-
Revista Da Associacao Medica Brasileira... Jan 2020Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is a renal replacement therapy based on infusing a sterile solution into the peritoneal cavity through a catheter and provides for the removal... (Review)
Review
Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is a renal replacement therapy based on infusing a sterile solution into the peritoneal cavity through a catheter and provides for the removal of solutes and water using the peritoneal membrane as the exchange surface. This solution, which is in close contact with the capillaries in the peritoneum, allows diffusion solute transport and osmotic ultrafiltration water loss since it is hyperosmolar to plasma due to the addition of osmotic agents (most commonly glucose). Infusion and drainage of the solution into the peritoneal cavity can be performed in two ways: manually (continuous ambulatory PD), in which the patient usually goes through four solution changes throughout the day, or machine-assisted PD (automated PD), in which dialysis is performed with the aid of a cycling machine that allows changes to be made overnight while the patient is sleeping. Prescription and follow-up of PD involve characterizing the type of peritoneal transport and assessing the offered dialysis dose (solute clearance) as well as diagnosing and treating possible method-related complications (infectious and non-infectious).
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Dialysis Solutions; Humans; Kidney Failure, Chronic; Peritoneal Dialysis; Peritoneal Dialysis, Continuous Ambulatory
PubMed: 31939534
DOI: 10.1590/1806-9282.66.S1.37 -
International Journal of Molecular... Mar 2020Endometriosis is one of the main common gynecological disorders, which is characterized by the presence of glands and stroma outside the uterine cavity. Some findings... (Review)
Review
Endometriosis is one of the main common gynecological disorders, which is characterized by the presence of glands and stroma outside the uterine cavity. Some findings have highlighted the main role of inflammation in endometriosis by acting on proliferation, apoptosis and angiogenesis. Oxidative stress, an imbalance between reactive oxygen species and antioxidants, could have a key role in the initiation and progression of endometriosis by resulting in inflammatory responses in the peritoneal cavity. Nevertheless, the mechanisms underlying this disease are still unclear and therapies are not currently efficient. Curcumin is a major anti-inflammatory agent. Several findings have highlighted the anti-oxidant, anti-inflammatory and anti-angiogenic properties of curcumin. The purpose of this review is to summarize the potential action of curcumin in endometriosis by acting on inflammation, oxidative stress, invasion and adhesion, apoptosis and angiogenesis.
Topics: Animals; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Antioxidants; Apoptosis; Curcumin; Endometriosis; Female; Humans; Inflammation; Oxidative Stress; Peritoneal Cavity; Reactive Oxygen Species
PubMed: 32244563
DOI: 10.3390/ijms21072440 -
Immunity Nov 2021Peritoneal immune cells reside unanchored within the peritoneal fluid in homeostasis. Here, we examined the mechanisms that control bacterial infection in the peritoneum...
Peritoneal immune cells reside unanchored within the peritoneal fluid in homeostasis. Here, we examined the mechanisms that control bacterial infection in the peritoneum using a mouse model of abdominal sepsis following intraperitoneal Escherichia coli infection. Whole-mount immunofluorescence and confocal microscopy of the peritoneal wall and omentum revealed that large peritoneal macrophages (LPMs) rapidly cleared bacteria and adhered to the mesothelium, forming multilayered cellular aggregates composed by sequentially recruited LPMs, B1 cells, neutrophils, and monocyte-derived cells (moCs). The formation of resident macrophage aggregates (resMφ-aggregates) required LPMs and thrombin-dependent fibrin polymerization. E. coli infection triggered LPM pyroptosis and release of inflammatory mediators. Resolution of these potentially inflammatory aggregates required LPM-mediated recruitment of moCs, which were essential for fibrinolysis-mediated resMφ-aggregate disaggregation and the prevention of peritoneal overt inflammation. Thus, resMφ-aggregates provide a physical scaffold that enables the efficient control of peritoneal infection, with implications for antimicrobial immunity in other body cavities, such as the pleural cavity or brain ventricles.
Topics: Animals; Bacterial Infections; Biomarkers; Cellular Microenvironment; Disease Models, Animal; Disease Susceptibility; Host-Pathogen Interactions; Inflammation Mediators; Macrophages, Peritoneal; Mice; Peritoneal Cavity; Peritonitis
PubMed: 34717795
DOI: 10.1016/j.immuni.2021.10.007 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2019Laparoscopy is a common procedure in many surgical specialties. Complications arising from laparoscopy are often related to initial entry into the abdomen.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Laparoscopy is a common procedure in many surgical specialties. Complications arising from laparoscopy are often related to initial entry into the abdomen. Life-threatening complications include injury to viscera (e.g. bowel, bladder) or to vasculature (e.g. major abdominal and anterior abdominal wall vessels). No clear consensus has been reached as to the optimal method of laparoscopic entry into the peritoneal cavity.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and risks of different laparoscopic entry techniques in gynaecological and non-gynaecological surgery.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and trials registers in January 2018. We also checked the references of articles retrieved.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared one laparoscopic entry technique versus another. Primary outcomes were major complications including mortality, vascular injury of major vessels and abdominal wall vessels, visceral injury of bladder or bowel, gas embolism, solid organ injury, and failed entry (inability to access the peritoneal cavity). Secondary outcomes were extraperitoneal insufflation, trocar site bleeding, trocar site infection, incisional hernia, omentum injury, and uterine bleeding.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We expressed findings as Peto odds ratios (Peto ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed statistical heterogeneity using the I² statistic. We assessed the overall quality of evidence for the main comparisons using GRADE methods.
MAIN RESULTS
The review included 57 RCTs including four multi-arm trials, with a total of 9865 participants, and evaluated 25 different laparoscopic entry techniques. Most studies selected low-risk patients, and many studies excluded patients with high body mass index (BMI) and previous abdominal surgery. Researchers did not find evidence of differences in major vascular or visceral complications, as would be anticipated given that event rates were very low and sample sizes were far too small to identify plausible differences in rare but serious adverse events.Open-entry versus closed-entryTen RCTs investigating Veress needle entry reported vascular injury as an outcome. There was a total of 1086 participants and 10 events of vascular injury were reported. Four RCTs looking at open entry technique reported vascular injury as an outcome. There was a total of 376 participants and 0 events of vascular injury were reported. This was not a direct comparison. In the direct comparison of Veress needle and Open-entry technique, there was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a difference in rates of vascular injury (Peto OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.82; 4 RCTs; n = 915; I² = N/A, very low-quality evidence). Evidence was insufficient to show whether there were differences between groups for visceral injury (Peto OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.06 to 6.08; 4 RCTs; n = 915: I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence), or failed entry (Peto OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.42; 3 RCTs; n = 865; I² = 63%; very low-quality evidence). Two studies reported mortality with no events in either group. No studies reported gas embolism or solid organ injury.Direct trocar versus Veress needle entryTrial results show a reduction in failed entry into the abdomen with the use of a direct trocar in comparison with Veress needle entry (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.34; 8 RCTs; N = 3185; I² = 45%; moderate-quality evidence). Evidence was insufficient to show whether there were differences between groups in rates of vascular injury (Peto OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.96; 6 RCTs; n = 1603; I² = 75%; very low-quality evidence), visceral injury (Peto OR 2.02, 95% CI 0.21 to 19.42; 5 RCTs; n = 1519; I² = 25%; very low-quality evidence), or solid organ injury (Peto OR 0.58, 95% Cl 0.06 to 5.65; 3 RCTs; n = 1079; I² = 61%; very low-quality evidence). Four studies reported mortality with no events in either group. Two studies reported gas embolism, with no events in either group.Direct vision entry versus Veress needle entryEvidence was insufficient to show whether there were differences between groups in rates of vascular injury (Peto OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.05 to 2.85; 1 RCT; n = 186; very low-quality evidence) or visceral injury (Peto OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.34; 2 RCTs; n = 380; I² = N/A; very low-quality evidence). Trials did not report our other primary outcomes.Direct vision entry versus open entryEvidence was insufficient to show whether there were differences between groups in rates of visceral injury (Peto OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.50; 2 RCTs; n = 392; I² = N/A; very low-quality evidence), solid organ injury (Peto OR 6.16, 95% CI 0.12 to 316.67; 1 RCT; n = 60; very low-quality evidence), or failed entry (Peto OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.04 to 4.09; 1 RCT; n = 60; very low-quality evidence). Two studies reported vascular injury with no events in either arm. Trials did not report our other primary outcomes.Radially expanding (STEP) trocars versus non-expanding trocarsEvidence was insufficient to show whether there were differences between groups in rates of vascular injury (Peto OR 0.24, 95% Cl 0.05 to 1.21; 2 RCTs; n = 331; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence), visceral injury (Peto OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.37; 2 RCTs; n = 331; very low-quality evidence), or solid organ injury (Peto OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.07 to 16.91; 1 RCT; n = 244; very low-quality evidence). Trials did not report our other primary outcomes.Other studies compared a wide variety of other laparoscopic entry techniques, but all evidence was of very low quality and evidence was insufficient to support the use of one technique over another.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Overall, evidence was insufficient to support the use of one laparoscopic entry technique over another. Researchers noted an advantage of direct trocar entry over Veress needle entry for failed entry. Most evidence was of very low quality; the main limitations were imprecision (due to small sample sizes and very low event rates) and risk of bias associated with poor reporting of study methods.
Topics: Abdominal Wall; Blood Vessels; Female; Gynecologic Surgical Procedures; Humans; Intestines; Intraoperative Complications; Laparoscopy; Male; Peritoneal Cavity; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Urinary Bladder
PubMed: 30657163
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006583.pub5