-
Endoscopy International Open Sep 2020Exposed endoscopic full-thickness resection (Eo-EFTR) without laparoscopic assistance is a minimally invasive natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES)... (Review)
Review
Exposed endoscopic full-thickness resection (Eo-EFTR) without laparoscopic assistance is a minimally invasive natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) technique that has shown promising efficacy and safety in resection of gastric submucosal tumors (G-SMTs) arising from muscularis propria (MP). However, data on the efficacy and safety of gastric Eo-EFTR mostly come from relatively small retrospective studies and concern regarding its use still exists. The aim of our systematic review was to assess the efficacy and safety of gastric Eo-EFTR without laparoscopic assistance. A detailed MEDLINE and EMBASE search was performed for papers published from January 1998 to November 2019 and reporting on gastric Eo-EFTR without laparoscopic assistance. The search strategy used the terms "endoscopic full thickness resection" and "gastric" or "stomach". The primary outcomes were complete resection and surgical conversion rates. The secondary outcomes were overall major adverse events, delayed bleeding, delayed perforation, peritonitis, abdominal abscess and/or abdominal infection and successful Eo-EFTR. Fifteen Asian studies were included in our final review, providing data on 750 Eo-EFTR-treated G-SMTs. The per-lesion rate of complete resection and surgical conversion were 98.8 %\0.8 %, respectively. The per-lesion rate of major adverse events, delayed bleeding, delayed perforation and peritonitis, abdominal abscess and/or abdominal infection was 1.6 %\0.5 %\0.1 %\0.9 %, respectively. The per-lesion rate of successful Eo-EFTR (i. e. complete tumor resection and effective endoscopic defect closure) was 98.3 %. Eo-EFTR without laparoscopic assistance appears to be highly effective and safe NOTES for removing deep G-SMTs, particularly those arising from MP layer.
PubMed: 32904958
DOI: 10.1055/a-1198-4357 -
Peritoneal Dialysis International :... Nov 2021The current consensus recommended the peritoneal dialysis catheter (PDC) techniques based on the patients' anesthesia situation and previous abdominal surgery. However,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The current consensus recommended the peritoneal dialysis catheter (PDC) techniques based on the patients' anesthesia situation and previous abdominal surgery. However, the research comparing of all the existing PDC techniques is lacking. The objective was to compare the efficacy and safety of PDC techniques by network meta-analysis (NMA). A systematic review of databases was conducted to identify eligible studies. NMA was used to estimate the ranking for endpoints. Our NMA included 41 studies (9 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 32 observational trials) and enrolled 3902 patients, comparing three techniques: the laparoscopic catheterization (LC), open surgery catheterization (OSC), and percutaneous catheterization (PC). NMA in RCTs showed OSC had the highest incidence of catheter mechanical dysfunction, PC and LC were very similar, but this result had no statistical difference. NMA in observational studies showed that LC had the highest 1-year catheter survival but without statistical difference (LC vs. OSC: odds ratio (OR) 1.75, 95% credible intervals (CrIs) 0.90-3.40; PC vs. OSC: OR 1.55, 95% CrIs 0.80-2.97; PC vs. LC: OR 0.88, 95% CrIs 0.54-1.44). OSC had the lowest incidence for bleeding. The complications of leakage, peritonitis, and exit/tunnel infection were inconclusive due to the inconsistent results between RCTs and observational studies. Our NMA revealed LC may have the best 1-year catheter survival. PC and LC might be efficacious in lowering the mechanical dysfunction. OSC had the lowest incidence for bleeding. More RCTs with larger scale and higher quality are needed in order to obtain more credible evidence.
Topics: Catheterization; Catheters; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Peritoneal Dialysis; Peritonitis
PubMed: 32914705
DOI: 10.1177/0896860820953720 -
Expert Review of Anti-infective Therapy Aug 2019: Peritoneal tuberculosis is a common type of abdominal tuberculosis. The most commonly used classification divides peritoneal tuberculosis into wet-ascitic type,...
: Peritoneal tuberculosis is a common type of abdominal tuberculosis. The most commonly used classification divides peritoneal tuberculosis into wet-ascitic type, dry-plastic type, and fixed-fibrotic type. : We performed a systematic literature search on the definitions of existing classification of peritoneal tuberculosis. The literature search identified confusion in the classification of peritoneal tuberculosis. The classification system also fails to classify some patterns of peritoneal tuberculosis like an abdominal cocoon and a substantial overlap in various categories was found. The impact of the present classification on clinical management is unclear. Lack of prospective studies and the presence of heterogeneity in reporting add to the confusion. : We suggest that a uniform system which better classifies peritoneal tuberculosis and helps in clinical management should be used in future studies. We propose a simple, clinico-radiological classification of peritoneal tuberculosis into two types: distension-dominant and/or pain-obstruction dominant based on the clinical presentation. This approach will be relevant to clinicians as patients with the pain-obstruction dominant presentation are more likely to receive surgical interventions and may benefit from additional measures aimed to reduce fibrosis-like addition of steroids to ATT. Future studies should aim to validate the proposed clinico-radiological classification in patients with peritoneal tuberculosis.
Topics: Abdominal Pain; Humans; Peritonitis, Tuberculous; Radiography
PubMed: 31293195
DOI: 10.1080/14787210.2019.1642746 -
BMC Gastroenterology Feb 2023Gastrointestinal strictures impact clinical presentation in abdominal tuberculosis and are associated with significant morbidity. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Gastrointestinal strictures impact clinical presentation in abdominal tuberculosis and are associated with significant morbidity.
AIM
To conduct a systematic review of the prevalence of stricturing disease in abdominal and gastrointestinal tuberculosis and response to antitubercular therapy (ATT).
METHODS
We searched Pubmed and Embase on 13th January 2022, for papers reporting on the frequency and outcomes of stricturing gastrointestinal tuberculosis. The data were extracted, and pooled prevalence of stricturing disease was estimated in abdominal tuberculosis and gastrointestinal (intestinal) tuberculosis. The pooled clinical response and stricture resolution (endoscopic or radiologic) rates were also estimated. Publication bias was assessed using the Funnel plot and Egger test. The risk of bias assessment was done using a modified Newcastle Ottawa Scale.
RESULTS
Thirty-three studies reporting about 1969 patients were included. The pooled prevalence of intestinal strictures in abdominal tuberculosis and gastrointestinal TB was 0.12 (95%CI 0.07-0.20, I = 89%) and 0.27 (95% CI 0.21-0.33, I = 85%), respectively. The pooled clinical response of stricturing gastrointestinal tuberculosis to antitubercular therapy was 0.77 (95%CI 0.65-0.86, I = 74%). The pooled stricture response rate (endoscopic or radiological) was 0.66 (95%CI 0.40-0.85, I = 91%). The pooled rate of need for surgical intervention was 0.21 (95%CI 0.13-0.32, I = 70%), while endoscopic dilatation was 0.14 (95%CI 0.09-0.21, I = 0%).
CONCLUSION
Stricturing gastrointestinal tuberculosis occurs in around a quarter of patients with gastrointestinal tuberculosis, and around two-thirds of patients have a clinical response with antitubercular therapy. A subset of patients may need endoscopic or surgical intervention. The estimates for the pooled prevalence of stricturing disease and response to ATT had significant heterogeneity.
Topics: Humans; Constriction, Pathologic; Tuberculosis, Gastrointestinal; Antitubercular Agents; Intestinal Obstruction; Abdomen
PubMed: 36814249
DOI: 10.1186/s12876-023-02682-x -
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery May 2022We aimed to compare the outcomes of iatrogenic gallbladder perforation (IGP) versus no gallbladder perforation in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIMS
We aimed to compare the outcomes of iatrogenic gallbladder perforation (IGP) versus no gallbladder perforation in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in compliance with PRISMA statement standards. We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL Scopus, and CENTRAL to identify eligible studies. The last search was run on 17 October 2021. The outcome of interest included surgical site infection (SSI), postoperative collection, operative time, and length of hospital stay. Random effects modelling was applied to calculate pooled outcome data. The certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE system.
RESULTS
Analysis of 5366 patients from 11 observational studies suggested that IGP during laparoscopic cholecystectomy does not increase the risk of SSI (OR: 1.48, 95% CI 0.57-3.86, P = 0.42) and postoperative collection (RD: 0.00, 95% CI - 0.00-0.01, P = 0.41) but may result in longer operative time (MD 10.28 min, 95% CI 7.40-13.16, P < 0.00001) and length of hospital stay (MD 0.51 days, 95% CI 0.15-0.87, P = 0.005). The results remained consistent through sensitivity analyses. The quality of available evidence was judged to be moderate, and the GRADE certainty of the evidence was judged to be high.
CONCLUSIONS
The best available evidence suggests that IGP during laparoscopic cholecystectomy may not increase the risk of SSI and postoperative collection but may result in longer operative time and length of hospital stay. Whether prompt retrieval of spilled stones, adequate peritoneal irrigation, and intraoperative use of prophylactic antibiotic contribute to the above findings remains unknown.
Topics: Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic; Gallbladder Diseases; Humans; Iatrogenic Disease; Operative Time; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 35039923
DOI: 10.1007/s00423-022-02439-2 -
Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) Jan 2023Background and Aim: Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) is a common infection in liver cirrhosis. This systematic review and meta-analysis provide detailed... (Review)
Review
Background and Aim: Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) is a common infection in liver cirrhosis. This systematic review and meta-analysis provide detailed information on the prevalence of SBP among hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV)-related liver cirrhosis globally. Methods: A systematic search for articles describing the prevalence of SBP in HBV and HCV-related cirrhosis was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Our search returned ten (10) eligible articles involving 1713 viral cirrhosis cases representing eight (8) countries. A meta-analysis was performed on our eligible studies using the random effect model. A protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022321790). Results: The pooled prevalence of SBP in HBV-associated cirrhosis had the highest estimate [8.0% (95% CI, 2.7−21.0%; I2 = 96.13%; p < 0.001)], followed by SBP in HCV-associated liver cirrhosis [4.0% (95% CI, 1.3%−11.5%; I2 = 88.99%; p < 0.001)]. China (61.8%, CI: 57.1−66.3%), the USA (50.0%, CI: 34.6−65.4%), and Holland (31.1%, CI: 21.6−42.5%) had the highest estimate for SBP in HBV associated liver cirrhosis, SBP in HCV associated liver cirrhosis and SBP in HBV + HCV associated liver cirrhosis respectively. There was a significant difference in the prevalence of SBP in viral hepatitis-associated liver cirrhosis with the year of sampling and method of SBP detection at P < 0.001. There was an increase in SBP incidence at the beginning of 2016 across the liver cirrhosis in this study. Conclusion: The findings of this review revealed a rise in the incidence of SBP in viral hepatitis over the last decade. The latter indicates a possible future rise in the global prevalence of SBP among HBV and HCV-related liver cirrhosis.
PubMed: 36673643
DOI: 10.3390/healthcare11020275 -
Journal of Neurosurgery. Spine Sep 2023Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is a workhorse surgical approach for lumbar arthrodesis. There is growing interest in techniques for performing single-position...
OBJECTIVE
Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is a workhorse surgical approach for lumbar arthrodesis. There is growing interest in techniques for performing single-position surgery in which LLIF and pedicle screw fixation are performed with the patient in the prone position. Most studies of prone LLIF are of poor quality and without long-term follow-up; therefore, the complication profile related to this novel approach is not well known. The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review and pooled analysis to understand the safety profile of prone LLIF.
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature and a pooled analysis were conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. All studies reporting prone LLIF were assessed for inclusion. Studies not reporting complication rates were excluded.
RESULTS
Ten studies meeting the inclusion criteria were analyzed. Overall, 286 patients were treated with prone LLIF across these studies, and a mean (SD) of 1.3 (0.2) levels per patient were treated. The 18 intraoperative complications reported included cage subsidence (3.8% [3/78]), anterior longitudinal ligament rupture (2.3% [5/215]), cage repositioning (2.1% [2/95]), segmental artery injury (2.0% [5/244]), aborted prone interbody placement (0.8% [2/244]), and durotomy (0.6% [1/156]). No major vascular or peritoneal injuries were reported. Sixty-eight postoperative complications occurred, including hip flexor weakness (17.8% [21/118]), thigh and groin sensory symptoms (13.3% [31/233]), revision surgery (3.8% [3/78]), wound infection (1.9% [3/156]), psoas hematoma (1.3% [2/156]), and motor neural injury (1.2% [2/166]).
CONCLUSIONS
Single-position LLIF in the prone position appears to be a safe surgical approach with a low complication profile. Longer-term follow-up and prospective studies are needed to better characterize the long-term complication rates related to this approach.
Topics: Humans; Lumbar Vertebrae; Postoperative Complications; Spinal Fusion; Reoperation; Vascular System Injuries; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 37310041
DOI: 10.3171/2023.4.SPINE221180 -
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 -
Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) Sep 2023Cephalexin is a first-generation β-lactam antibiotic used in adults and pediatrics to treat various streptococcal and staphylococcal infections. This review aims to... (Review)
Review
Cephalexin is a first-generation β-lactam antibiotic used in adults and pediatrics to treat various streptococcal and staphylococcal infections. This review aims to summarize and evaluate all the pharmacokinetic (PK) data on cephalexin by screening out all pertinent studies in human beings following the per oral (PO) route. By employing different online search engines such as Google Scholar, PubMed, Cochrane Central, and Science Direct, 23 studies were retrieved, among which nine were in healthy subjects, five in diseased ones, and the remaining were drug-drug, drug-food, and bioequivalence-related. These studies were included only based on the presence of plasma concentration-time profiles or PK parameters, i.e., maximum plasma concentration (C), half-life (t) area under the curve from time 0-infinity (AUC and clearance (CL/F). A dose-proportional increase in AUC and C can be portrayed in different studies conducted in the healthy population. In comparison to cefaclor, C was recorded to be 0.5 folds higher for cephalexin in the case of renal impairment. An increase in AUC was seen in cephalexin on administration with probenecid, i.e., 117 µg.h/mL vs. 68.1 µg.h/mL. Moreover, drug-drug interactions with omeprazole, ranitidine, zinc sulfate, and drug-food interactions for cephalexin and other cephalosporins have also been depicted in different studies with significant changes in all PK parameters. This current review has reported all accessible studies containing PK variables in healthy and diseased populations (renal, dental, and osteoarticular infections, continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis) that may be favorable for health practitioners in optimizing doses among the latter.
PubMed: 37760698
DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics12091402 -
Annals of Gastroenterology 2022Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and percutaneous radiological gastrostomy (PRG) are invasive interventions used for enteral access. We performed a systematic...
BACKGROUND
Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and percutaneous radiological gastrostomy (PRG) are invasive interventions used for enteral access. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis with assessment of certainty of evidence to compare the risk of adverse outcomes and technical failure between PEG and PRG.
METHODS
We queried PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane from inception through January 2022 to identify studies comparing outcomes of PEG and PRG. The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes included the risk of colon perforation, peritonitis, bleeding, technical failure, peristomal infections, and tube-related complications. We performed GRADE assessment to assess the certainty of evidence and leave-one-out analysis for sensitivity analysis.
RESULTS
In the final analysis, 33 studies, including 26 high-quality studies, provided data on 275,117 patients undergoing PEG and 192,691 patients undergoing PRG. Data from high quality studies demonstrated that, compared to PRG, PEG had significantly lower odds of selected outcomes, including 30-day all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR] 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.60-0.95; P=0.02), colon perforation (OR 0.61, 95%CI 0.49-0.75; P<0.001), and peritonitis (OR 0.71, 95%CI 0.63-0.81; P<0.001). There was no significant difference between PEG and PRG in terms of technical failure, bleeding, peristomal infections or mechanical complications. The certainty of the evidence was rated moderate for colon perforation and low for all other outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
PEG is associated with a significantly lower risk of 30-day all-cause mortality, colon perforation, and peritonitis compared to PRG, while having a comparable technical failure rate. PEG should be considered as the first-line technique for enteral access.
PubMed: 36406969
DOI: 10.20524/aog.2022.0752