-
Critical Care (London, England) Jan 2023Post-cardiac arrest, outcomes for most patients are poor, regardless of setting. Many patients who do achieve spontaneous return of circulation require vasopressor... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Post-cardiac arrest, outcomes for most patients are poor, regardless of setting. Many patients who do achieve spontaneous return of circulation require vasopressor therapy to maintain organ perfusion. There is some evidence to support the use of corticosteroids in cardiac arrest.
RESEARCH QUESTION
Assess the efficacy and safety of corticosteroids in patients following in- and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.
STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS
We searched databases CINAHL, EMBASE, LILACS, MEDLINE, Web of Science, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrails.gov, and ICTRP. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined the efficacy and safety of corticosteroids, as compared to placebo or usual care in patients post-cardiac arrest. We pooled estimates of effect size using random effects meta-analysis and report relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed risk of bias (ROB) for the included trials using the modified Cochrane ROB tool and rated the certainty of evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology.
RESULTS
We included 8 RCTs (n = 2213 patients). Corticosteroids administered post-cardiac arrest had an uncertain effect on mortality measured at the longest point of follow-up (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.90-1.02, very low certainty, required information size not met using trial sequential analysis). Corticosteroids probably increase return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.18-1.47, moderate certainty) and may increase the likelihood of survival with good functional outcome (RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.87-2.54, low certainty). Corticosteroids may decrease the risk of ventilator associated pneumonia (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.46-1.09, low certainty), may increase renal failure (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.84-1.99, low certainty), and have an uncertain effect on bleeding (RR 2.04, 95% CI 0.53-7.84, very low certainty) and peritonitis (RR 10.54, 95% CI 2.99-37.19, very low certainty).
CONCLUSIONS
In patients during or after cardiac arrest, corticosteroids have an uncertain effect on mortality but probably increase ROSC and may increase the likelihood of survival with good functional outcome at hospital discharge. Corticosteroids may decrease ventilator associated pneumonia, may increase renal failure, and have an uncertain effect on bleeding and peritonitis. However, the pooled evidence examining these outcomes was sparse and imprecision contributed to low or very low certainty of evidence.
Topics: Humans; Heart Arrest; Peritonitis; Pneumonia, Ventilator-Associated; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Glucocorticoids; Treatment Outcome; Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest
PubMed: 36631807
DOI: 10.1186/s13054-022-04297-2 -
Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and... 2021Chronic pain is a common and distressing symptom reported by patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Clinical practice and research in this area do not appear to be...
BACKGROUND
Chronic pain is a common and distressing symptom reported by patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Clinical practice and research in this area do not appear to be advancing sufficiently to address the issue of chronic pain management in patients with CKD.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the prevalence and severity of chronic pain in patients with CKD.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
SETTING
Interventional and observational studies presenting data from 2000 or later. Exclusion criteria included acute kidney injury or studies that limited the study population to a specific cause, symptom, and/or comorbidity.
PATIENTS
Adults with glomerular filtration rate (GFR) category 3 to 5 CKD including dialysis patients and those managed conservatively without dialysis.
MEASUREMENTS
Data extracted included title, first author, design, country, year of data collection, publication year, mean age, stage of CKD, prevalence of pain, and severity of pain.
METHODS
Databases searched included MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library, last searched on February 3, 2020. Two reviewers independently screened all titles and abstracts, assessed potentially relevant articles, and extracted data. We estimated pooled prevalence of overall chronic pain, musculoskeletal pain, bone/joint pain, muscle pain/soreness, and neuropathic pain and the statistic was computed to measure heterogeneity. Random effects models were used to account for variations in study design and sample populations and a double arcsine transformation was used in the model calculations to account for potential overweighting of studies reporting either very high or very low prevalence measurements. Pain severity scores were calibrated to a score out of 10, to compare across studies. Weighted mean severity scores and 95% confidence intervals were reported.
RESULTS
Sixty-eight studies representing 16 558 patients from 26 countries were included. The mean prevalence of chronic pain in hemodialysis patients was 60.5%, and the mean prevalence of moderate or severe pain was 43.6%. Although limited, pain prevalence data for peritoneal dialysis patients (35.9%), those managed conservatively without dialysis (59.8%), those following withdrawal of dialysis (39.2%), and patients with earlier GFR category of CKD (61.2%) suggest similarly high prevalence rates.
LIMITATIONS
Studies lacked a consistent approach to defining the chronicity and nature of pain. There was also variability in the measures used to determine pain severity, limiting the ability to compare findings across populations. Furthermore, most studies reported mean severity scores for the entire cohort, rather than reporting the prevalence (numerator and denominator) for each of the pain severity categories (mild, moderate, and severe). Mean severity scores for a population do not allow for "responder analyses" nor allow for an understanding of clinically relevant pain.
CONCLUSIONS
Chronic pain is common and often severe across diverse CKD populations providing a strong imperative to establish chronic pain management as a clinical and research priority. Future research needs to move toward a better understanding of the determinants of chronic pain and to evaluating the effectiveness of pain management strategies with particular attention to the patient outcomes such as overall symptom burden, physical function, and quality of life. The current variability in the outcome measures used to assess pain limits the ability to pool data or make comparisons among studies, which will hinder future evaluations of the efficacy and effectiveness of treatments. Recommendations for measuring and reporting pain in future CKD studies are provided.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO Registration number CRD42020166965.
PubMed: 33680484
DOI: 10.1177/2054358121993995 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2021This is the second update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2015 and last updated in 2018. Appendectomy, the surgical removal of the appendix, is performed... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This is the second update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2015 and last updated in 2018. Appendectomy, the surgical removal of the appendix, is performed primarily for acute appendicitis. Patients who undergo appendectomy for complicated appendicitis, defined as gangrenous or perforated appendicitis, are more likely to suffer postoperative complications. The routine use of abdominal drainage to reduce postoperative complications after appendectomy for complicated appendicitis is controversial.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the safety and efficacy of abdominal drainage to prevent intraperitoneal abscess after appendectomy (irrespective of open or laparoscopic) for complicated appendicitis; to compare the effects of different types of surgical drains; and to evaluate the optimal time for drain removal.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Web of Science, the World Health Organization International Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and three trials registers on 24 February 2020, together with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared abdominal drainage versus no drainage in people undergoing emergency open or laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated appendicitis. We also included RCTs that compared different types of drains and different schedules for drain removal in people undergoing appendectomy for complicated appendicitis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently identified the trials for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias. We used the GRADE approach to assess evidence certainty. We included intraperitoneal abscess as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were wound infection, morbidity, mortality, hospital stay, hospital costs, pain, and quality of life.
MAIN RESULTS
Use of drain versus no drain We included six RCTs (521 participants) comparing abdominal drainage and no drainage in participants undergoing emergency open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis. The studies were conducted in North America, Asia, and Africa. The majority of participants had perforated appendicitis with local or general peritonitis. All participants received antibiotic regimens after open appendectomy. None of the trials was assessed as at low risk of bias. The evidence is very uncertain regarding the effects of abdominal drainage versus no drainage on intraperitoneal abscess at 30 days (risk ratio (RR) 1.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 3.21; 5 RCTs; 453 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or wound infection at 30 days (RR 2.01, 95% CI 0.88 to 4.56; 5 RCTs; 478 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There were seven deaths in the drainage group (N = 183) compared to one in the no-drainage group (N = 180), equating to an increase in the risk of 30-day mortality from 0.6% to 2.7% (Peto odds ratio 4.88, 95% CI 1.18 to 20.09; 4 RCTs; 363 participants; low-certainty evidence). Abdominal drainage may increase 30-day overall complication rate (morbidity; RR 6.67, 95% CI 2.13 to 20.87; 1 RCT; 90 participants; low-certainty evidence) and hospital stay by 2.17 days (95% CI 1.76 to 2.58; 3 RCTs; 298 participants; low-certainty evidence) compared to no drainage. The outcomes hospital costs, pain, and quality of life were not reported in any of the included studies. There were no RCTs comparing the use of drain versus no drain in participants undergoing emergency laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated appendicitis. Open drain versus closed drain There were no RCTs comparing open drain versus closed drain for complicated appendicitis. Early versus late drain removal There were no RCTs comparing early versus late drain removal for complicated appendicitis.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The certainty of the currently available evidence is low to very low. The effect of abdominal drainage on the prevention of intraperitoneal abscess or wound infection after open appendectomy is uncertain for patients with complicated appendicitis. The increased rates for overall complication rate and hospital stay for the drainage group compared to the no-drainage group are based on low-certainty evidence. Consequently, there is no evidence for any clinical improvement with the use of abdominal drainage in patients undergoing open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis. The increased risk of mortality with drainage comes from eight deaths observed in just under 400 recruited participants. Larger studies are needed to more reliably determine the effects of drainage on morbidity and mortality outcomes.
Topics: Abscess; Appendectomy; Appendicitis; Drainage; Humans; Peritonitis; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 34402522
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010168.pub4 -
International Journal of Colorectal... May 2021Damage control surgery (DCS) is the classic approach to manage severe trauma and has recently also been considered an appropriate approach to the treatment of critically... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Damage control surgery (DCS) is the classic approach to manage severe trauma and has recently also been considered an appropriate approach to the treatment of critically ill patients with severe intra-abdominal sepsis. The purpose of the present review is to evaluate the outcomes following DCS for Hinchey II-IV complicated acute diverticulitis (CAD).
METHODS
A comprehensive systematic search was undertaken to identify all randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies, irrespectively of their size, publication status, and language. Adults who have undergone DCS for CAD Hinchey II, III, or IV were included in this review. DCS is compared with the immediate and definitive surgical treatment in the form of HP, colonic resection, and primary anastomosis (RPA) with or without covering stoma or laparoscopic lavage. We searched the following electronic databases: PubMed MEDLINE, Scopus, and ISI Web of Knowledge. The protocol of this systematic review and meta-analysis was published on Prospero (CRD42020144953).
RESULTS
Nine studies with 318 patients, undergoing DCS, were included. The presence of septic shock at the presentation in the emergency department was heterogeneous, and the weighted mean rate of septic shock across the studies was shown to be 35.1% [95% CI 8.4 to 78.6%]. The majority of the patients had Hinchey III (68.3%) disease. The remainder had either Hinchey IV (28.9%) or Hinchey II (2.8%). Phase I is similarly described in most of the studies as lavage, limited resection with closed blind colonic ends. In a few studies, resection and anastomosis (9.1%) or suture of the perforation site (0.9%) were performed in phase I of DCS. In those patients who underwent DCS, the most common method of temporary abdominal closure (TAC) was the negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) (97.8%). The RPA was performed in 62.1% [95% CI 40.8 to 83.3%] and the 22.7% [95% CI 15.1 to 30.3%]: 12.8% during phase I and 87.2% during phase III. A covering ileostomy was performed in 6.9% [95% CI 1.5 to 12.2%]. In patients with RPA, the overall leak was 7.3% [95% CI 4.3 to 10.4%] and the major anastomotic leaks were 4.7% [95% CI 2.0 to 7.4%]; the rate of postoperative mortality was estimated to be 9.2% [95% CI 6.0 to 12.4%].
CONCLUSIONS
The present meta-analysis revealed an approximately 62.1% weighted rate of achieving GI continuity with the DCS approach to generalized peritonitis in Hinchey III and IV with major leaks of 4.7% and overall mortality of 9.2%. Despite the promising results, we are aware of the limitations related to the significant heterogeneity of inclusion criteria. Importantly, the low rate of reported septic shock may point toward selection bias. Further studies are needed to evaluate the clinical advantages and cost-effectiveness of the DCS approach.
Topics: Adult; Anastomosis, Surgical; Diverticulitis; Diverticulitis, Colonic; Humans; Intestinal Perforation; Laparoscopy; Peritonitis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33089382
DOI: 10.1007/s00384-020-03784-8 -
Medicine Nov 2014Many of the treatment strategies for sigmoid diverticulitis are actually focusing on nonoperative and minimally invasive approaches. The aim of this systematic review... (Review)
Review
Many of the treatment strategies for sigmoid diverticulitis are actually focusing on nonoperative and minimally invasive approaches. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the actual role of damage control surgery (DCS) in the treatment of generalized peritonitis caused by perforated sigmoid diverticulitis.A literature search was performed in PubMed and Google Scholar for articles published from 1960 to July 2013. Comparative and noncomparative studies that included patients who underwent DCS for complicated diverticulitis were considered.Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation score, duration of open abdomen, intensive care unit length of stay, reoperation, bowel resection performed at first operation, fecal diversion, method, and timing of closure of abdominal wall were the main outcomes of interest.According to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses algorithm for the literature search and review, 10 studies were included in this systematic review. DCS was exclusively performed in diverticulitis patients with septic shock or requiring vasopressors intraoperatively. Two surgical different approaches were highlighted: limited resection of the diseased colonic segment with or without stoma or reconstruction in situ, and laparoscopic washing and drainage without colonic resection.Despite the heterogeneity of patient groups, clinical settings, and interventions included in this review, DCS appears to be a promising strategy for the treatment of Hinchey III and IV diverticulitis, complicated by septic shock. A tailored approach to each patient seems to be appropriate.
Topics: APACHE; Acute Disease; Colon, Sigmoid; Diverticulitis; Humans; Intestinal Perforation; Length of Stay; Peritonitis; Time Factors
PubMed: 25437034
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000000184 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2015Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is common in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients on dialysis, causes chronic liver disease, increases mortality and impacts kidney... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is common in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients on dialysis, causes chronic liver disease, increases mortality and impacts kidney transplant outcomes. Sustained response to the preferred treatment with standard or pegylated (PEG) interferon is seen in 39% with side effects necessitating treatment discontinuation in 20%. We collated evidence for treatment response and harms of interventions for HCV infection in dialysis.
OBJECTIVES
We aimed to look at the benefits and harms of various interventions for HCV infection in CKD patients on HD or peritoneal dialysis, specifically on mortality, disease relapse, response to treatment, treatment discontinuation, time to recovery, quality of life, cost effectiveness,adverse effects, and other outcomes. We aimed to study comparisons of available interventions with a placebo or control group, combinations of interventions with placebo or control group, interventions with each other singly and in combination, available standard interventions with newer treatment modalities.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Kidney and Transplant's Specialised Register to 24 March 2015 through contact with the Trials' Search Co-ordinator. We also checked references of reviews, studies and contacted study authors to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, first period of randomised cross-over studies on interventions for HCV in CKD on dialysis were considered.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by the Cochrane Collaboration and also collected adverse effects data listed in included RCTs.
MAIN RESULTS
Ten RCTs (361 participants) met our inclusion criteria. Five RCTs (152 participants, 134 analysed) with low to moderate quality of evidence compared standard recombinant interferon with placebo or control. There was no significant difference for mortality (5 studies (134 participants): RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.06 to 13.23), relapses (1 study (36 participants): RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.88), sustained virological response (4 studies (98 participants): RR 3.25, 95% CI 0.81 to 13.07), treatment discontinuation (4 studies (116 participants): RR 4.59, 95% CI 0.49 to 42.69) and number with adverse events (5 studies (143 participants): RR 3.56, 95% CI 0.98 to 13.01). End of treatment response was significantly more for standard interferon (5 studies (132 participants): RR 8.62, 95% CI 3.03 to 24.55). There was overall low to unclear risk of bias and no significant heterogeneity.One RCT (50 participants) with moderate quality of evidence compared PEG interferon and standard interferon. There was no significant difference in mortality (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.81), relapses (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.25), sustained virological response (RR 2.40, 95% CI 0.99 to 5.81), treatment discontinuation (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.96) and number with major adverse events (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.96). End of treatment response was significantly more for PEG interferon (RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.15). There was overall low risk of bias.Two RCTs (97 participants) with moderate quality of evidence compared two doses of two different preparations of PEG interferon. Subgroup analysis comparing high and low doses of PEG interferon alpha-2a (135 µg/week versus 90 µg/week) and PEG interferon alpha-2b (1 µg/kg versus 0.5 µg/kg body weight/week) found no significant difference in mortality (2 studies (97 participants): RR 4.30, 95% CI 0.76 to 24.33), relapses (1 study (81 participants): RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.77), end of treatment response (2 studies (97 participants): RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.51 to 3.90), sustained virological response (2 studies (97 participants): RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.07), treatment discontinuation (2 studies (97 participants): RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.28), patients with adverse events (2 studies (97 participants): RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.83) or serious adverse events (2 studies (97 participants): RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.14). Both had overall low risk of bias and no significant subgroup differences.Two RCTs (62 participants) with moderate quality of evidence compared standard or PEG interferon alone or in combination with ribavirin. The only reported outcome in both was treatment discontinuation which was significantly more with ribavirin in the one study (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.84) and pooled 7/10 in the second.No RCTs had data on time to recovery, cost-effectiveness, quality of life, and other outcomes and in peritoneal dialysis.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Our review demonstrated that in CKD patients on haemodialysis with HCV infection treatment with standard interferon brings about an end of treatment but not a sustained virological response and is relatively well tolerated. PEG interferon is more effective than standard interferon for end of treatment response but not for sustained response; both were equally tolerated. Increasing doses of PEG interferon did not improve responses but high and low doses are equally tolerated. Addition of ribavirin results in more treatment discontinuation.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Drug Therapy, Combination; Hepatitis C; Humans; Interferon alpha-2; Interferon-alpha; Interferons; Polyethylene Glycols; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recombinant Proteins; Recurrence; Renal Dialysis; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic; Ribavirin; Withholding Treatment
PubMed: 26287983
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007003.pub2 -
Polski Przeglad Chirurgiczny May 2022<b> Aim: </b> The study was conducted to analyse the recent peer-reviewed literature related to symptomatic spilled gallstones after Laparoscopic...
<b> Aim: </b> The study was conducted to analyse the recent peer-reviewed literature related to symptomatic spilled gallstones after Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy (LC). </br></br> <b>Materials and methods:</b> Articles published in the peer-reviewed journals of repute from 20122022 were evaluated for nine variables including: [I] age of the patient, [II] gender, [III] interval since index LC, [IV] index LC if emergent/difficult or elective/straightforward, [V] clinical presentation, [VI] spilled gallstones if detected by imaging, [VII] management, [VIII] approach to management, [IX] number of spilled gallstones. </br></br> <b>Results:</b> There were a total of 71 cases (37 males and 34 females) with a mean age of 63.7 years. The time of onset of symptoms from spilled gallstones, after index LC, ranged from 2 days to 15 years and 57 patients (80.3%) presented within 6 years. Forty (56.3%) patients were unaware of the fact that gallstone spillage had occurred during index LC. The retained gallstones were detected by imaging in 47 (66.1%) cases and they were multiple in 51 (71.8%). In 52 patients (73.2%), the stones manifested as abdominal abscess/foreign body granuloma; the other presentations being pelvic pain/fistula, intestinal obstruction, abdominal lump simulating malignancy, incidental finding of metastatic lesions and generalized peritonitis. The major approaches adopted to retrieve the retained stones included open surgery, laparoscopy and percutaneous drainage. There were two deaths (2.9%) due to spilled gallstones. </br></br> <b>Conclusion:</b> Retained gallstones represent a complication of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) that has a potential to create morbidity and diagnostic difficulties, even after a substantial delay. There is a need to spread awareness about the adverse effects of spilled stones so that they are actively looked for and retrieved if gallbladder perforates during cholecystectomy. Whenever such a complication occurs, the patient should be properly informed and the details should be very clearly mentioned in the operation notes.
Topics: Female; Male; Humans; Middle Aged; Gallstones; Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic; Cholecystectomy; Laparoscopy; Abdominal Abscess; Abdominal Neoplasms
PubMed: 36805307
DOI: 10.5604/01.3001.0015.8571 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2014Caesarean section is a very common surgical procedure worldwide. Suturing the peritoneal layers at caesarean section may or may not confer benefit, hence the need to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Caesarean section is a very common surgical procedure worldwide. Suturing the peritoneal layers at caesarean section may or may not confer benefit, hence the need to evaluate whether this step should be omitted or routinely performed.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this review was to assess the effects of non-closure as an alternative to closure of the peritoneum at caesarean section on intraoperative and immediate- and long-term postoperative outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (1 November 2013).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials comparing leaving the visceral or parietal peritoneum, or both, unsutured at caesarean section with a technique which involves suturing the peritoneum in women undergoing elective or emergency caesarean section.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked it for accuracy.
MAIN RESULTS
A total of 29 trials were included in this review and 21 trials (17,276 women) provided data that could be included in an analysis. The quality of the trials was variable. 1. Non-closure of visceral and parietal peritoneum versus closure of both parietal layersSixteen trials involving 15,480 women, were included and analysed, when both parietal peritoneum was left unclosed versus when both peritoneal surfaces were closed. Postoperative adhesion formation was assessed in only four trials with 282 women, and no difference was found between groups (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to 1.29). There was significant reduction in the operative time (mean difference (MD) -5.81 minutes, 95% CI -7.68 to -3.93). The duration of hospital stay in a total of 13 trials involving 14,906 women, was also reduced (MD -0.26, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.05) days. In a trial involving 112 women, reduced chronic pelvic pain was found in the peritoneal non-closure group. 2. Non-closure of visceral peritoneum only versus closure of both peritoneal surfacesThree trials involving 889 women were analysed. There was an increase in adhesion formation (two trials involving 157 women, RR 2.49, 95% CI 1.49 to 4.16) which was limited to one trial with high risk of bias.There was reduction in operative time, postoperative days in hospital and wound infection. There was no significant reduction in postoperative pyrexia. 3. Non-closure of parietal peritoneum only versus closure of both peritoneal layersThe two identified trials involved 573 women. Neither study reported on postoperative adhesion formation. There was reduction in operative time and postoperative pain with no difference in the incidence of postoperative pyrexia, endometritis, postoperative duration of hospital stay and wound infection. In only one study, postoperative day one wound pain assessed by the numerical rating scale, (MD -1.60, 95% CI -1.97 to -1.23) and chronic abdominal pain d by the visual analogue score (MD -1.10, 95% CI -1.39 to -0.81) was reduced in the non-closure group. 4. Non-closure versus closure of visceral peritoneum when parietal peritoneum is closed.There was reduction in all the major urinary symptoms of frequency, urgency and stress incontinence when the visceral peritoneum is left unsutured.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There was a reduction in operative time across all the subgroups. There was also a reduction in the period of hospitalisation post-caesarean section except in the subgroup where parietal peritoneum only was not sutured where there was no difference in the period of hospitalisation. The evidence on adhesion formation was limited and inconsistent. There is currently insufficient evidence of benefit to justify the additional time and use of suture material necessary for peritoneal closure. More robust evidence on long-term pain, adhesion formation and infertility is needed.
Topics: Abdominal Wound Closure Techniques; Cesarean Section; Female; Humans; Length of Stay; Operative Time; Peritoneal Diseases; Peritoneum; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Suture Techniques; Tissue Adhesions
PubMed: 25110856
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000163.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2022Management of the open abdomen is a considerable burden for patients and healthcare professionals. Various temporary abdominal closure techniques have been suggested for... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Management of the open abdomen is a considerable burden for patients and healthcare professionals. Various temporary abdominal closure techniques have been suggested for managing the open abdomen. In recent years, negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) has been used in some centres for the treatment of non-trauma patients with an open abdomen; however, its effectiveness is uncertain.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) on primary fascial closure for managing the open abdomen in non-trauma patients in any care setting.
SEARCH METHODS
In October 2021 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL EBSCO Plus. To identify additional studies, we also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses, and health technology reports. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication, or study setting.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared NPWT with any other type of temporary abdominal closure (e.g. Bogota bag, Wittmann patch) in non-trauma patients with open abdomen in any care setting. We also included RCTs that compared different types of NPWT systems for managing the open abdomen in non-trauma patients.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed the study selection process, risk of bias assessment, data extraction, and GRADE assessment of the certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included two studies, involving 74 adults with open abdomen associated with various conditions, predominantly severe peritonitis (N = 55). The mean age of the participants was 52.8 years; the mean proportion of women was 39.2%. Both RCTs were carried out in single centres and were at high risk of bias. Negative pressure wound therapy versus Bogota bag We included one study (40 participants) comparing NPWT with Bogota bag. We are uncertain whether NPWT reduces time to primary fascial closure of the abdomen (NPWT: 16.9 days versus Bogota bag: 20.5 days (mean difference (MD) -3.60 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -8.16 to 0.96); very low-certainty evidence) or adverse events (fistulae formation, NPWT: 10% versus Bogota: 5% (risk ratio (RR) 2.00, 95% CI 0.20 to 20.33); very low-certainty evidence) compared with the Bogota bag. We are also uncertain whether NPWT reduces all-cause mortality (NPWT: 25% versus Bogota bag: 35% (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.88); very low-certainty evidence) or length of hospital stay compared with the Bogota bag (NPWT mean: 28.5 days versus Bogota bag mean: 27.4 days (MD 1.10 days, 95% CI -13.39 to 15.59); very low-certainty evidence). The study did not report the proportion of participants with successful primary fascial closure of the abdomen, participant health-related quality of life, reoperation rate, wound infection, or pain. Negative pressure wound therapy versus any other type of temporary abdominal closure There were no randomised controlled trials comparing NPWT with any other type of temporary abdominal closure. Comparison of different negative pressure wound therapy devices We included one study (34 participants) comparing different types of NPWT systems (Suprasorb CNP system versus ABThera system). We are uncertain whether the Suprasorb CNP system increases the proportion of participants with successful primary fascial closure of the abdomen compared with the ABThera system (Suprasorb CNP system: 88.2% versus ABThera system: 70.6% (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.14); very low-certainty evidence). We are also uncertain whether the Suprasorb CNP system reduces adverse events (fistulae formation, Suprasorb CNP system: 0% versus ABThera system: 23.5% (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.92); very low-certainty evidence), all-cause mortality (Suprasorb CNP system: 5.9% versus ABThera system: 17.6% (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.89); very low-certainty evidence), or reoperation rate compared with the ABThera system (Suprasorb CNP system: 100% versus ABThera system: 100% (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.12); very low-certainty evidence). The study did not report the time to primary fascial closure of the abdomen, participant health-related quality of life, length of hospital stay, wound infection, or pain.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on the available trial data, we are uncertain whether NPWT has any benefit in primary fascial closure of the abdomen, adverse events (fistulae formation), all-cause mortality, or length of hospital stay compared with the Bogota bag. We are also uncertain whether the Suprasorb CNP system has any benefit in primary fascial closure of the abdomen, adverse events, all-cause mortality, or reoperation rate compared with the ABThera system. Further research evaluating these outcomes as well as participant health-related quality of life, wound infection, and pain outcomes is required. We will update this review when data from the large studies that are currently ongoing are available.
Topics: Abdomen; Adult; Female; Humans; Middle Aged; Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy; Pain; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Wound Healing; Wound Infection
PubMed: 35514120
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013710.pub2 -
Endoscopy International Open Jul 2016Percutaneous endoscopic colostomy provides an alternative management option for patients with recurrent sigmoid volvulus who are considered too high risk to undergo... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND AND AIM
Percutaneous endoscopic colostomy provides an alternative management option for patients with recurrent sigmoid volvulus who are considered too high risk to undergo surgery. We reviewed the literature to assess whether the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines published in 2006 supporting the use of percutaneous endoscopic colostomy are still valid.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase. The exploded search terms "Percutaneous Endoscopic Colostomy" and "Sigmoid Volvulus" were used. Librarian support was used to ensure the maximum number of relevant articles were returned. Identified abstracts were then analyzed and included if they met the inclusion criteria.
RESULTS
Five observational studies and 5 case reports were identified that met the inclusion criteria. They provided data on 56 patients with recurrent sigmoid volvulus treated with percutaneous endoscopic colostomy placement. Sixteen of the 56 patients were treated with a single percutaneous endoscopic colostomy (PEC) tube while 38 patients were treated with 2 PEC tubes. For 2 patients the details of the procedure were unknown. Five patients developed major complications following the procedure: 1 patient developed peritonitis after 4 days, due to fecal contamination secondary to tube migration and 2 patients with cognitive impairment pulled their PEC tubes out. Two other patients died following PEC insertion. Nine patients developed minor complications following the procedure. The most commonly reported minor complication was infection at the PEC site. Four of 56 patients developed a recurrent sigmoid volvulus with a PEC tube in situ.
CONCLUSION
Although in these case series there is a 21 % risk of morbidity and 5 % risk of mortality from the use of a PEC, this is favorable compared to the mortality risk of 6.6 % to 44 % reported with operative intervention. This review of contemporary literature therefore supports the use of PEC in frail and elderly patients.
PubMed: 27556086
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-106957