-
Anaesthesia Jul 2021Tonsillectomy is one of the most frequently performed surgical procedures; however, pain management remains challenging. Procedure-specific efficacy as well as specific...
Tonsillectomy is one of the most frequently performed surgical procedures; however, pain management remains challenging. Procedure-specific efficacy as well as specific risks of treatment options should guide selection of pain management protocols based on evidence and should optimise analgesia without harm. The aims of this systematic review were to evaluate the available literature and develop recommendations for optimal pain management after tonsillectomy. A systematic review utilising preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis guidelines with procedure-specific postoperative pain management (PROSPECT) methodology was undertaken. Randomised controlled trials published in the English language up to November 2019 assessing postoperative pain using analgesic, anaesthetic or surgical interventions were identified. Out of the 719 potentially eligible studies identified, 226 randomised controlled trials met the inclusion criteria, excluding the studies examining surgical techniques. Pre-operative and intra-operative interventions that improved postoperative pain were paracetamol; non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; intravenous dexamethasone; ketamine (only assessed in children); gabapentinoids; dexmedetomidine; honey; and acupuncture. Inconsistent evidence was found for local anaesthetic infiltration; antibiotics; and magnesium sulphate. Limited evidence was found for clonidine. The analgesic regimen for tonsillectomy should include paracetamol; non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; and intravenous dexamethasone, with opioids as rescue analgesics. Analgesic adjuncts such as intra-operative and postoperative acupuncture as well as postoperative honey are also recommended. Ketamine (only for children); dexmedetomidine; or gabapentinoids may be considered when some of the first-line analgesics are contra-indicated. Further randomised controlled trials are required to define risk and combination of drugs most effective for postoperative pain relief after tonsillectomy.
Topics: Acupuncture; Analgesia; Analgesics; Anesthetics, Local; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Child; Honey; Humans; Pain Management; Pain, Postoperative; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Tonsillectomy
PubMed: 33201518
DOI: 10.1111/anae.15299 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Mar 2022To systematically compare the effect of direct oral anticoagulants and low molecular weight heparin for thromboprophylaxis on the benefits and harms to patients... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Benefits and harms of direct oral anticoagulation and low molecular weight heparin for thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically compare the effect of direct oral anticoagulants and low molecular weight heparin for thromboprophylaxis on the benefits and harms to patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery.
DESIGN
Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), up to August 2021.
REVIEW METHODS
Randomised controlled trials in adults undergoing non-cardiac surgery were selected, comparing low molecular weight heparin (prophylactic (low) or higher dose) with direct oral anticoagulants or with no active treatment. Main outcomes were symptomatic venous thromboembolism, symptomatic pulmonary embolism, and major bleeding. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used for network meta-analyses. Abstracts and full texts were screened independently in duplicate. Data were abstracted on study participants, interventions, and outcomes, and risk of bias was assessed independently in duplicate. Frequentist network meta-analysis with multivariate random effects models provided odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals, and GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation) assessments indicated the certainty of the evidence.
RESULTS
68 randomised controlled trials were included (51 orthopaedic, 10 general, four gynaecological, two thoracic, and one urological surgery), involving 45 445 patients. Low dose (odds ratio 0.33, 95% confidence interval 0.16 to 0.67) and high dose (0.19, 0.07 to 0.54) low molecular weight heparin, and direct oral anticoagulants (0.17, 0.07 to 0.41) reduced symptomatic venous thromboembolism compared with no active treatment, with absolute risk differences of 1-100 per 1000 patients, depending on baseline risks (certainty of evidence, moderate to high). None of the active agents reduced symptomatic pulmonary embolism (certainty of evidence, low to moderate). Direct oral anticoagulants and low molecular weight heparin were associated with a 2-3-fold increase in the odds of major bleeding compared with no active treatment (certainty of evidence, moderate to high), with absolute risk differences as high as 50 per 1000 in patients at high risk. Compared with low dose low molecular weight heparin, high dose low molecular weight heparin did not reduce symptomatic venous thromboembolism (0.57, 0.26 to 1.27) but increased major bleeding (1.87, 1.06 to 3.31); direct oral anticoagulants reduced symptomatic venous thromboembolism (0.53, 0.32 to 0.89) and did not increase major bleeding (1.23, 0.89 to 1.69).
CONCLUSIONS
Direct oral anticoagulants and low molecular weight heparin reduced venous thromboembolism compared with no active treatment but probably increased major bleeding to a similar extent. Direct oral anticoagulants probably prevent symptomatic venous thromboembolism to a greater extent than prophylactic low molecular weight heparin.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42018106181.
Topics: Anticoagulants; Hemorrhage; Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Postoperative Complications; Pulmonary Embolism; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Procedures, Operative; Treatment Outcome; Venous Thromboembolism
PubMed: 35264372
DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2021-066785 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Apr 2021The risk of complications, including death, is substantially increased in patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH) undergoing anaesthesia for surgical procedures,...
BACKGROUND
The risk of complications, including death, is substantially increased in patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH) undergoing anaesthesia for surgical procedures, especially in those with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) and chronic thromboembolic PH (CTEPH). Sedation also poses a risk to patients with PH. Physiological changes including tachycardia, hypotension, fluid shifts, and an increase in pulmonary vascular resistance (PH crisis) can precipitate acute right ventricular decompensation and death.
METHODS
A systematic literature review was performed of studies in patients with PH undergoing non-cardiac and non-obstetric surgery. The management of patients with PH requiring sedation for endoscopy was also reviewed. Using a framework of relevant clinical questions, we review the available evidence guiding operative risk, risk assessment, preoperative optimisation, and perioperative management, and identifying areas for future research.
RESULTS
Reported 30 day mortality after non-cardiac and non-obstetric surgery ranges between 2% and 18% in patients with PH undergoing elective procedures, and increases to 15-50% for emergency surgery, with complications and death usually relating to acute right ventricular failure. Risk factors for mortality include procedure-specific and patient-related factors, especially markers of PH severity (e.g. pulmonary haemodynamics, poor exercise performance, and right ventricular dysfunction). Most studies highlight the importance of individualised preoperative risk assessment and optimisation and advanced perioperative planning.
CONCLUSIONS
With an increasing number of patients requiring surgery in specialist and non-specialist PH centres, a systematic, evidence-based, multidisciplinary approach is required to minimise complications. Adequate risk stratification and a tailored-individualised perioperative plan is paramount.
Topics: Consensus; Expert Testimony; Humans; Hypertension, Pulmonary; Perioperative Care; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 33612249
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2021.01.005 -
Clinical Oral Investigations Jan 2019Biofilm management and infection control are essential after periodontal and implant surgery. In this context, chlorhexidine (CHX) mouth-rinses are frequently...
BACKGROUND
Biofilm management and infection control are essential after periodontal and implant surgery. In this context, chlorhexidine (CHX) mouth-rinses are frequently recommended post-surgically. Despite its common use and many studies in this field, a systematic evaluation of the benefits after periodontal or implant surgery is-surprisingly-still missing.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits of chlorhexidine rinsing after periodontal or implant surgery in terms of plaque and inflammation reduction potential. Furthermore, to screen whether the concentration changes or additives in CHX solutions reduce side effects associated with its use.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed for clinical trials, which compared CHX rinsing after periodontal or implant surgery with rinsing using placebo, non-staining formulations, or solutions with reduced concentrations of the active compound. Four databases (Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane) were searched up to June 2018. Two reviewers independently identified and screened the literature.
RESULTS
From 691 titles identified, only eleven publications met the inclusion criteria and were finally included. Mainly early publications assessed the benefits of CHX over placebo rinsing, whereas more recent publications focused more on the evaluation of new formulations with regard to effectiveness and side effects. The use of CHX after surgery showed in general significant reduction in plaque (means of 29-86% after 1 week) and bleeding (up to 73%) as compared to placebo. No consensus, however, was found regarding the most beneficial CHX formulation avoiding side effects.
CONCLUSION
Chlorhexidine rinsing helps to reduce biofilm formation and gingival inflammation after surgery. However, no additional reduction of periodontal probing depth over any given placebo or control solution could be found irrespective of whether CHX was used or not. The use of additives such as antidiscoloration systems (ADS) or herbal extracts may reduce side effects while retaining efficacy.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Within the limitations of this review, it can be concluded that CHX may represent a valuable chemo-preventive tool immediately after surgery, during the time period in which oral hygiene capacity is compromised. To reduce the side effects of CHX and maintain comparable clinical effects, rinsing with less concentrated formulations (e.g., 0.12%) showed the most promising results so far.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Biofilms; Chlorhexidine; Dental Implantation; Gingivitis; Humans; Mouthwashes; Periodontal Diseases; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 30535817
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-018-2761-y -
BMJ Open Sep 2021To determine the benefits and harms of pre-admission interventions (prehabilitation) on postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing major elective surgery. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To determine the benefits and harms of pre-admission interventions (prehabilitation) on postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing major elective surgery.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (published or unpublished). We searched Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, DARE, HTA and NHS EED, The Cochrane Library, CINAHL, PsychINFO and ISI Web of Science (June 2020).
SETTING
Secondary care.
PARTICIPANTS
Patients (≥18 years) undergoing major elective surgery (curative or palliative).
INTERVENTIONS
Any intervention administered in the preoperative period with the aim of improving postoperative outcomes.
OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Primary outcomes were 30-day mortality, hospital length of stay (LoS) and postoperative complications. Secondary outcomes included LoS in intensive care unit or high dependency unit, perioperative morbidity, hospital readmission, postoperative pain, heath-related quality of life, outcomes specific to the intervention, intervention-specific adverse events and resource use.
REVIEW METHODS
Two authors independently extracted data from eligible RCTs and assessed risk of bias and the certainty of evidence using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Random-effects meta-analyses were used to pool data across trials.
RESULTS
178 RCTs including eight types of intervention were included. Inspiratory muscle training (IMT), immunonutrition and multimodal interventions reduced hospital LoS (mean difference vs usual care: -1.81 days, 95% CI -2.31 to -1.31; -2.11 days, 95% CI -3.07 to -1.15; -1.67 days, 95% CI -2.31 to -1.03, respectively). Immunonutrition reduced infective complications (risk ratio (RR) 0.64 95% CI 0.40 to 1.01) and IMT, and exercise reduced postoperative pulmonary complications (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.80, and RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.75, respectively). Smoking cessation interventions reduced wound infections (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.64).
CONCLUSIONS
Some prehabilitation interventions may reduce postoperative LoS and complications but the quality of the evidence was low.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42015019191.
Topics: Elective Surgical Procedures; Exercise; Humans; Length of Stay; Postoperative Complications; Preoperative Exercise
PubMed: 34593498
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050806 -
Journal of the American College of... May 2021It is increasingly recognized that non-opioid analgesia is an important analgesia in the perioperative period. Specifically, NSAIDs (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
It is increasingly recognized that non-opioid analgesia is an important analgesia in the perioperative period. Specifically, NSAIDs (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) have been touted as an adjunct, or even replacement, for opioids. However, uptake of NSAIDs has been slow due to concern for side effects, including bleeding. We sought to understand the risk of bleeding caused by NSAIDs in the perioperative period.
STUDY DESIGN
A physician-librarian team performed a search of electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE), using search terms covering the targeted intervention (use of NSAIDs) and outcomes of interest (surgical complications, bleeding), limited to English language articles of any date. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the data.
RESULTS
A total of 2,521 articles were screened, and 229 were selected on the basis of title and abstract for detailed assessment. Including reference searching, 74 manuscripts met inclusion criteria spanning years 1987-2019. These studies included 151,031 patients. Studies included 12 types of NSAIDs, the most common being ketorolac, diclofenac, and ibuprofen, over a wide-range of procedures, from otorhinolaryngology (ENT), breast, abdomen, plastics, and more. More than half were randomized control trials. The meta-analyses for hematoma, return to the operating room for bleeding, and blood transfusions showed no difference in risk in any of 3 categories studied between the NSAID vs non-NSAID groups (p = 0.49, p = 0.79, and p = 0.49, respectively). Quality scoring found a wide range of quality, with scores ranging from lowest quality of 12 to highest quality of 25, out of a total of 27 (average = 16).
CONCLUSIONS
NSAIDs are unlikely to be the cause of postoperative bleeding complications. This literature covers a large number of patients and remains consistent across types of NSAIDs and operations.
Topics: Analgesia; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Blood Loss, Surgical; Blood Transfusion; Diclofenac; Humans; Ibuprofen; Ketorolac; Pain, Postoperative; Pain, Procedural; Perioperative Period; Postoperative Hemorrhage; Surgical Procedures, Operative; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33515678
DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2021.01.005 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2016Medical professionals routinely carry out surgical hand antisepsis before undertaking invasive procedures to destroy transient micro-organisms and inhibit the growth of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Medical professionals routinely carry out surgical hand antisepsis before undertaking invasive procedures to destroy transient micro-organisms and inhibit the growth of resident micro-organisms. Antisepsis may reduce the risk of surgical site infections (SSIs) in patients.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of surgical hand antisepsis on preventing surgical site infections (SSIs) in patients treated in any setting. The secondary objective is to determine the effects of surgical hand antisepsis on the numbers of colony-forming units (CFUs) of bacteria on the hands of the surgical team.
SEARCH METHODS
In June 2015 for this update, we searched: The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialized Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations) and EBSCO CINAHL. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials comparing surgical hand antisepsis of varying duration, methods and antiseptic solutions.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and trial quality and extracted data.
MAIN RESULTS
Fourteen trials were included in the updated review. Four trials reported the primary outcome, rates of SSIs, while 10 trials reported number of CFUs but not SSI rates. In general studies were small, and some did not present data or analyses that could be easily interpreted or related to clinical outcomes. These factors reduced the quality of the evidence. SSIsOne study randomised 3317 participants to basic hand hygiene (soap and water) versus an alcohol rub plus additional hydrogen peroxide. There was no clear evidence of a difference in the risk of SSI (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.23, moderate quality evidence downgraded for imprecision).One study (500 participants) compared alcohol-only rub versus an aqueous scrub and found no clear evidence of a difference in the risk of SSI (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.34, very low quality evidence downgraded for imprecision and risk of bias).One study (4387 participants) compared alcohol rubs with additional active ingredients versus aqueous scrubs and found no clear evidence of a difference in SSI (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.48, low quality evidence downgraded for imprecision and risk of bias).One study (100 participants) compared an alcohol rub with an additional ingredient versus an aqueous scrub with a brush and found no evidence of a difference in SSI (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.34, low quality evidence downgraded for imprecision). CFUsThe review presents results for a number of comparisons; key findings include the following.Four studies compared different aqueous scrubs in reducing CFUs on hands.Three studies found chlorhexidine gluconate scrubs resulted in fewer CFUs than povidone iodine scrubs immediately after scrubbing, 2 hours after the initial scrub and 2 hours after subsequent scrubbing. All evidence was low or very low quality, with downgrading typically for imprecision and indirectness of outcome. One trial comparing a chlorhexidine gluconate scrub versus a povidone iodine plus triclosan scrub found no clear evidence of a difference-this was very low quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias, imprecision and indirectness of outcome).Four studies compared aqueous scrubs versus alcohol rubs containing additional active ingredients and reported CFUs. In three comparisons there was evidence of fewer CFUs after using alcohol rubs with additional active ingredients (moderate or very low quality evidence downgraded for imprecision and indirectness of outcome). Evidence from one study suggested that an aqueous scrub was more effective in reducing CFUs than an alcohol rub containing additional ingredients, but this was very low quality evidence downgraded for imprecision and indirectness of outcome.Evidence for the effectiveness of different scrub durations varied. Four studies compared the effect of different durations of scrubs and rubs on the number of CFUs on hands. There was evidence that a 3 minute scrub reduced the number of CFUs compared with a 2 minute scrub (very low quality evidence downgraded for imprecision and indirectness of outcome). Data on other comparisons were not consistent, and interpretation was difficult. All further evidence was low or very low quality (typically downgraded for imprecision and indirectness).One study compared the effectiveness of using nail brushes and nail picks under running water prior to a chlorhexidine scrub on the number of CFUs on hands. It was unclear whether there was a difference in the effectiveness of these different techniques in terms of the number of CFUs remaining on hands (very low quality evidence downgraded due to imprecision and indirectness).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is no firm evidence that one type of hand antisepsis is better than another in reducing SSIs. Chlorhexidine gluconate scrubs may reduce the number of CFUs on hands compared with povidone iodine scrubs; however, the clinical relevance of this surrogate outcome is unclear. Alcohol rubs with additional antiseptic ingredients may reduce CFUs compared with aqueous scrubs. With regard to duration of hand antisepsis, a 3 minute initial scrub reduced CFUs on the hand compared with a 2 minute scrub, but this was very low quality evidence, and findings about a longer initial scrub and subsequent scrub durations are not consistent. It is unclear whether nail picks and brushes have a differential impact on the number of CFUs remaining on the hand. Generally, almost all evidence available to inform decisions about hand antisepsis approaches that were explored here were informed by low or very low quality evidence.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Antisepsis; Colony Count, Microbial; General Surgery; Hand; Hand Disinfection; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 26799160
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004288.pub3 -
Journal of the American College of... Dec 2021The aim of this study was to identify what parts of the World Health Organization Surgical Safety Checklist (WHO SSC) are working, what can be done to make it more... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The aim of this study was to identify what parts of the World Health Organization Surgical Safety Checklist (WHO SSC) are working, what can be done to make it more effective, and to determine if it achieved its intended effect relative to its design and intended use.
STUDY DESIGN
We conducted a qualitative thematic analysis and meta-meta-analyses of findings in WHO SSC systematic reviews following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines.
RESULTS
Twenty systematic reviews were included for qualitative thematic analysis. Narrative information was coded in 4 primary areas with a focus on impact of the WHO SSC. Four themes-Clinical Outcomes, Process Measures, Team Dynamics and Communication, and Safety Culture-pertained directly to the aims or purposes behind the development of the SSC. The other 2 themes-Efficiency and Workload involved in using the checklist and Checklist Impact on Institutional Practices-are associated with SSC use, but were not focal areas considered during its development. Included in the 20 systematic reviews were 24 unique observational cohort studies that reported pre-post data on a total of 18 clinical outcomes. Mortality, morbidity, surgical site infection, pneumonia, unplanned return to the operating room, urinary tract infection, blood loss requiring transfusion, unplanned intubation, and sepsis favored the use of the WHO SSC. Deep vein thrombosis was the only postoperative outcome assessed that did not favor use of the WHO SSC.
CONCLUSIONS
The WHO SSC positively impacts the things it was explicitly designed to address and does not positively impact things it was not explicitly designed for.
Topics: Checklist; Humans; Operating Rooms; Patient Safety; Postoperative Complications; Process Assessment, Health Care; Qualitative Research; Safety Management; Surgical Procedures, Operative; World Health Organization
PubMed: 34592406
DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2021.08.692 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2018Hospitalised patients are at increased risk of developing deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in the lower limb and pelvic veins, on a background of prolonged immobilisation... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Hospitalised patients are at increased risk of developing deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in the lower limb and pelvic veins, on a background of prolonged immobilisation associated with their medical or surgical illness. Patients with DVT are at increased risk of developing a pulmonary embolism (PE). The use of graduated compression stockings (GCS) in hospitalised patients has been proposed to decrease the risk of DVT. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2000, and last updated in 2014.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of graduated compression stockings in preventing deep vein thrombosis in various groups of hospitalised patients.
SEARCH METHODS
For this review the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and trials registries on 21 March 2017; and the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, CINAHL Ebsco, AMED Ovid , and trials registries on 12 June 2018.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving GCS alone, or GCS used on a background of any other DVT prophylactic method. We combined results from both of these groups of trials.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors (AS, MD) assessed potentially eligible trials for inclusion. One review author (AS) extracted the data, which a second review author (MD) cross-checked and authenticated. Two review authors (AS, MD) assessed the methodological quality of trials with the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion with the senior review author (TL). For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the Peto odds ratio and corresponding 95% confidence interval. We pooled data using a fixed-effect model. We used the GRADE system to evaluate the overall quality of the evidence supporting the outcomes assessed in this review.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 20 RCTs involving a total of 1681 individual participants and 1172 individual legs (2853 analytic units). Of these 20 trials, 10 included patients undergoing general surgery; six included patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery; three individual trials included patients undergoing neurosurgery, cardiac surgery, and gynaecological surgery, respectively; and only one trial included medical patients. Graduated compression stockings were applied on the day before surgery or on the day of surgery and were worn up until discharge or until the participants were fully mobile. In the majority of the included studies DVT was identified by the radioactive I uptake test. Duration of follow-up ranged from seven to 14 days. The included studies were at an overall low risk of bias.We were able to pool the data from 20 studies reporting the incidence of DVT. In the GCS group, 134 of 1445 units developed DVT (9%) in comparison to the control group (without GCS), in which 290 of 1408 units developed DVT (21%). The Peto odds ratio (OR) was 0.35 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.28 to 0.43; 20 studies; 2853 units; high-quality evidence), showing an overall effect favouring treatment with GCS (P < 0.001).Based on results from eight included studies, the incidence of proximal DVT was 7 of 517 (1%) units in the GCS group and 28 of 518 (5%) units in the control group. The Peto OR was 0.26 (95% CI 0.13 to 0.53; 8 studies; 1035 units; moderate-quality evidence) with an overall effect favouring treatment with GCS (P < 0.001). Combining results from five studies, all based on surgical patients, the incidence of PE was 5 of 283 (2%) participants in the GCS group and 14 of 286 (5%) in the control group. The Peto OR was 0.38 (95% CI 0.15 to 0.96; 5 studies; 569 participants; low-quality evidence) with an overall effect favouring treatment with GCS (P = 0.04). We downgraded the quality of the evidence for proximal DVT and PE due to low event rate (imprecision) and lack of routine screening for PE (inconsistency).We carried out subgroup analysis by speciality (surgical or medical patients). Combining results from 19 trials focusing on surgical patients, 134 of 1365 (9.8%) units developed DVT in the GCS group compared to 282 of 1328 (21.2%) units in the control group. The Peto OR was 0.35 (95% CI 0.28 to 0.44; high-quality evidence), with an overall effect favouring treatment with GCS (P < 0.001). Based on results from seven included studies, the incidence of proximal DVT was 7 of 437 units (1.6%) in the GCS group and 28 of 438 (6.4%) in the control group. The Peto OR was 0.26 (95% CI 0.13 to 0.53; 875 units; moderate-quality evidence) with an overall effect favouring treatment with GCS (P < 0.001). We downgraded the evidence for proximal DVT due to low event rate (imprecision).Based on the results from one trial focusing on medical patients admitted following acute myocardial infarction, 0 of 80 (0%) legs developed DVT in the GCS group and 8 of 80 (10%) legs developed DVT in the control group. The Peto OR was 0.12 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.51; low-quality evidence) with an overall effect favouring treatment with GCS (P = 0.004). None of the medical patients in either group developed a proximal DVT, and the incidence of PE was not reported.Limited data were available to accurately assess the incidence of adverse effects and complications with the use of GCS as these were not routinely quantitatively reported in the included studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is high-quality evidence that GCS are effective in reducing the risk of DVT in hospitalised patients who have undergone general and orthopaedic surgery, with or without other methods of background thromboprophylaxis, where clinically appropriate. There is moderate-quality evidence that GCS probably reduce the risk of proximal DVT, and low-quality evidence that GCS may reduce the risk of PE. However, there remains a paucity of evidence to assess the effectiveness of GCS in diminishing the risk of DVT in medical patients.
Topics: Hospitalization; Humans; Orthopedic Procedures; Postoperative Complications; Pulmonary Embolism; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stockings, Compression; Surgical Procedures, Operative; Venous Thrombosis
PubMed: 30390397
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001484.pub4 -
Revista Da Escola de Enfermagem Da U S P 2020To investigate whether the adoption of upright positions by women during childbirth prevents perineal lacerations compared to the lithotomy position. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To investigate whether the adoption of upright positions by women during childbirth prevents perineal lacerations compared to the lithotomy position.
METHOD
A systematic review with meta-analysis. The searches were carried out in the databases: LILACS, Medline/PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Science Direct and Scopus. Searches in the gray literature were conducted on Google Scholar and OpenGrey databases. Reference lists of included articles were also considered. The Cochrane collaboration tool and ACROBAT-NRSI were used to analyze the methodological quality of the articles.
RESULTS
There were 26 studies listed and 8 were selected for the meta-analysis. The level of scientific evidence was classified by the GRADE System and considered high. There was no statistically significant difference between upright positions in relation to horizontal positions. Despite this finding, the upright positions showed reduced rates of severe perineal lacerations.
CONCLUSION
Adopting upright positions in normal delivery can be encouraged by professionals as it can prevent severe perineal lacerations; however, it is not possible to accurately affirm their effectiveness to the detriment of horizontal positions for an intact perineum outcome.
Topics: Delivery, Obstetric; Female; Humans; Lacerations; Parturition; Patient Positioning; Perineum; Pregnancy
PubMed: 32935765
DOI: 10.1590/S1980-220X2018027503610