-
British Journal of Anaesthesia Mar 2020In surgical patients undergoing general anaesthesia, coughing at the time of extubation is common and can result in potentially dangerous complications. We performed a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
In surgical patients undergoing general anaesthesia, coughing at the time of extubation is common and can result in potentially dangerous complications. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of i.v. lidocaine administration during the perioperative period to prevent cough and other airway complications.
METHODS
We searched Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System, Excerpta Medica database, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for RCTs comparing the perioperative use of i.v. lidocaine with a control group in adult patients undergoing surgery under general anaesthesia. The RCTs were assessed using risk-of-bias assessment, and the quality of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE).
RESULTS
In 16 trials (n=1516), the administration of i.v. lidocaine compared with placebo or no treatment led to large reductions in post-extubation cough (risk ratio [RR]: 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.48-0.86) and in postoperative sore throat at 1 h (RR: 0.46; 95% CI: 0.32-0.67). There was no difference in incidence of laryngospasm (risk difference [RD]: 0.02; 95% CI: -0.07 to 0.03) or incidence of adverse events related to the use of lidocaine.
CONCLUSIONS
The use of i.v. lidocaine perioperatively decreased airway complications, including coughing and sore throat. There was no associated increased risk of harm.
Topics: Anesthesia, General; Anesthetics, Local; Cough; Device Removal; Humans; Injections, Intravenous; Intubation, Intratracheal; Lidocaine; Perioperative Care; Pharyngitis; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 32000978
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2019.11.033 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2023Surgery is the cornerstone in curative treatment of colorectal cancer. Unfortunately, surgery itself can adversely affect patient health. 'Enhanced Recovery After... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Surgery is the cornerstone in curative treatment of colorectal cancer. Unfortunately, surgery itself can adversely affect patient health. 'Enhanced Recovery After Surgery' programmes, which include multimodal interventions, have improved patient outcomes substantially. However, these are mainly applied peri- and postoperatively. Multimodal prehabilitation includes multiple preoperative interventions to prepare patients for surgery with the aim of increasing resilience, thereby improving postoperative outcomes.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effects of multimodal prehabilitation programmes on functional capacity, postoperative complications, and quality of life in adult patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO in January 2021. We also searched trial registries up to March 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adult patients with non-metastatic colorectal cancer, scheduled for surgery, comparing multimodal prehabilitation programmes (defined as comprising at least two preoperative interventions) with no prehabilitation. We focused on the following outcomes: functional capacity (i.e. 6-minute walk test, VOpeak, handgrip strength), postoperative outcomes (i.e. complications, mortality, length of hospital stay, emergency department visits, re-admissions), health-related quality of life, compliance, safety of prehabilitation, and return to normal activities.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. Any disagreements were solved with discussion and consensus. We pooled data to perform meta-analyses, where possible.
MAIN RESULTS
We included three RCTs that enrolled 250 participants with non-metastatic colorectal cancer, scheduled for elective (mainly laparoscopic) surgery. Included trials were conducted in tertiary care centres and recruited patients during periods ranging from 17 months to 45 months. A total of 130 participants enrolled in a preoperative four-week trimodal prehabilitation programme consisting of exercise, nutritional intervention, and anxiety reduction techniques. Outcomes of these participants were compared to those of 120 participants who started an identical but postoperative programme. Postoperatively, prehabilitation may improve functional capacity, determined with the 6-minute walk test at four and eight weeks (mean difference (MD) 26.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) -13.81 to 65.85; 2 studies; n = 131; and MD 26.58, 95% CI -8.88 to 62.04; 2 studies; n = 140); however, the certainty of evidence is low and very low, respectively, due to serious risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency. After prehabilitation, the functional capacity before surgery improved, with a clinically relevant mean difference of 24.91 metres (95% CI 11.24 to 38.57; 3 studies; n = 225). The certainty of evidence was moderate due to downgrading for serious risk of bias. The effects of prehabilitation on the number of complications (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.29; 3 studies; n = 250), emergency department visits (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.32; 3 studies; n = 250) and re-admissions (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.65; 3 studies; n = 250) were small or even trivial. The certainty of evidence was low due to downgrading for serious risk of bias and imprecision. The effects on VOpeak, handgrip strength, length of hospital stay, mortality rate, health-related quality of life, return to normal activities, safety of the programme, and compliance rate could not be analysed quantitatively due to missing or insufficient data. The included studies did not report a difference between groups for health-related quality of life and length of hospital stay. Data on remaining outcomes were not reported or were reported inadequately in the included studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Prehabilitation may result in an improved functional capacity, determined with the 6-minute walk test both preoperatively and postoperatively. A solid effect on the number of omplications, postoperative emergency department visits and re-admissions could not be established. The certainty of evidence ranges from moderate to very low, due to downgrading for serious risk of bias, imprecision and inconsistency. In addition, only three heterogeneous studies were included in this review. Therefore, the findings of this review should be interpreted with caution. Numerous relevant RCTs are ongoing and will be included in a future update of this review.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Colorectal Neoplasms; Digestive System Surgical Procedures; Postoperative Complications; Preoperative Exercise; Quality of Life
PubMed: 37162250
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013259.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2019Indications for the use of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) are broad and include prophylaxis for surgical site infections (SSIs). While existing evidence for the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Indications for the use of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) are broad and include prophylaxis for surgical site infections (SSIs). While existing evidence for the effectiveness of NPWT remains uncertain, new trials necessitated an updated review of the evidence for the effects of NPWT on postoperative wounds healing by primary closure.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of negative pressure wound therapy for preventing surgical site infection in wounds healing through primary closure.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Ovid Embase, and EBSCO CINAHL Plus in February 2018. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and checked reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses, and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions on language, publication date, or setting.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included trials if they allocated participants to treatment randomly and compared NPWT with any other type of wound dressing, or compared one type of NPWT with another type of NPWT.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Four review authors independently assessed trials using predetermined inclusion criteria. We carried out data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and quality assessment according to GRADE methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
In this second update we added 25 intervention trials, resulting in a total of 30 intervention trials (2957 participants), and two economic studies nested in trials. Surgeries included abdominal and colorectal (n = 5); caesarean section (n = 5); knee or hip arthroplasties (n = 5); groin surgery (n = 5); fractures (n = 5); laparotomy (n = 1); vascular surgery (n = 1); sternotomy (n = 1); breast reduction mammoplasty (n = 1); and mixed (n = 1). In three key domains four studies were at low risk of bias; six studies were at high risk of bias; and 20 studies were at unclear risk of bias. We judged the evidence to be of low or very low certainty for all outcomes, downgrading the level of the evidence on the basis of risk of bias and imprecision.Primary outcomesThree studies reported mortality (416 participants; follow-up 30 to 90 days or unspecified). It is uncertain whether NPWT has an impact on risk of death compared with standard dressings (risk ratio (RR) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 1.56; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded once for serious risk of bias and twice for very serious imprecision).Twenty-five studies reported on SSI. The evidence from 23 studies (2533 participants; 2547 wounds; follow-up 30 days to 12 months or unspecified) showed that NPWT may reduce the rate of SSIs (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.85; low-certainty evidence, downgraded twice for very serious risk of bias).Fourteen studies reported dehiscence. We combined results from 12 studies (1507 wounds; 1475 participants; follow-up 30 days to an average of 113 days or unspecified) that compared NPWT with standard dressings. It is uncertain whether NPWT reduces the risk of wound dehiscence compared with standard dressings (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.18; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded twice for very serious risk of bias and once for serious imprecision).Secondary outcomesWe are uncertain whether NPWT increases or decreases reoperation rates when compared with a standard dressing (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.63; 6 trials; 1021 participants; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded for very serious risk of bias and serious imprecision) or if there is any clinical benefit associated with NPWT for reducing wound-related readmission to hospital within 30 days (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.57; 7 studies; 1271 participants; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded for very serious risk of bias and serious imprecision). It is also uncertain whether NPWT reduces incidence of seroma compared with standard dressings (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.00; 6 studies; 568 participants; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded twice for very serious risk of bias and once for serious imprecision). It is uncertain if NPWT reduces or increases the risk of haematoma when compared with a standard dressing (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.32 to 3.42; 6 trials; 831 participants; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded twice for very serious risk of bias and twice for very serious imprecision. It is uncertain if there is a higher risk of developing blisters when NPWT is compared with a standard dressing (RR 6.64, 95% CI 3.16 to 13.95; 6 studies; 597 participants; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded twice for very serious risk of bias and twice for very serious imprecision).Quality of life was not reported separately by group but was used in two economic evaluations to calculate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). There was no clear difference in incremental QALYs for NPWT relative to standard dressing when results from the two trials were combined (mean difference 0.00, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.00; moderate-certainty evidence).One trial concluded that NPWT may be more cost-effective than standard care, estimating an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) value of GBP 20.65 per QALY gained. A second cost-effectiveness study estimated that when compared with standard dressings NPWT was cost saving and improved QALYs. We rated the overall quality of the reports as very good; we did not grade the evidence beyond this as it was based on modelling assumptions.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Despite the addition of 25 trials, results are consistent with our earlier review, with the evidence judged to be of low or very low certainty for all outcomes. Consequently, uncertainty remains about whether NPWT compared with a standard dressing reduces or increases the incidence of important outcomes such as mortality, dehiscence, seroma, or if it increases costs. Given the cost and widespread use of NPWT for SSI prophylaxis, there is an urgent need for larger, well-designed and well-conducted trials to evaluate the effects of newer NPWT products designed for use on clean, closed surgical incisions. Such trials should initially focus on wounds that may be difficult to heal, such as sternal wounds or incisions on obese patients.
Topics: Bandages; Blister; Hematoma; Humans; Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy; Orthopedic Procedures; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Reoperation; Seroma; Skin Transplantation; Surgical Procedures, Operative; Surgical Wound Dehiscence; Surgical Wound Infection; Wound Healing; Wounds and Injuries
PubMed: 30912582
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009261.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2021Postoperative pain is a common consequence of surgery and can have many negative perioperative effects. It has been suggested that the administration of analgesia before... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Postoperative pain is a common consequence of surgery and can have many negative perioperative effects. It has been suggested that the administration of analgesia before a painful stimulus may improve pain control. We defined pre-emptive nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs) as those given before surgery but not continued afterwards and preventive NSAIDs as those given before surgery and continued afterwards. These were compared to a control group given the NSAIDs after surgery instead of before surgery.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy of preventive and pre-emptive NSAIDs for reducing postoperative pain in adults undergoing all types of surgery.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following electronic databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED and CINAHL (up to June 2020). In addition, we searched for unpublished studies in three clinical trial databases, conference proceedings, grey literature databases, and reference lists of retrieved articles. We did not apply any restrictions on language or date of publication.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included parallel-group randomized controlled trials (RCTs) only. We included adult participants undergoing any type of surgery. We defined pre-emptive NSAIDs as those given before surgery but not continued afterwards and preventive NSAIDs as those given before surgery and continued afterwards. These were compared to a control group given the NSAIDs after surgery instead of before surgery. We included studies that gave the medication by any route but not given on the skin.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used the standard methods expected by Cochrane, as well as a novel publication bias test developed by our research group. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. Outcomes included acute postoperative pain (minimal clinically important difference (MCID): 1.5 on a 0-10 scale), adverse events of NSAIDs, nausea and vomiting, 24-hour morphine consumption (MCID: 10 mg reduction), time to analgesic request (MCID: one hour), pruritus, sedation, patient satisfaction, chronic pain and time to first bowel movement (MCID: 12 hours).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 71 RCTs. Seven studies are awaiting classification. We included 45 studies that evaluated pre-emptive NSAIDs and 26 studies that evaluated preventive NSAIDs. We considered only four studies to be at low risk of bias for most domains. The operations and NSAIDs used varied, although most studies were conducted in abdominal, orthopaedic and dental surgery. Most studies were conducted in secondary care and in low-risk participants. Common exclusions were participants on analgesic medications prior to surgery and those with chronic pain. Pre-emptive NSAIDs compared to post-incision NSAIDs For pre-emptive NSAIDs, there is probably a decrease in early acute postoperative pain (MD -0.69, 95% CI -0.97 to -0.41; studies = 36; participants = 2032; I = 96%; moderate-certainty evidence). None of the included studies that reported on acute postoperative pain reported adverse events as an outcome. There may be little or no difference between the groups in short-term (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.94; studies = 2; participants = 100; I = 0%; low-certainty evidence) or long-term nausea and vomiting (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.38; studies = 5; participants = 228; I = 29%; low-certainty evidence). There may be a reduction in late acute postoperative pain (MD -0.22, 95% CI -0.44 to 0.00; studies = 28; participants = 1645; I = 97%; low-certainty evidence). There may be a reduction in 24-hour morphine consumption with pre-emptive NSAIDs (MD -5.62 mg, 95% CI -9.00 mg to -2.24 mg; studies = 16; participants = 854; I = 99%; low-certainty evidence) and an increase in the time to analgesic request (MD 17.04 minutes, 95% CI 3.77 minutes to 30.31 minutes; studies = 18; participants = 975; I = 95%; low-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in opioid adverse events such as pruritus (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.76; studies = 4; participants = 254; I = 0%; low-certainty evidence) or sedation (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.68; studies = 4; participants = 281; I = 0%; low-certainty evidence), although the number of included studies for these outcomes was small. No study reported patient satisfaction, chronic pain or time to first bowel movement for pre-emptive NSAIDs. Preventive NSAIDs compared to post-incision NSAIDs For preventive NSAIDs, there may be little or no difference in early acute postoperative pain (MD -0.14, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.12; studies = 18; participants = 1140; I = 75%; low-certainty evidence). One study reported adverse events from NSAIDs (reoperation for bleeding) although the events were low which did not allow any meaningful conclusions to be drawn (RR 1.95; 95% CI 0.18 to 20.68). There may be little or no difference in rates of short-term (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.49 to 3.30; studies = 1; participants = 76; low-certainty evidence) or long-term (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.38; studies = 5; participants = 456; I = 29%; low-certainty evidence) nausea and vomiting. There may be a reduction in late acute postoperative pain (MD -0.33, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.07; studies = 21; participants = 1441; I = 81%; low-certainty evidence). There is probably a reduction in 24-hour morphine consumption (MD -1.93 mg, 95% CI -3.55 mg to -0.32 mg; studies = 16; participants = 1323; I = 49%; moderate-certainty evidence). It is uncertain if there is any difference in time to analgesic request (MD 8.51 minutes, 95% CI -31.24 minutes to 48.27 minutes; studies = 8; participants = 410; I = 98%; very low-certainty evidence). As with pre-emptive NSAIDs, there may be little or no difference in other opioid adverse events such as pruritus (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.09 to 3.35; studies = 3; participants = 211; I = 0%; low-certainty evidence) and sedation (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.63; studies = 5; participants = 497; I = 0%; low-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference in patient satisfaction (MD -0.42; 95% CI -1.09 to 0.25; studies = 1; participants = 72; moderate-certainty evidence). No study reported on chronic pain. There is probably little or no difference in time to first bowel movement (MD 0.00; 95% CI -15.99 to 15.99; studies = 1; participants = 76; moderate-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There was some evidence that pre-emptive and preventive NSAIDs reduce both pain and morphine consumption, although this was not universal for all pain and morphine consumption outcomes. Any differences found were not clinically significant, although we cannot exclude this in more painful operations. Moreover, without any evidence of reductions in opioid adverse effects, the clinical significance of these results is questionable although few studies reported these outcomes. Only one study reported clinically significant adverse events from NSAIDs administered before surgery and, therefore, we have very few data to assess the safety of either pre-emptive or preventive NSAIDs. Therefore, future research should aim to adhere to the highest methodology and be adequately powered to assess serious adverse events of NSAIDs and reductions in opioid adverse events.
Topics: Acute Pain; Adult; Analgesics, Opioid; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Bias; Confidence Intervals; Cyclooxygenase 2 Inhibitors; Humans; Morphine; Pain, Postoperative; Patient Satisfaction; Postoperative Hemorrhage; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Pruritus; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Reoperation; Surgical Procedures, Operative
PubMed: 34125958
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012978.pub2 -
The Lancet. Infectious Diseases Oct 2020Antibiotic prophylaxis is frequently continued for 1 day or more after surgery to prevent surgical site infection. Continuing antibiotic prophylaxis after an operation... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Antibiotic prophylaxis is frequently continued for 1 day or more after surgery to prevent surgical site infection. Continuing antibiotic prophylaxis after an operation might have no advantage compared with its immediate discontinuation, and it unnecessarily exposes patients to risks associated with antibiotic use. In 2016, WHO recommended discontinuation of antibiotic prophylaxis after surgery. We aimed to update the evidence that formed the basis for that recommendation.
METHODS
For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and WHO regional medical databases for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis that were published from Jan 1, 1990, to July 24, 2018. RCTs comparing the effect of postoperative continuation versus discontinuation of antibiotic prophylaxis on the incidence of surgical site infection in patients undergoing any surgical procedure with an indication for antibiotic prophylaxis were eligible. The primary outcome was the effect of postoperative surgical antibiotic prophylaxis continuation versus its immediate discontinuation on the occurrence of surgical site infection, with a prespecified subgroup analysis for studies that did and did not adhere to current best practice standards for surgical antibiotic prophylaxis. We calculated summary relative risks (RRs) with corresponding 95% CIs using a random effects model (DerSimonian and Laird). We evaluated heterogeneity with the χ test, I, and τ, and visually assesed publication bias with a contour-enhanced funnel plot. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42017060829.
FINDINGS
We identified 83 relevant RCTs, of which 52 RCTs with 19 273 participants were included in the primary meta-analysis. The pooled RR of surgical site infection with postoperative continuation of antibiotic prophylaxis versus its immediate discontinuation was 0·89 (95% CI 0·79-1·00), with low heterogeneity in effect size between studies (τ=0·001, χ p=0·46, I=0·7%). Our prespecified subgroup analysis showed a significant association between the effect estimate and adherence to best practice standards of surgical antibiotic prophylaxis: the RR of surgical site infection was reduced with continued antibiotic prophylaxis after surgery compared with its immediate discontinuation in trials that did not meet best practice standards (0·79 [95% CI 0·67-0·94]) but not in trials that did (1·04 [0·85-1·27]; p=0·048). Whether studies adhered to best practice standards explained all variance in the pooled estimate from the primary meta-analysis.
INTERPRETATION
Overall, we identified no conclusive evidence for a benefit of postoperative continuation of antibiotic prophylaxis over its discontinuation. When best practice standards were followed, postoperative continuation of antibiotic prophylaxis did not yield any additional benefit in reducing the incidence of surgical site infection. These findings support WHO recommendations against this practice.
FUNDING
None.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Drug Administration Schedule; Humans; Postoperative Care; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 32470329
DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30084-0 -
Injury Oct 2019Sustained changes in resuscitation and transfusion management have been observed since the turn of the millennium, along with an ongoing discussion of surgical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
Sustained changes in resuscitation and transfusion management have been observed since the turn of the millennium, along with an ongoing discussion of surgical management strategies. The aims of this study are threefold: a) to evaluate the objective changes in resuscitation and mass transfusion protocols undertaken in major level I trauma centers; b) to summarize the improvements in diagnostic options for early risk profiling in multiply injured patients and c) to assess the improvements in surgical treatment for acute major fractures in the multiply injured patient.
METHODS
I. A systematic review of the literature (comprehensive search of the MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases) and a concomitant data base (from a single Level I center) analysis were performed. Two authors independently extracted data using a pre-designed form. A pooled analysis was performed to determine the changes in the management of polytraumatized patients after the change of the millennium. II. A data base from a level I trauma center was utilized to test any effects of treatment changes on outcome.
INCLUSION CRITERIA
adult patients, ISS > 16, admission < less than 24 h post trauma. Exclusion: Oncological diseases, genetic disorders that affect the musculoskeletal system. Parameters evaluated were mortality, ICU stay, ICU complications (Sepsis, Pneumonia, Multiple organ failure).
RESULTS
I. From the electronic databases, 5141 articles were deemed to be relevant. 169 articles met the inclusion criteria and a manual review of reference lists of key articles identified an additional 22 articles. II. Out of 3668 patients, 2694 (73.4%) were male, the mean ISS was 28.2 (SD 15.1), mean NISS was 37.2 points (SD 17.4 points) and the average length of stay was 17.0 days (SD 18.7 days) with a mean length of ICU stay of 8.2 days (SD 10.5 days), and a mean ventilation time of 5.1 days (SD 8.1 days). Both surgical management and nonsurgical strategies have changed over time. Damage control resuscitation, dynamic analyses of coagulopathy and lactate clearance proved to sharpen the view of the worsening trauma patient and facilitated the prevention of further complications. The subsequent surgical care has become safer and more balanced, avoiding overzealous initial surgeries, while performing early fixation, when patients are physiologically stable or rapidly improving. Severe chest trauma and soft tissue injuries require further evaluation.
CONCLUSIONS
Multiple changes in management (resuscitation, transfusion protocols and balanced surgical care) have taken place. Moreover, improvement in mortality rates and complications associated with several factors were also observed. These findings support the view that the management of polytrauma patients has been substantially improved over the past 3 decades.
Topics: Blood Transfusion; Fracture Fixation; Fractures, Bone; Hospitalization; Humans; Injury Severity Score; Multiple Organ Failure; Multiple Trauma; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Resuscitation; Time-to-Treatment; Trauma Centers
PubMed: 31558277
DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2019.09.021 -
Danish Medical Journal Mar 2018Inguinal hernias are a protrusion of the peritoneum through a weakening in the groin in which abdominal content (intestines or fat) can herniate and cause a bulge.... (Review)
Review
Inguinal hernias are a protrusion of the peritoneum through a weakening in the groin in which abdominal content (intestines or fat) can herniate and cause a bulge. Inguinal hernias can be painful and require surgery. Worldwide, approximately 20 million patients are operated each year, with 10,000 in Denmark. The repair of inguinal hernias causes pain and 16% of patients experience chronic pain six months after the standard, open, mesh-based Lichtenstein technique. Therefore, surgeons are trying to improve the techniques by finding new ways of operating. The Onstep method was a new method for the repair of inguinal hernias, presented along with excellent results regarding pain, recurrence and complications. However, the technique had not been tested outside the department of the inventors. The overall aim was to clarify whether the Onstep technique should be implemented on a larger scale outside the departments of the inventors. Six papers are included in this thesis: a systematic review, a protocol article, three reports on the Onstep versus Lichtenstein trial, and finally a focus group interview. The systematic review identified nine different methods of placing a preperitoneal mesh through and open anterior approach. In general, the techniques seem to provide good results regarding pain and discomfort, but more studies are needed. The protocol article describes the randomized, double blinded Onstep versus Lichtenstein study, with focus on the statistical analysis and sample size calculations. Four separate sample size calculations were conducted, making several primary outcomes possible. The three reports of the Onstep versus Lichtenstein study reported on early postoperative outcomes, on chronic pain, and lastly on sexual dysfunction. The overall findings from the trial demonstrated that there were no differences between the Onstep and the Lichtenstein technique regarding early and chronic pain (30 days, six months, and 12 months). However, for the group of patients operated with the Onstep technique, fewer patients experienced pain during sexual activity. The focus group interview was done with experienced surgeons teaching the Onstep technique. They described their experience, thoughts, and concerns regarding teaching the technique. The results from the focus group interview can be used to guide future trainings sessions. In this thesis the Onstep technique has been investigated in comparison with the Lichtenstein technique, but the results have not been as promising as the initial studies from the inventors. However, implementation of the Onstep technique outside the departments of the inventors is unlikely to result in increased risk of complications. Furthermore, the Onstep technique could possibly benefit patients by reducing the risk of pain during sexual activity.
Topics: Chronic Pain; Hernia, Inguinal; Herniorrhaphy; Humans; Pain, Postoperative; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Sexual Dysfunction, Physiological; Surgical Mesh; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29510815
DOI: No ID Found -
Obesity Surgery Jan 2017Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol is well established in many surgical disciplines and leads to a decrease in the length of hospital stay and morbidity.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol is well established in many surgical disciplines and leads to a decrease in the length of hospital stay and morbidity. Multimodal protocols have also been introduced to bariatric surgery. This review aims to evaluate the current literature on ERAS in obesity surgery and to conduct a meta-analysis of primary and secondary outcomes. MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus and Cochrane Library were searched for eligible studies. Key journals were hand-searched. We analysed data up to May 2016. Eligible studies had to contain four described ERAS protocol elements. The primary outcome was the length of hospital stay; the secondary outcomes included overall morbidity, specific complications, mortality, readmissions and costs. Random effect meta-analyses were undertaken. The initial search yielded 1151 articles. Thorough evaluation resulted in 11 papers, which were analysed. The meta-analysis of the length of stay presented a significant reduction standard mean difference (Std. MD) = -2.39 (-3.89, -0.89), p = 0.002. The analysis of overall morbidity, specific complications and Clavien-Dindo classification showed no significant variations among the study groups. ERAS protocol in bariatric surgery leads to the reduction of the length of hospital stay while maintaining no or low influence on morbidity.
Topics: Bariatric Surgery; Comorbidity; Humans; Length of Stay; Obesity, Morbid; Postoperative Complications; Recovery of Function
PubMed: 27817086
DOI: 10.1007/s11695-016-2438-z -
American Journal of Physical Medicine &... Apr 2023Patients awaiting cardiac surgery seem to benefit from exercise-based prehabilitation, but the impact on different perioperative outcomes compared with standard care is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Patients awaiting cardiac surgery seem to benefit from exercise-based prehabilitation, but the impact on different perioperative outcomes compared with standard care is still unclear.
DESIGN
Eligible nonrandomized/randomized controlled studies investigating the impact of exercise-based prehabilitation in adults scheduled for elective cardiac surgery were searched on December 16, 2020, from electronic databases, including MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and CINAHL. The data were pooled and a meta-analysis was conducted.
RESULTS
Of 1490 abstracts, six studies ( n = 665) were included into the review and meta-analysis. At postintervention interval and at postsurgery interval, 6-min-walking distance improved significantly in exercise-based prehabilitation group compared with controls (mean difference, 75.4 m; 95% confidence interval, 13.7 to 137.1 m, P = 0.02, and 30.5 m, 95% confidence interval, 8.5 to 52.6 m, P = 0.007, respectively). Length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in exercise-based prehabilitation group (mean difference, -1.00 day; 95% confidence interval, -1.78 to -0.23 day, P = 0.01). Participation in exercise-based prehabilitation revealed a significant decrease in the risk of postoperative atrial fibrillation in patients 65 yrs or younger (risk ratio, 0.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.14 to 0.83, P = 0.02).
CONCLUSIONS
The participation in exercise-based prehabilitation significantly improves postintervention and postsurgery 6-min walking distance, length of hospital stay, and decreases the risk of postoperative atrial fibrillation in patients 65 yrs or younger compared with controls.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Preoperative Exercise; Preoperative Care; Atrial Fibrillation; Exercise; Cardiac Surgical Procedures; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 36149383
DOI: 10.1097/PHM.0000000000002097 -
Annals of Surgery Oct 2023Examine the potential benefit of total pancreatectomy (TP) as an alternative to pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) in patients at high risk for postoperative pancreatic fistula... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Role of Total Pancreatectomy as an Alternative to Pancreatoduodenectomy in Patients at High Risk for Postoperative Pancreatic Fistula: Is it a Justifiable Indication?
OBJECTIVE
Examine the potential benefit of total pancreatectomy (TP) as an alternative to pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) in patients at high risk for postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF).
SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA
TP is mentioned as an alternative to PD in patients at high risk for POPF, but a systematic review is lacking.
METHODS
Systematic review and meta-analyses using Pubmed, Embase (Ovid), and Cochrane Library to identify studies published up to October 2022, comparing elective single-stage TP for any indication versus PD in patients at high risk for POPF. The primary endpoint was short-term mortality. Secondary endpoints were major morbidity (i.e., Clavien-Dindo grade ≥IIIa) on the short-term and quality of life.
RESULTS
After screening 1212 unique records, five studies with 707 patients (334 TP and 373 high-risk PD) met the eligibility criteria, comprising one randomized controlled trial and four observational studies. The 90-day mortality after TP and PD did not differ (6.3% vs. 6.2%; RR=1.04 [95%CI 0.56-1.93]). Major morbidity rate was lower after TP compared to PD (26.7% vs. 38.3%; RR=0.65 [95%CI 0.48-0.89]), but no significance was seen in matched/randomized studies (29.0% vs. 36.9%; RR = 0.73 [95%CI 0.48-1.10]). Two studies investigated quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30) at a median of 30-52 months, demonstrating comparable global health status after TP and PD (77% [±15] vs. 76% [±20]; P =0.857).
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review and meta-analysis found no reduction in short-term mortality and major morbidity after TP as compared to PD in patients at high risk for POPF. However, if TP is used as a bail-out procedure, the comparable long-term quality of life is reassuring.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatectomy; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Quality of Life; Pancreas; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 37161977
DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000005895