rates of crossover (RD = 0.29; 95% CI 0.07‒0.51; p = 0.009 I² = 90%), post-drainage complications (RD = 0.20; 95% CI 0.06‒0.33; p < 0.0001; I² = 78%), and post-drainage pancreatitis (RD = 0.10; 95% CI 0.05‒0.16; p < 0.0001; I² = 64%). The EBD group presented reduced length of hospital stay (RD = -2.89; 95% CI -3.35 ‒ -2,43; p < 0.00001; I² = 42%). Considering palliative PCCA, the PTBD group demonstrated a higher clinical success (RD = -0.19; 95% CI -0.27 ‒ -0.11; p < 0.00001; I² = 0%) and less post-drainage cholangitis (RD = 0.08; 95% CI 0.01‒0.15; p = 0.02; I² = 48%) when compared to the EBD group. There was no statistical difference between the groups regarding: technical success, post-drainage bleeding, major post-drainage complications, and seeding metastases.
Topics: Humans; Klatskin Tumor; Bile Duct Neoplasms; Cholangitis; Pancreatitis; Drainage; Bile Ducts, Intrahepatic; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 36681067
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinsp.2022.100163 -
Surgical Infections Jun 2022Splenic abscess (SA) is a rare, life-threatening illness that is generally treated with splenectomy. However, this is associated with high mortality and morbidity.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Splenic abscess (SA) is a rare, life-threatening illness that is generally treated with splenectomy. However, this is associated with high mortality and morbidity. Recently, percutaneous drainage (PD) has emerged as an alternative therapy in select patients. In this study, we compare mortality and complications in patients with SA treated with splenectomy versus PD. A systematic literature search of 13 databases and online search engines was conducted from 2019 to 2020. A bivariate generalized linear mixed model (BGLMM) was used to conduct a separate meta-analysis for both mortality and complications. We used the risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) tool to evaluate risk of bias in non-randomized studies, and the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for assessing quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Results were presented according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The review included 46 retrospective studies from 21 countries. For mortality rate, 27 studies compared splenectomy and PD whereas 10 used PD only and nine used splenectomy only. Data for major complications were available in 18 two-arm studies, seven single-arm studies with PD, and seven single-arm studies with splenectomy. Of a total of 589 patients, 288 were treated with splenectomy and 301 underwent PD. Mortality rate was 12% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8%-17%) in patients undergoing splenectomy compared with 8% (95% CI, 4%-13%) with PD. Complication rates were 26% (95% CI, 16%-37%) in the splenectomy group compared with 10% (95% CI, 4%-17%) in the PD group. Percutaneous drainage s associated with a trend toward lower complications and mortality rates compared with splenectomy in the treatment of SA, however, these findings were not statistically significant. Because of the heterogeneity of the data, further prospective studies are needed to draw definitive conclusions.
Topics: Abdominal Abscess; Abscess; Drainage; Humans; Intraabdominal Infections; Retrospective Studies; Splenectomy; Splenic Diseases
PubMed: 35612434
DOI: 10.1089/sur.2022.072 -
Annals of Palliative Medicine Sep 2021Surgery is the clinically preferred treatment for high perianal abscesses. Incision and seton drainage improve the cure rate and reduce recurrence. We aimed to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Surgery is the clinically preferred treatment for high perianal abscesses. Incision and seton drainage improve the cure rate and reduce recurrence. We aimed to systematically evaluate the clinical effect and safety of incision and seton drainage in the treatment of high perianal abscess.
METHODS
China Knowledge Network (CNKI), WanFang database, VIP database, PubMed, and Cochrane Library were searched and all relevant Chinese and English language documents until July 2021were retrieved. All records that described randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of incision and seton drainage for the treatment of high perianal abscess were eligible. Documents that met the inclusion criteria were evaluated for bias using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk Evaluation Standard, and Revman5.4 software was used to analyze the data.
RESULTS
Fourteen RCTs were included. The results of nine studies showed that the clinical cure rate of the incision-seton group was higher than that of the incision-drainage group (P<0.05). Seven studies showed that the wound healing time of the incision-seton group was shorter than that of the incision-drainage group (P<0.05). Four studies showed that the visual analogue scale (VAS) score of the incision-seton group was lower than that of the incision-drainage group (P<0.05). Five studies showed that the Wexner score of the incision-seton group was lower than that of the incision-drainage group (P<0.05). Six studies showed that the formation rate of anal fistula in the incision-seton group was lower than that in the incision-drainage group (P<0.05). Six studies demonstrated that the recurrence rate of abscess in the incision-seton group was lower than that in the incision-drainage group (P<0.05). Seven studies showed that the incidence of adverse events in the incision-seton group was lower than that in the incision-drainage group (P<0.05). Five studies demonstrated that the length of stay in the incision-seton group was shorter than that of the incision-drainage group (P<0.05).
DISCUSSION
The choice of surgical methods in clinical research has always been controversial. The incision-seton method can effectively and safely treat high perianal abscess. However, the results of this meta-analysis still leave some gaps in the evidence. More large-sample, high-quality, and multi-center RCTs are needed.
Topics: Abscess; Anus Diseases; Drainage; Humans; Rectal Fistula; Recurrence
PubMed: 34628909
DOI: 10.21037/apm-21-2229 -
PloS One 2017The ideal invasive management as initial approach for pneumothorax (PTX) is still under debate. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
The ideal invasive management as initial approach for pneumothorax (PTX) is still under debate. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine the evidence for the effectiveness of intercostal tube drainage and other various invasive methods as the initial approach to all subtypes of PTX in adults.
METHODS
Three databases were searched from inception to May 29, 2016: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane CENTRAL. Randomised controlled trials that evaluated intercostal tube drainage as the control and various invasive methods as the intervention for the initial approach to PTX in adults were included. The primary outcome was the early success rate of each method, and the risk ratios (RRs) were used for an effect size measure. The secondary outcomes were recurrence rate, hospitalization rate, hospital stay, and complications.
RESULTS
Seven studies met our inclusion criteria. Interventions were aspiration in six studies and catheterization connected to a one-way valve in one study. Meta-analyses were conducted for early success rate, recurrence rate, hospitalization rate, and hospital stay. Aspiration was inferior to intercostal tube drainage in terms of early success rate (RR = 0.82, confidence interval [CI] = 0.72 to 0.95, I2 = 0%). While aspiration and intercostal tube drainage showed no significant difference in the recurrence rate (RR = 0.84, CI = 0.57 to 1.23, I2 = 0%), aspiration had shorter hospital stay than intercostal tube drainage (mean difference = -1.73, CI = -2.33 to -1.13, I2 = 0%). Aspiration had lower hospitalization rate than intercostal tube drainage, but marked heterogeneity was present (RR = 0.38, CI = 0.19 to 0.76, I2 = 85%).
CONCLUSION
Aspiration was inferior to intercostal tube drainage in terms of early resolution, but it had shorter hospital stay. The recurrence rate of aspiration and intercostal tube drainage did not differ significantly. The efficacy of catheterization connected to a one-way valve was inconclusive because of the small number of relevant studies. (Registration of study protocol: PROSPERO, CRD42016037866).
Topics: Drainage; Humans; Length of Stay; Pneumothorax; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28640890
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0178802 -
Cancers Apr 2021use of fibrin sealants following pelvic, paraaortic, and inguinal lymphadenectomy may reduce lymphatic morbidity. The aim of this meta-analysis is to evaluate if this... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
use of fibrin sealants following pelvic, paraaortic, and inguinal lymphadenectomy may reduce lymphatic morbidity. The aim of this meta-analysis is to evaluate if this finding applies to the axillary lymphadenectomy.
METHODS
randomized trials evaluating the efficacy of fibrin sealants in reducing axillary lymphatic complications were included. Lymphocele, drainage output, surgical-site complications, and hospital stay were considered as outcomes.
RESULTS
twenty-three randomized studies, including patients undergoing axillary lymphadenectomy for breast cancer, melanoma, and Hodgkin's disease, were included. Fibrin sealants did not affect axillary lymphocele incidence nor the surgical site complications. Drainage output, days with drainage, and hospital stay were reduced when fibrin sealants were applied ( < 0.0001, < 0.005, = 0.008).
CONCLUSION
fibrin sealants after axillary dissection reduce the total axillary drainage output, the duration of drainage, and the hospital stay. No effects on the incidence of postoperative lymphocele and surgical site complications rate are found.
PubMed: 33923153
DOI: 10.3390/cancers13092056