-
Open Forum Infectious Diseases Feb 2021Increasing rates of antimicrobial-resistant organisms have focused attention on sink drainage systems as reservoirs for hospital-acquired Gammaproteobacteria... (Review)
Review
Increasing rates of antimicrobial-resistant organisms have focused attention on sink drainage systems as reservoirs for hospital-acquired Gammaproteobacteria colonization and infection. We aimed to assess the quality of evidence for transmission from this reservoir. We searched 8 databases and identified 52 studies implicating sink drainage systems in acute care hospitals as a reservoir for Gammaproteobacterial colonization/infection. We used a causality tool to summarize the quality of evidence. Included studies provided evidence of co-occurrence of contaminated sink drainage systems and colonization/infection, temporal sequencing compatible with sink drainage reservoirs, some steps in potential causal pathways, and relatedness between bacteria from sink drainage systems and patients. Some studies provided convincing evidence of reduced risk of organism acquisition following interventions. No single study provided convincing evidence across all causality domains, and the attributable fraction of infections related to sink drainage systems remains unknown. These results may help to guide conduct and reporting in future studies.
PubMed: 33553469
DOI: 10.1093/ofid/ofaa590 -
Scientific Reports Feb 2021Prophylactic drainage after major liver resection remains controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluate the value of prophylactic drainage after major... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Prophylactic drainage after major liver resection remains controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluate the value of prophylactic drainage after major liver resection. PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central were searched. Postoperative bile leak, bleeding, interventional drainage, wound infection, total complications, and length of hospital stay were the outcomes of interest. Dichotomous outcomes were presented as odds ratios (OR) and for continuous outcomes, weighted mean differences (MDs) were computed by the inverse variance method. Summary effect measures are presented together with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). The certainty of evidence was evaluated using the Grades of Research, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, which was mostly moderate for evaluated outcomes. Three randomized controlled trials and five non-randomized trials including 5,050 patients were included. Bile leakage rate was higher in the drain group (OR: 2.32; 95% CI 1.18-4.55; p = 0.01) and interventional drains were inserted more frequently in this group (OR: 1.53; 95% CI 1.11-2.10; p = 0.009). Total complications were higher (OR: 1.71; 95% CI 1.45-2.03; p < 0.001) and length of hospital stay was longer (MD: 1.01 days; 95% CI 0.47-1.56 days; p < 0.001) in the drain group. The use of prophylactic drainage showed no beneficial effects after major liver resection; however, the definitions and classifications used to report on postoperative complications and surgical complexity are heterogeneous among the published studies. Further well-designed RCTs with large sample sizes are required to conclusively determine the effects of drainage after major liver resection.
Topics: Abdomen; Drainage; Hepatectomy; Humans; Length of Stay; Liver; Pancreas; Postoperative Complications; Time Factors
PubMed: 33542274
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-82333-x -
Surgical Endoscopy Jan 2024Postoperative pancreatic fluid collections (POPFCs) are common adverse events (AEs) after pancreatic surgery and may need interventions. Endoscopic ultrasound... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Postoperative pancreatic fluid collections (POPFCs) are common adverse events (AEs) after pancreatic surgery and may need interventions. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage for POPFCs is increasingly reported, but its appropriate timing has not been fully elucidated. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate treatment outcomes of POPFCs according to the timing of EUS-guided drainage.
METHODS
Using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane database, we identified clinical studies published until December 2022 with data comparing outcomes of early and delayed EUS-guided drainage for POPFCs. We pooled data on AEs, mortality, and technical and clinical success rates, using the random-effects model.
RESULTS
From 1415 papers identified in the initial literature search, we identified 6 retrospective studies, including 128 and 107 patients undergoing early and delayed EUS-guided drainage for POPFCs. The threshold of early and delayed drainage ranged from 14 to 30 days. Distal pancreatectomy was the major cause of POPFCs, ranging from 44 to 100%. The pooled odds ratio (OR) for AEs was 0.81 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.40-1.64, P = 0.55) comparing early to delayed drainage. There was no procedure-related mortality. Technical success was achieved in all cases and a pooled OR of clinical success was 0.60 (95% CI 0.20-1.83, P = 0.37).
CONCLUSION
POPFCs can be managed by early EUS-guided drainage without an increase in AEs.
Topics: Humans; Retrospective Studies; Endosonography; Pancreatic Diseases; Pancreatectomy; Drainage; Ultrasonography, Interventional; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38017158
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-023-10568-y -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2016The use of surgical drains has been considered mandatory after pancreatic surgery. The role of prophylactic abdominal drainage to reduce postoperative complications... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The use of surgical drains has been considered mandatory after pancreatic surgery. The role of prophylactic abdominal drainage to reduce postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery is controversial.
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
For the initial version of this review, we searched the Cochrane Library (2015, Issue 3), MEDLINE (1946 to 9 April 2015), Embase (1980 to 9 April 2015), Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to 9 April 2015), and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) (1978 to 9 April 2015). For this updated review, we searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and CBM from 2015 to 28 August 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomized controlled trials that compared abdominal drainage versus no drainage in people undergoing pancreatic surgery. We also included randomized controlled trials that compared different types of drains and different schedules for drain removal in people undergoing pancreatic surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We identified five trials (of 985 participants) which met our inclusion criteria. Two review authors independently identified the trials for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias. We performed the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For all analyses, we employed the random-effects model.
MAIN RESULTS
Drain use versus no drain useWe included three trials involving 711 participants who were randomized to the drainage group (N = 358) and the no drainage group (N = 353) after pancreatic surgery. There was inadequate evidence to establish the effect of drains on mortality at 30 days (2.2% with drains versus 3.4% no drains; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.99; three studies; low-quality evidence), mortality at 90 days (2.9% versus 11.6%; RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.10; one study; low-quality evidence), intra-abdominal infection (7.3% versus 8.5%; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.20; three studies; very low-quality evidence), wound infection (12.3% versus 13.3%; RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.36; three studies; low-quality evidence), morbidity (64.8% versus 62.0%; RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.16; three studies; moderate-quality evidence), length of hospital stay (MD -0.66 days, 95% CI -1.60 to 0.29; three studies; moderate-quality evidence), or additional open procedures for postoperative complications (11.5% versus 9.1%; RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.52; three studies). There was one drain-related complication in the drainage group (0.6%). Type of drainWe included one trial involving 160 participants who were randomized to the active drain group (N = 82) and the passive drain group (N = 78) after pancreatic surgery. There was no evidence of differences between the two groups in mortality at 30 days (1.2% with active drain versus 0% with passive drain), intra-abdominal infection (0% versus 2.6%), wound infection (6.1% versus 9.0%; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.05), morbidity (22.0% versus 32.1%; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.15), or additional open procedures for postoperative complications (1.2% versus 7.7%; RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.29). The active drain group was associated with shorter length of hospital stay (MD -1.90 days, 95% CI -3.67 to -0.13; 14.1% decrease of an 'average' length of hospital stay) than in the passive drain group. The quality of evidence was low, or very low. Early versus late drain removalWe included one trial involving 114 participants with a low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula who were randomized to the early drain removal group (N = 57) and the late drain removal group (N = 57) after pancreatic surgery. There was no evidence of differences between the two groups in mortality at 30 days (0% for both groups) or additional open procedures for postoperative complications (0% with early drain removal versus 1.8% with late drain removal; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.01). The early drain removal group was associated with lower rates of postoperative complications (38.5% versus 61.4%; RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.93), shorter length of hospital stay (MD -2.10 days, 95% CI -4.17 to -0.03; 21.5% decrease of an 'average' length of hospital stay), and hospital costs (17.0% decrease of 'average' hospital costs) than in the late drain removal group. The quality of evidence for each of the outcomes was low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
It is unclear whether routine abdominal drainage has any effect on the reduction of mortality and postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery. In case of drain insertion, low-quality evidence suggests that active drainage may reduce hospital stay after pancreatic surgery, and early removal may be superior to late removal for people with low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula.
Topics: Abdomen; Device Removal; Drainage; Humans; Length of Stay; Pancreas; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors
PubMed: 27764898
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010583.pub3 -
Cureus Oct 2022Considerable variation exists in the clinical practice of cerebrospinal fluid diversion for medically refractory intracranial hypertension in patients with acute... (Review)
Review
Considerable variation exists in the clinical practice of cerebrospinal fluid diversion for medically refractory intracranial hypertension in patients with acute traumatic brain injury (TBI), which is achievable via lumbar or ventricular drainage. This systematic review sought to compile the available evidence for the efficacy and safety of the use of lumbar drains for intracranial pressure (ICP) control. A systematic review of the literature was performed with the search and data extraction performed by two reviewers independently in duplicate. Nine independent studies were identified, enrolling 230 patients, 159 with TBI. Efficacy for ICP control was observed across all studies, with immediate and sustained effect, reducing medical therapy requirements. Lumbar drainage with medical therapy appears effective when used alone and as an adjunct to ventricular drainage. Safety reporting varied in quality. Clinical or radiological incidents of cerebral herniation (with an unclear relationship to lumbar drainage) were observed in 14/230 patients resulting in one incident of morbidity without adverse patient outcome. The available data is generally poor in quality and volume, but supportive of the efficacy of lumbar drainage for ICP control. Few reports of adverse outcomes are suggestive of, but are insufficient to confirm, the safety of use in the appropriate patient and clinical setting. Further large prospective observational studies are required to generate sufficient support of an acceptable safety profile.
PubMed: 36348893
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.30033 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2015Wound drains are often used after plastic and reconstructive surgery of the breast, in order to reduce potential complications. It is unclear whether there is any... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Wound drains are often used after plastic and reconstructive surgery of the breast, in order to reduce potential complications. It is unclear whether there is any evidence to support this practice and we therefore undertook a systematic review of the best evidence available.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the safety and efficacy of the use of wound drains following elective plastic and reconstructive surgery procedures of the breast.
SEARCH METHODS
For the first update of this review we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 4 March 2015); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 2); Ovid MEDLINE (2012 to March 3 2015); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations March 3 2015); Ovid EMBASE (2012 to March 3 2015); and EBSCO CINAHL (2012 to March 4 2015). There were no restrictions on the basis of date or language of publication.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Three review authors undertook independent screening of the search results. All randomised trials (RCTs) that compared the use of a wound drain with no wound drain following plastic and reconstructive surgery of the breast (breast augmentation, breast reduction and breast reconstruction) in women were eligible.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors undertook independent data extraction of study characteristics, methodological quality and outcomes (e.g. infection, other wound complications, pain, and length of hospital stay). Risk of bias was assessed independently by two review authors. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals. Analysis was on an intention-to-treat basis.
MAIN RESULTS
Three randomised trials were identified and included in the review out of 190 studies that were initially screened; all evaluated wound drainage after breast reduction surgery. No new trials were identified for this first update. In total there were 306 women in the three trials, and 505 breasts were studied (254 drained, and 251 who were not drained). Apart from a significantly shorter duration of hospital stay for those participants who did not have drains (MD 0.77; 95% CI 0.40 to 1.14), there was no statistically significant impact of the use of drains on outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The limited evidence available shows no significant benefit of using post-operative wound drains in reduction mammoplasty, though hospital stay may be shorter when drains are not used. No data are available for breast augmentation or breast reconstruction, and this requires investigation.
Topics: Drainage; Female; Humans; Length of Stay; Mammaplasty; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26487173
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007258.pub3 -
International Journal of Molecular... Jun 2023The global number of people with Alzheimer's disease (AD) doubles every 5 years. It has been established that unless an effective treatment for AD is found, the... (Review)
Review
The global number of people with Alzheimer's disease (AD) doubles every 5 years. It has been established that unless an effective treatment for AD is found, the incidence of AD will triple by 2060. However, pharmacological therapies for AD have failed to show effectiveness and safety. Therefore, the search for alternative methods for treating AD is an urgent problem in medicine. The lymphatic drainage and removal system of the brain (LDRSB) plays an important role in resistance to the progression of AD. The development of methods for augmentation of the LDRSB functions may contribute to progress in AD therapy. Photobiomodulation (PBM) is considered to be a non-pharmacological and safe approach for AD therapy. Here, we highlight the most recent and relevant studies of PBM for AD. We focus on emerging evidence that indicates the potential benefits of PBM during sleep for modulation of natural activation of the LDRSB at nighttime, providing effective removal of metabolites, including amyloid-β, from the brain, leading to reduced progression of AD. Our review creates a new niche in the therapy of brain diseases during sleep and sheds light on the development of smart sleep technologies for neurodegenerative diseases.
Topics: Humans; Alzheimer Disease; Amyloid beta-Peptides; Brain; Sleep; Phototherapy
PubMed: 37446135
DOI: 10.3390/ijms241310946 -
Frontiers in Surgery 2023Fibrin sealants have recently been thoroughly studied in several surgical specialties; however, results are conflicting. We aimed to examine the safety and efficacy of... (Review)
Review
Fibrin sealants have recently been thoroughly studied in several surgical specialties; however, results are conflicting. We aimed to examine the safety and efficacy of fibrin sealant patients having thyroidectomies. A thorough, systematic literature search was carried out using the terms thyroidectomy and fibrin sealant using PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Clinicaltrials.gov on December 25, 2022. The primary outcome of interest in this review was the amount of drainage, whereas hospitalization, the length of drain retention, and temporary dysphonia were secondary outcomes. Our meta-analysis ( = 249) showed that application of fibrin sealant is associated with lesser total drainage [SMD -2.76 (-4.83, -0.69); = 0.009; I2 97%], but not with retention time of drainage [SMD -2.35 (-4.71, 0.01); = 0.05; I2 98%], hospitalization time [SMD -1.65 (-3.70, 0.41); = 0.12; I2 97%], and transient dysphonia [RR 1.01 (0.27, 3.82); = 0.99; I2 0%]. The systematic review found that the use of fibrin sealant in thyroid surgery is positive in total volume drainage but not with the retention time of drainage, hospitalization time, and transient dysphonia. It is notable to remember that this interpretation is complicated by uneven, occasionally subpar technique and trial reporting, according to this systematic review's findings.
PubMed: 37409068
DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2023.1149882 -
World Journal of Gastroenterology Jul 2014The continued need to develop less invasive alternatives to surgical and radiologic interventions has driven the development of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided... (Review)
Review
The continued need to develop less invasive alternatives to surgical and radiologic interventions has driven the development of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided treatments. These include EUS-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections, EUS-guided necrosectomy, EUS-guided cholangiography and biliary drainage, EUS-guided pancreatography and pancreatic duct drainage, EUS-guided gallbladder drainage, EUS-guided drainage of abdominal and pelvic fluid collections, EUS-guided celiac plexus block and celiac plexus neurolysis, EUS-guided pancreatic cyst ablation, EUS-guided vascular interventions, EUS-guided delivery of antitumoral agents and EUS-guided fiducial placement and brachytherapy. However these procedures are technically challenging and require expertise in both EUS and interventional endoscopy, such as endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and gastrointestinal stenting. We undertook a systematic review to record the entire body of literature accumulated over the past 2 decades on EUS-guided interventions with the objective of performing a critical appraisal of published articles, based on the classification of studies according to levels of evidence, in order to assess the scientific progress made in this field.
Topics: Catheter Ablation; Cholangiography; Digestive System Diseases; Digestive System Surgical Procedures; Drainage; Endoscopy, Digestive System; Endosonography; Endovascular Procedures; Ethanol; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Injections; Nerve Block; Patient Selection; Predictive Value of Tests; Treatment Outcome; Ultrasonography, Interventional
PubMed: 25024600
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i26.8424 -
The Journal of Laryngology and Otology Sep 2023Peritonsillar abscess is a localised infection in the peritonsillar space. Pus from the abscess can contain anaerobes. Many clinicians prescribe metronidazole in... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Peritonsillar abscess is a localised infection in the peritonsillar space. Pus from the abscess can contain anaerobes. Many clinicians prescribe metronidazole in addition to penicillin, but evidence to support this is limited. This review assessed the evidence of benefit of metronidazole for the treatment of peritonsillar abscess.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted of the literature and databases including Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, PubMed and Cochrane library. Search terms included all variations of peritonsillar abscess, penicillin and metronidazole.
RESULTS
Three randomised, control trials were included. All studies assessed the clinical outcomes after treatment for peritonsillar abscess, including recurrence rate, length of hospital stay and symptom improvement. There was no evidence to suggest additional benefit with metronidazole, with studies suggesting increased side effects.
CONCLUSION
Evidence does not support the addition of metronidazole in first-line management of peritonsillar abscess. Further trials to establish optimum dose and duration schedules of oral phenoxymethylpenicillin would benefit clinical practice.
Topics: Humans; Peritonsillar Abscess; Metronidazole; Penicillins; Penicillin V; Drainage; Anti-Bacterial Agents
PubMed: 37194922
DOI: 10.1017/S0022215123000804