-
Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive &... Jan 2020Both thromboembolism and excessive bleeding following breast surgery could result in multiple surgical procedures, breast reconstruction failure, or even mortality. This... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Both thromboembolism and excessive bleeding following breast surgery could result in multiple surgical procedures, breast reconstruction failure, or even mortality. This systematic review and meta-analysis of 5617 female breast surgery patients compared pharmacological prophylaxis to nonpharmacological prophylaxis interventions during the pre-, intra-, and/or postoperative time points and evaluated associated outcomes and complications. The PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases were systematically and independently searched. Patient and clinical characteristics, surgical and medical interventions, outcomes, and complications were recorded. Eleven of the 344 studies queried were eligible for systematic review and meta-analysis, with results from 26 of the possible 117 outcomes and complications using strict PRISMA and Cochrane guidelines. Patients receiving intraoperative pharmacological prophylaxis for breast surgery were found to have more reoperations and more occurrences of any bleeding, while patients receiving postoperative pharmacological prophylaxis were found to have more occurrences of any bleeding than patients receiving nonpharmacological prophylaxis. Patients were more likely to receive preoperative pharmacological prophylaxis if they had diabetes mellitus and postoperative chemoprophylaxis if they had higher BMIs. Patients administered pharmacological prophylaxis during the pre-, intra-, and/or postoperative time periods did not show a significant decrease in deep vein thrombosis and/or pulmonary embolism or increase in hematomas compared to those administered nonpharmacological prophylaxis.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Blood Loss, Surgical; Blood Transfusion; Breast; Breast Neoplasms; Female; Fibrinolytic Agents; Humans; Mammaplasty; Mastectomy; Middle Aged; Perioperative Care; Postoperative Complications; Postoperative Hemorrhage; Reoperation; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Thromboembolism; Venous Thromboembolism
PubMed: 31718992
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2019.09.038 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2023Neonates may undergo surgery because of malformations such as diaphragmatic hernia, gastroschisis, congenital heart disease, and hypertrophic pyloric stenosis, or... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Neonates may undergo surgery because of malformations such as diaphragmatic hernia, gastroschisis, congenital heart disease, and hypertrophic pyloric stenosis, or complications of prematurity, such as necrotizing enterocolitis, spontaneous intestinal perforation, and retinopathy of prematurity that require surgical treatment. Options for treatment of postoperative pain include opioids, non-pharmacological interventions, and other drugs. Morphine, fentanyl, and remifentanil are the opioids most often used in neonates. However, negative impact of opioids on the structure and function of the developing brain has been reported. The assessment of the effects of opioids is of utmost importance, especially for neonates in substantial pain during the postoperative period.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of systemic opioid analgesics in neonates who underwent surgery on all-cause mortality, pain, and significant neurodevelopmental disability compared to no intervention, placebo, non-pharmacological interventions, different types of opioids, or other drugs.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE via PubMed and CINAHL in May 2021. We searched the WHO ICTRP, clinicaltrials.gov, and ICTRP trial registries. We searched conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for RCTs and quasi-RCTs. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in preterm and term infants of a postmenstrual age up to 46 weeks and 0 days with postoperative pain where systemic opioids were compared to 1) placebo or no intervention; 2) non-pharmacological interventions; 3) different types of opioids; or 4) other drugs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were pain assessed with validated methods, all-cause mortality during initial hospitalization, major neurodevelopmental disability, and cognitive and educational outcomes in children more than five years old. We used the fixed-effect model with risk ratio (RR) and risk difference (RD) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We included four RCTs enrolling 331 infants in four countries across different continents. Most studies considered patients undergoing large or medium surgical procedures (including major thoracic or abdominal surgery), who potentially required pain control through opioid administration after surgery. The randomized trials did not consider patients undergoing minor surgery (including inguinal hernia repair) and those individuals exposed to opioids before the beginning of the trial. Two RCTs compared opioids with placebo; one fentanyl with tramadol; and one morphine with paracetamol. No meta-analyses could be performed because the included RCTs reported no more than three outcomes within the prespecified comparisons. Certainty of the evidence was very low for all outcomes due to imprecision of the estimates (downgrade by two levels) and study limitations (downgrade by one level). Comparison 1: opioids versus no treatment or placebo Two trials were included in this comparison, comparing either tramadol or tapentadol with placebo. No data were reported on the following critical outcomes: pain; major neurodevelopmental disability; or cognitive and educational outcomes in children more than five years old. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of tramadol compared with placebo on all-cause mortality during initial hospitalization (RR 0.32, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.01 to 7.70; RD -0.03, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.05, 71 participants, 1 study; I² = not applicable). No data were reported on: retinopathy of prematurity; or intraventricular hemorrhage. Comparison 2: opioids versus non-pharmacological interventions No trials were included in this comparison. Comparison 3: head-to-head comparisons of different opioids One trial comparing fentanyl with tramadol was included in this comparison. No data were reported on the following critical outcomes: pain; major neurodevelopmental disability; or cognitive and educational outcomes in children more than five years old. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of fentanyl compared with tramadol on all-cause mortality during initial hospitalization (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.64; RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.13, 171 participants, 1 study; I² = not applicable). No data were reported on: retinopathy of prematurity; or intraventricular hemorrhage. Comparison 4: opioids versus other analgesics and sedatives One trial comparing morphine with paracetamol was included in this comparison. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of morphine compared with paracetamol on COMFORT pain scores (MD 0.10, 95% CI -0.85 to 1.05; 71 participants, 1 study; I² = not applicable). No data were reported on the other critical outcomes, i.e. major neurodevelopmental disability; cognitive and educational outcomes in children more than five years old, all-cause mortality during initial hospitalization; retinopathy of prematurity; or intraventricular hemorrhage.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Limited evidence is available on opioid administration for postoperative pain in newborn infants compared to either placebo, other opioids, or paracetamol. We are uncertain whether tramadol reduces mortality compared to placebo; none of the studies reported pain scores, major neurodevelopmental disability, cognitive and educational outcomes in children older than five years old, retinopathy of prematurity, or intraventricular hemorrhage. We are uncertain whether fentanyl reduces mortality compared to tramadol; none of the studies reported pain scores, major neurodevelopmental disability, cognitive and educational outcomes in children older than five years old, retinopathy of prematurity, or intraventricular hemorrhage. We are uncertain whether morphine reduces pain compared to paracetamol; none of the studies reported major neurodevelopmental disability, cognitive and educational outcomes in children more than five years old, all-cause mortality during initial hospitalization, retinopathy of prematurity, or intraventricular hemorrhage. We identified no studies comparing opioids versus non-pharmacological interventions.
Topics: Child; Infant; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Child, Preschool; Analgesics, Opioid; Tramadol; Acetaminophen; Retinopathy of Prematurity; Analgesics; Fentanyl; Morphine; Pain, Postoperative; Cerebral Hemorrhage
PubMed: 36870076
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014876.pub2 -
Journal of Neurosurgery Jan 2021Reports on basal ganglia cavernous malformations (BGCMs) are rare. Here, the authors report on their experience in resecting these malformations to offer insight into...
OBJECTIVE
Reports on basal ganglia cavernous malformations (BGCMs) are rare. Here, the authors report on their experience in resecting these malformations to offer insight into this infrequent disease subtype.
METHODS
The authors retrospectively reviewed a prospectively managed departmental database of all deep-seated cerebral cavernous malformations (CCMs) treated at Stanford between 1987 and 2019 and included for further analysis those with a radiographic diagnosis of BGCM. Moreover, a systematic literature review was undertaken using the PubMed and Web of Science databases.
RESULTS
The departmental database search yielded 331 patients with deep-seated CCMs, 44 of whom had a BGCM (13.3%). Headache was the most common presenting sign (53.5%), followed by seizure (32.6%) and hemiparesis (27.9%). Lesion location involved the caudate nucleus in 21.4% of cases compared to 78.6% of cases within the lentiform nucleus. Caudate BGCMs were larger on presentation and were more likely to present to the ependymal surface (p < 0.001) with intraventricular hemorrhage and hydrocephalus (p = 0.005 and 0.007, respectively). Dizziness and diplopia were also more common with lesions involving the caudate. Because of their anatomical location, caudate BGCMs were preferentially treated via an interhemispheric approach and were less likely to be associated with worsening perioperative deficits than lentiform BGCMs (p = 0.006 and 0.045, respectively). Ten patients (25.6%) were clinically worse in the immediate postoperative period, 4 (10.2%) of whom continued to suffer permanent morbidity at the last follow-up. A long-term good outcome (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] score 0-1) was attained in 74.4% of cases compared to the 69.2% of patients who had presented with an mRS score 0-1. Relative to their presenting mRS score, 89.8% of patients had an improved or unchanged status at the last follow-up. The median postoperative follow-up was 11 months (range 1-252 months). Patient outcomes after resection did not differ among surgical approaches; however, patients presenting with hemiparesis and lesions involving the globus pallidus or posterior limb of the internal capsule were more likely to suffer neurological deficits during the immediate perioperative period. Patients who had undergone awake surgeries were more likely to suffer neurological decline at the early as well as the late follow-up. When adjusting for awake craniotomy as a potential confounder of lesion location, a BGCM involving the posterior limb was predictive of developing early postoperative deficits, but this finding did not persist at the long-term follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS
Surgery is a safe and effective treatment modality for managing BGCMs, with an estimated long-term permanent morbidity rate of around 10%.
PubMed: 33385997
DOI: 10.3171/2020.7.JNS2098 -
Journal of Vascular Surgery Mar 2023To provide an updated systematic literature review summarizing current evidence on aortic neck dilatation (AND) after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To provide an updated systematic literature review summarizing current evidence on aortic neck dilatation (AND) after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) in patients with infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm.
METHODS
An extensive electronic search in major electronic databases was conducted between January 2000 and December 2021. Eligible for inclusion were observational studies that followed up with patients (n ≥ 20) undergoing EVAR with self-expanding endografts, for 12 or more months, evaluated AND with computed tomography angiography and provided data on relevant outcomes. The primary end point was the incidence of AND after EVAR, and the secondary end points were the occurrence of type Ia endoleak, stent graft migration, secondary rupture, and reintervention.
RESULTS
We included 34 studies with a total sample of 12,038 patients (10,413 men; median age, 71 years). AND was defined clearly in 18 studies, but significant differences in AND definition were evidenced. The pooled incidence of AND based on quantitative analysis of 16 studies with a total of 9201 patients (7961 men; median age, 72 years) was calculated at 22.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 14.4-34.4) over a follow-up period ranging from 12 months to 14 years. The risk of a type Ia endoleak was significantly higher in AND patients compared with those without AND (odds ratio, 2.95; 95% CI, 1.10-7.93; P = .030). Similarly, endograft migration was more common in the AND group compared with the non-AND group (odds ratio, 5.95; 95% CI, 1.80-19.69; P = .004). The combined incidence of secondary rupture and reintervention did not differ significantly between the two groups, even though the combined effect was in favor of the non-AND group.
CONCLUSIONS
Proximal AND after EVAR is common and occurs in a large proportion of patients with infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm. AND can influence the long-term durability of proximal endograft fixation and is significantly related to adverse outcomes, often leading to reinterventions.
Topics: Male; Humans; Aged; Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation; Endoleak; Treatment Outcome; Dilatation; Risk Factors; Endovascular Procedures; Retrospective Studies; Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal; Blood Vessel Prosthesis
PubMed: 35948244
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2022.07.182 -
Frontiers in Neurology 2021This study systematically reviews the clinical efficacy and safety of twist-drill craniostomy with hollow screws in chronic subdural hematoma treatment.
OBJECTIVE
This study systematically reviews the clinical efficacy and safety of twist-drill craniostomy with hollow screws in chronic subdural hematoma treatment.
METHODS
A computerized search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, World Health Organization International Trial Registry platform, CBM, CNKI, and Wanfang Database was performed to retrieve randomized controlled trials or case-control trials using twist-drill craniostomy (TDC) with hollow screws for the evacuation of chronic subdural hematoma from the date of databases' inception to July 2021. Two investigators independently screened the studies and extracted data in strict accordance with pre-established inclusion and exclusion criteria. RevMan 5.3 software or STATA was used for meta-analysis after evaluating the methodological quality of the included studies.
RESULTS
A total of 4 randomized controlled trials and 16 case-control trials with a total of 2,536 cases were included. Results of the meta-analysis showed that the surgical success rate and postoperative recurrence rate of TDC with hollow screws were slightly higher compared to the burr hole craniostomy (BHC) group, but showed no statistical significance (RR = 1.03, = 0.05; RR = 1.13, = 0.50). However, subgroup analysis showed that the use of YL-1 needle had a higher success rate and lower recurrence rate (RR = 1.05, = 0.02 < 0.05; RR = 0.584, = 0.002), and TDC with hollow screws had a lower incidence rate of postoperative complications and postoperative acute intracranial hemorrhage compared with BHC, also revealing an overall shorter hospital stay (RR = 0.57, = 0.0002 < 0.05; RR = 0.584, = 0.027 < 0.05; WMD = -3.752, < 0.001). However, the postoperative mortality rate was practically the same between the two groups (OR = 1.01, = 0.95 > 0.05).
CONCLUSION
Twist-drill craniostomy with hollow screws is not inferior or superior to BHC in efficacy, and this strategy is safer and minimally invasive, which is reflected in a lower incidence of acute intracranial hemorrhage, overall complication rate, and length of hospital stay.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: CRD42021270835.
PubMed: 35153988
DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2021.811873 -
BMC Neurology Jul 2021To compare the effectiveness of various drug interventions in improving the clinical outcome of postoperative patients after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH)... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To compare the effectiveness of various drug interventions in improving the clinical outcome of postoperative patients after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) and assist in determining the drugs of definite curative effect in improving clinical prognosis.
METHODS
Eligible Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) were searched in databases of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library (inception to Sep 2020). Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) score, Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOSE) score or modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score was used as the main outcome measurements to evaluate the efficacy of various drugs in improving the clinical outcomes of postoperative patients with aSAH. The network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted based on a random-effects model, dichotomous variables were determined by using odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI), and a surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was generated to estimate the ranking probability of comparative effectiveness among different drug therapies.
RESULTS
From the 493 of initial citation screening, forty-four RCTs (n = 10,626 participants) were eventually included in our analysis. Our NMA results showed that cilostazol (OR = 3.35,95%CI = 1.50,7.51) was the best intervention to improve the clinical outcome of patients (SUCRA = 87.29%, 95%CrI 0.07-0.46). Compared with the placebo group, only two drug interventions [nimodipine (OR = 1.61, 95%CI 1.01,2.57) and cilostazol (OR = 3.35, 95%CI 1.50, 7.51)] achieved significant statistical significance in improving the clinical outcome of patients.
CONCLUSIONS
Both nimodipine and cilostazol have exact curative effect to improve the outcome of postoperative patients with aSAH, and cilostazol may be the best drug to improve the outcome of patients after aSAH operation. Our study provides implications for future studies that, the combination of two or more drugs with relative safety and potential benefits (e.g., nimodipine and cilostazol) may improve the clinical outcome of patients more effectively.
Topics: Cardiovascular Agents; Cilostazol; Humans; Intracranial Aneurysm; Network Meta-Analysis; Neuroprotective Agents; Nimodipine; Postoperative Period; Prognosis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Subarachnoid Hemorrhage; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34311705
DOI: 10.1186/s12883-021-02303-8 -
Journal of Vascular Surgery Aug 2023To investigate the long-term reinterventions of thoracic endovascular repair (TEVAR) after blunt traumatic aortic injury. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the long-term reinterventions of thoracic endovascular repair (TEVAR) after blunt traumatic aortic injury.
METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were interrogated until June 2021. Inclusion criteria were blunt traumatic aortic injury treated with TEVAR and mean follow-up of more than 60 months. A systematic review was conducted and data were pooled using a random effects model of proportions applying the Freeman-Tukey transformation. Late reintervention was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were procedure-related complications (endoleak, in-stent thrombosis, occlusion, infolding/collapse, bird-beak, migration, and left arm claudication), overall and aortic-related mortality, and aortic diameter changes.
RESULTS
Eleven studies with a low quality assessment were included. Four hundred eight patients were collected and the 389 surviving more than 30 days were included. The mean follow-up was 8.2 years (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.7-10.8; I = 40.2%). Late reintervention was 2.1% (95% CI, 0.6-3.9; I = 0.0%; 11/389 cases) with 0.1% (95% CI, 0.0-1.2; I = 0.0%; 3/389) occurring after 5 years. Bird-beak was identified in 38.7% (95% CI, 16.4-63.6; I = 86.6%). Left arm claudication occurring after 30 days was 3.1% (95% CI, 0.1-8.6; I = 26.9%; 11/140 cases). In-stent thrombosis was 1.9% (95% CI, 0.1-5.2; I = 51.8%; 11/389 cases). Endoleak was 0.5% (95% CI, 0.0-1.9; I = 0.0%; 5/389 cases). Infolding, occlusion, and migration were reported in 2 of 389, 1 of 389, and 0 of 389 patients, respectively. Overall late survival was 95.6% (95% CI, 88.1-99.8; I = 84.7%; 358/389 patients) and only one patient accounted for aortic related mortality. The increase in proximal and distal aortic diameters was estimated at 2.7 mm (95% CI, 1.2-4.3; I = 0.0%) and 2.5 mm (95% CI, 1.1-3.9; I = 0.0%), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
TEVAR demonstrates remarkably good long-term results and reinterventions are rarely required. Aortic reinterventions tend to occur within the first and after the fifth year.
Topics: Humans; Blood Vessel Prosthesis; Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation; Aorta, Thoracic; Stents; Endoleak; Treatment Outcome; Endovascular Procedures; Retrospective Studies; Wounds, Nonpenetrating
PubMed: 36754248
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2023.01.196 -
Frontiers in Surgery 2022Mortality and morbidity following hepatic resection is significantly affected by major intra-operative blood loss. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Mortality and morbidity following hepatic resection is significantly affected by major intra-operative blood loss. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates whether selective hepatic vascular exclusion (SHVE) compared to a Pringle maneuver in hepatic resection reduces rates of morbidity and mortality.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines by screening EMBASE, MEDLINE/PubMed, CENTRAL and SCOPUS for comparative studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Pooled odds ratios or mean differences were calculated for outcomes using either fixed- or random-effects models.
RESULTS
Six studies were identified: three randomised controlled trials and three observational studies reporting a total of 2,238 patients. Data synthesis showed significantly decreased rates of mortality, overall complications, blood loss, transfusion requirements, air embolism, liver failure and multi-organ failure in the SHVE group. Rates of hepatic vein rupture, post-operative hemorrhage, operative and warm ischemia time, length of stay in hospital and intensive care unit were not statistically significant between the two groups.
CONCLUSION
Performing SHVE in major hepatectomy may result in reduced rates of morbidity and mortality when compared to a Pringle maneuver. The results of this meta-analysis are based on studies where tumors were adjacent to major vessels. Further RCTs are required to validate these results.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO (CRD42020212372) https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=212372.
PubMed: 35465416
DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.860721 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2023Vascular surgery may be followed by internal bleeding due to inadequate surgical haemostasis, abnormal clotting, or surgical complications. Bleeding ranges from minor,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Vascular surgery may be followed by internal bleeding due to inadequate surgical haemostasis, abnormal clotting, or surgical complications. Bleeding ranges from minor, with no transfusion requirement, to massive, requiring multiple blood product transfusions. There are a number of drugs, given systemically or applied locally, which may reduce the need for blood transfusion.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of anti-fibrinolytic and haemostatic drugs and agents in reducing bleeding and the need for blood transfusion in people undergoing major vascular surgery or vascular procedures with a risk of moderate or severe (> 500 mL) blood loss.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; MEDLINE; Embase; CINAHL, and Transfusion Evidence Library. We also searched the WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov trial registries for ongoing and unpublished trials. Searches used a combination of MeSH and free text terms from database inception to 31 March 2022, without restriction on language or publication status.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adults of drug treatments to reduce bleeding due to major vascular surgery or vascular procedures with a risk of moderate or severe blood loss, which used placebo, usual care or another drug regimen as control.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were units of red cells transfused and all-cause mortality. Our secondary outcomes included risk of receiving an allogeneic blood product, risk of reoperation or repeat procedure due to bleeding, risk of a thromboembolic event, risk of a serious adverse event and length of hospital stay. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 22 RCTs with 3393 participants analysed, of which one RCT with 69 participants was reported only in abstract form, with no usable data. Seven RCTs evaluated systemic drug treatments (three aprotinin, two desmopressin, two tranexamic acid) and 15 RCTs evaluated topical drug treatments (drug-containing bioabsorbable dressings or glues), including fibrin, thrombin, collagen, gelatin, synthetic sealants and one investigational new agent. Most trials were conducted in high-income countries and the majority of the trials only included participants undergoing elective surgery. We also identified two ongoing RCTs. We were unable to perform the planned network meta-analysis due to the sparse reporting of outcomes relevant to this review. Systemic drug treatments We identified seven trials of three systemic drugs: aprotinin, desmopressin and tranexamic acid, all with placebo controls. The trials of aprotinin and desmopressin were small with very low-certainty evidence for all of our outcomes. Tranexamic acid versus placebo was the systemic drug comparison with the largest number of participants (2 trials; 1460 participants), both at low risk of bias. The largest of these included a total of 9535 individuals undergoing a number of different higher risk surgeries and reported limited information on the vascular subgroup (1399 participants). Neither trial reported the number of units of red cells transfused per participant up to 30 days. Three outcomes were associated with very low-certainty evidence due to the very wide confidence intervals (CIs) resulting from small study sizes and low number of events. These were: all-cause mortality up to 30 days; number of participants requiring an allogeneic blood transfusion up to 30 days; and risk of requiring a repeat procedure or operation due to bleeding. Tranexamic acid may have no effect on the risk of thromboembolic events up to 30 days (risk ratio (RR) 1.10, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.36; 1 trial, 1360 participants; low-certainty evidence due to imprecision). There is one large ongoing trial (8320 participants) comparing tranexamic acid versus placebo in people undergoing non-cardiac surgery who are at high risk of requiring a red cell transfusion. This aims to complete recruitment in April 2023. This trial has primary outcomes of proportion of participants transfused with red blood cells and incidence of venous thromboembolism (DVT or PE). Topical drug treatments Most trials of topical drug treatments were at high risk of bias due to their open-label design (compared with usual care, or liquids were compared with sponges). All of the trials were small, most were very small, and few reported clinically relevant outcomes in the postoperative period. Fibrin sealant versus usual care was the topical drug comparison with the largest number of participants (5 trials, 784 participants). The five trials that compared fibrin sealant with usual care were all at high risk of bias, due to the open-label trial design with no measures put in place to minimise reporting bias. All of the trials were funded by pharmaceutical companies. None of the five trials reported the number of red cells transfused per participant up to 30 days or the number of participants requiring an allogeneic blood transfusion up to 30 days. The other three outcomes were associated with very low-certainty evidence with wide confidence intervals due to small sample sizes and the low number of events, these were: all-cause mortality up to 30 days; risk of requiring a repeat procedure due to bleeding; and risk of thromboembolic disease up to 30 days. We identified one large trial (500 participants) comparing fibrin sealant versus usual care in participants undergoing abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, which has not yet started recruitment. This trial lists death due to arterial disease and reintervention rates as primary outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Because of a lack of data, we are uncertain whether any systemic or topical treatments used to reduce bleeding due to major vascular surgery have an effect on: all-cause mortality up to 30 days; risk of requiring a repeat procedure or operation due to bleeding; number of red cells transfused per participant up to 30 days or the number of participants requiring an allogeneic blood transfusion up to 30 days. There may be no effect of tranexamic acid on the risk of thromboembolic events up to 30 days, this is important as there has been concern that this risk may be increased. Trials with sample size targets of thousands of participants and clinically relevant outcomes are needed, and we look forward to seeing the results of the ongoing trials in the future.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Aprotinin; Blood Transfusion; Deamino Arginine Vasopressin; Fibrin Tissue Adhesive; Hemorrhage; Network Meta-Analysis; Tranexamic Acid
PubMed: 36800489
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013649.pub2 -
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Dec 2019Central pancreatectomy (CP) is the alternative to distal pancreatectomy (DP) for specific pathologies of the mid-pancreas. However, the benefits of CP over DP remain... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Central pancreatectomy (CP) is the alternative to distal pancreatectomy (DP) for specific pathologies of the mid-pancreas. However, the benefits of CP over DP remain controversial. This study aims to compare the two procedures by conducting a meta-analysis of all published papers.
METHODS
A systematic search of original studies comparing CP vs. DP was performed using PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases up to June 2018. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) checklist was followed.
RESULTS
Twenty-one studies were included (596 patients with CP and 1070 patients with DP). Compared to DP, CP was associated with significantly higher rates of overall and severe morbidity (p < 0.0001), overall and clinically relevant pancreatic fistula (p < 0.0001), postoperative hemorrhage (p = 0.02), but with significantly lower incidences of new-onset (p < 0.0001) and worsening diabetes mellitus (p = 0.004). Furthermore, significantly longer length of hospital stay (p < 0.0001) was observed for CP patients.
CONCLUSIONS
CP is superior to DP regarding the preservation of pancreatic functions, but at the expense of significantly higher complication rates and longer hospital stay. Proper selection of patients is of utmost importance to maximize the benefits and mitigate the risks of CP.
Topics: Disease-Free Survival; Female; Humans; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Male; Neoplasm Invasiveness; Neoplasm Staging; Open Abdomen Techniques; Operative Time; Pancreas; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Patient Selection; Postoperative Complications; Prognosis; Risk Assessment; Survival Analysis
PubMed: 31641855
DOI: 10.1007/s00423-019-01829-3