-
Surgery Jun 2024Some observational data have suggested that anastomotic leak may be reduced with triple-row staple technology compared to double-row staple technology. We aimed to... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Some observational data have suggested that anastomotic leak may be reduced with triple-row staple technology compared to double-row staple technology. We aimed to investigate this further by performing a systematic review comparing double- and triple-row staple technology for colorectal anastomoses.
METHODS
This systematic review was reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched up to November 2023. Articles were eligible for inclusion if they were comparing double-row staple and triple-row staple technology for left-sided colo-colic, colorectal, or coloanal anastomosis. The main outcomes included anastomotic leak, anastomotic hemorrhage, 30-day mortality, and reoperation. Meta-analyses with inverse variance random effects were performed. Certainty of evidence was assessed with Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations.
RESULTS
After reviewing 340 relevant citations, 6 retrospective cohort studies met inclusion. Overall, 19,372 patients (mean age: 60.2 years, 52.7% female sex) had anastomoses with double-row staple technology, and 2,298 patients (mean age: 61.3 years, 50.3% female sex) with triple-row staple technology. Most operations were anterior resections (double-row: 55.3%; triple-row: 43.6%). Across all included studies, the risk of anastomotic leak was reduced with triple-row staple technology (6.3% vs 7.5%, risk ratio 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.31-0.94, P = .03, I=75%). There were no significant differences in anastomotic hemorrhage (risk ratio 0.47, 95% confidence interval 0.15-1.49, P = .20, I = 57%), 30-day mortality (risk ratio 0.66, 95% confidence interval 0.17-2.55, P = .55, I = 0%), or reoperation (risk ratio 1.05, 95% confidence interval 0.42-2.64, P = .91, I = 56%).
CONCLUSION
Triple-row staple technology may reduce the risk of anastomotic leak in left-sided colorectal anastomoses.
PubMed: 38876899
DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2024.04.039 -
Nutrients Dec 2020Evidence of synergic health effects of co-supplementation with vitamin D and probiotics is emerging. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Evidence of synergic health effects of co-supplementation with vitamin D and probiotics is emerging. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses PRISMA statement, scientific databases and the grey literature were searched, and a narrative review and risk of bias assessment were conducted. Seven randomized controlled trials were included, which had low risk of bias. Six studies were double-blind, and once single-blind, extended over 6-12 weeks, and included 50-105 participants. Conditions explored included schizophrenia, gestational diabetes, type 2 diabetes and coronary heart disease, polycystic ovarian syndrome, osteopenia, irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), and infantile colic. Supplementation frequency was daily or bi-monthly, with mainly vitamin D3, and , , and . Comparators were placebo, vitamin D, lower vitamin D dose, and probiotics and lower vitamin D dose. The co-supplementation yielded greater health benefits than its comparators did in all studies except in one assessing IBS. Beneficial effects included decreased disease severity, improved mental health, metabolic parameters, mainly insulin sensitivity, dyslipidemia, inflammation, and antioxidative capacity, and lower use of healthcare. Co-supplementation of vitamin D and probiotics generated greater health benefits than its comparators did. More studies in other diseases and various populations are needed to confirm these findings and to elucidate the optimal form, composition, and frequency of this co-supplementation.
Topics: Bifidobacterium; Cholecalciferol; Dietary Supplements; Dyslipidemias; Female; Humans; Inflammation; Insulin Resistance; Lactobacillus; Male; Mental Health; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Streptococcus
PubMed: 33396898
DOI: 10.3390/nu13010111 -
Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine 2020Renal colic affects 12% of the U.S. population, accounting for nearly 1% of emergency department (ED) visits. Current recommendations advocate narcotic-limiting... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Renal colic affects 12% of the U.S. population, accounting for nearly 1% of emergency department (ED) visits. Current recommendations advocate narcotic-limiting multimodal analgesia regimens. The objective of this review is to determine if in patients with renal colic (Population), intravenous (IV) amide anesthetics (Intervention) result in better pain control, lower requirements for rescue analgesia, or less adverse medication effects (outcome) compared to placebo, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), or opiates (Comparisons).
METHODS
Scholarly databases and relevant bibliographies were searched using a pre-designed systematic review protocol and registered with PROSPERO. Inclusion criteria were: (1) randomized clinical trial (RCT), (2) age ≥ 18 years, (3) confirmed or presumed renal colic, (4) amide anesthetic administered IV. Eligible comparison groups included: placebo, conventional therapy, acetaminophen, NSAID, or opiate. The primary outcome was pain intensity at baseline, 30, 60, and 120 minutes. Trial quality was graded, and risk-of-bias was assessed.
RESULTS
Of the 3930 identified references, 4 RCTs (479 participants) were included. One trial (n=240) reported improved analgesia with IV lidocaine (Lido) plus metoclopramide, compared to morphine. All other trials reported unchanged or less analgesia compared to placebo, ketorolac, or fentanyl. Very severe heterogeneity (I= 88%) precluded pooling data.
CONCLUSION
Current evidence precludes drawing a firm conclusion on the efficacy or superiority of Lido over traditional therapies for ED patients with renal colic. Evidence suggests Lido may be an effective non-opiate analgesic alliterative; however, it's efficacy may not exceed that of NSAIDs or opiates. Further study is needed to validate the potential improved efficacy of Lido plus metoclopramide.
PubMed: 32259122
DOI: No ID Found -
Frontiers in Nutrition 2022During Ramadan, many patients with diabetes, renal, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal diseases, headaches, and epilepsy choose to fast even against their doctor's advice....
BACKGROUND
During Ramadan, many patients with diabetes, renal, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal diseases, headaches, and epilepsy choose to fast even against their doctor's advice. The impact of this intermittent fasting on health and disease could be different in men and women. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of sex as a factor in diseases outcomes of patients who opt to fast during Ramadan.
MAIN BODY
The articles included in this study reported data on six diseases: diabetes, renal, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal diseases, headaches, and epilepsy. A systematic search was performed on PubMed and Scopus for observational and clinical studies mentioning Ramadan, diabetes, renal, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal diseases, headaches, and epilepsy in both men and women. Data was extracted by two independent reviewers using a standardized data-collection form. From 381 original articles, 38 studies were selected, including 25,023 patients of which 44.4% were women. Sex-based differences were reported by 18 studies for several variables such as body mass index, blood glucose, the frequency of hypoglycemia, renal colic, mortality, thrombosis, and gastrointestinal diseases in patients fasting during Ramadan. Most of the differences between men and women were reported both in the baseline period before Ramadan and during Ramadan. Indeed, during the period outside Ramadan, the frequency of renal colic, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal diseases, were higher in men; while body mass index, Thrombosis, and headache were higher in women. In the remaining 21 studies, it was reported that the sex factor was not associated with the effect of Ramadan fasting in the frequency and other outcomes of these diseases.
CONCLUSION
Currently, small attention is paid to sex as a determinant factor in patients while fasting during Ramadan. There appeared to be differences in the frequency and incidence of diseases in men and women during Ramadan. Closer attention to sex differences regarding the frequency and the progression of the diseases during fasting may help to improve patient care, especially to benefit those patients willing to fast during Ramadan.
PubMed: 35845800
DOI: 10.3389/fnut.2022.908674 -
Clinical and Experimental Pediatrics Dec 2021Infantile colic (IC) is excessive crying in otherwise healthy children. Despite vast research efforts, its etiology remains unknown.
BACKGROUND
Infantile colic (IC) is excessive crying in otherwise healthy children. Despite vast research efforts, its etiology remains unknown.
PURPOSE
Most treatments for IC carry various side effects. The collection of evidence may inform researchers of new strategies for the management and treatment of IC as well as new clues for understanding its pathogenesis. This review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and possible mechanisms of probiotics for mananaging IC.
METHODS
Ten papers met the study inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager (RevMan) software and a random-effects model.
RESULTS
This meta-analysis revealed that probiotics are effective for treating infantile colic, while the review showed that this efficacy may be due to their anti-inflammatory effects.
CONCLUSION
Probiotics may be an important treatment option for managing infantile colic due to their anti-inflammatory properties.
PubMed: 33848417
DOI: 10.3345/cep.2020.01676 -
Frontiers in Medicine 2021To compare the efficacy of intravenous (IV) lidocaine with standard analgesics (NSAIDS, opioids) for pain control due to any cause in the emergency department.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the efficacy of intravenous (IV) lidocaine with standard analgesics (NSAIDS, opioids) for pain control due to any cause in the emergency department.
METHODS
The electronic databases of PubMed, Embase, ScienceDirect, CENTRAL, and Google Scholar were explored from 1st January 2000 to 30th March 2021 and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IV lidocaine with a control group of standard analgesics were included.
RESULTS
Twelve RCTs including 1,351 patients were included. The cause of pain included abdominal pain, renal or biliary colic, traumatic pain, radicular low back pain, critical limb ischemia, migraine, tension-type headache, and pain of unknown origin. On pooled analysis, we found no statistically significant difference in pain scores between IV lidocaine and control group at 15 min (MD: -0.24 95% CI: -1.08, 0.61 = 81% = 0.59), 30 min (MD: -0.24 95% CI: -1.03, 0.55 = 86% = 0.55), 45 min (MD: 0.31 95% CI: -0.66, 1.29 = 66% = 0.53), and 60 min (MD: 0.59 95% CI: -0.26, 1.44 = 75% = 0.18). There was no statistically significant difference in the need for rescue analgesics between the two groups (OR: 1.45 95% CI: 0.82, 2.56 = 41% = 0.20), but on subgroup analysis, the need for rescue analgesics was significantly higher with IV lidocaine in studies on abdominal pain but not for musculoskeletal pain. On meta-analysis, there was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of side-effects between the two study groups (OR: 1.09 95% CI: 0.59, 2.02 = 48% = 0.78).
CONCLUSION
IV lidocaine can be considered as an alternative analgesic for pain control in the ED. However, its efficacy may not be higher than standard analgesics. Further RCTs with a large sample size are needed to corroborate the current conclusions.
PubMed: 35111766
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2021.706844 -
Frontiers in Medicine 2022This meta-analysis aimed at investigating the efficacy of acupuncture for relieving renal colic and reducing the risk of analgesic-related complications.
BACKGROUND
This meta-analysis aimed at investigating the efficacy of acupuncture for relieving renal colic and reducing the risk of analgesic-related complications.
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of acupuncture (acupuncture group) with conventional interventions (control group) were screened from MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library databases, China Knowledge Network (CNKI), and Airiti Library till July 15, 2022. The primary outcome was the rate of effective pain relief (response rate), while secondary outcomes included the time of onset of pain relief, visual analog scale (VAS) at 30-60 min and risk of side effects.
RESULTS
Thirteen eligible studies involving 1,212 participants published between 1992 and 2021 were analyzed. Compared with the control group, patients receiving acupuncture had a higher overall response rate [risk ratio (RR) = 1.12, 95% CI: 1.05-1.19, = 0.0002, = 41%, 1,136 patients] (primary outcome) and a faster pain relief [MD = -10.74 min, 95% CI: -12.65 to -8.82, < 0.00001, = 87%, 839 patients]. Patients receiving acupuncture had a lower pain score [MD = -0.65, 95% CI: -1.09 to -0.21, = 0.21, = 55%, 327 patients] and risk of side effects (RR = 0.11, 95% CI: 0.04-0.26, < 0.00001, = 0, 314 patients) compared to those receiving conventional interventions. Results from trial sequence analysis revealed sufficient evidence supporting the beneficial effects of acupuncture on response rate, time to pain relief, and pain score at 30-60 min.
CONCLUSION
Compared with conventional analgesic-based interventions, acupuncture can more efficiently relieve renal colic with fewer adverse effects. The limited number and quality of included studies warrant more clinical RCTs to support our findings.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42022346714.
PubMed: 36698826
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2022.1100014 -
The Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine Jul 2023Spinal cord injury (SCI) is associated with several gastrointestinal disorders, and the prevalence of cholelithiasis is high in this population. Because individuals with...
CONTEXT
Spinal cord injury (SCI) is associated with several gastrointestinal disorders, and the prevalence of cholelithiasis is high in this population. Because individuals with SCI may have atypical symptoms and more advanced disease, some treatment centers advocate prophylactic cholecystectomy for patients with SCI and gallstone disease.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review the existence and quality of studies on prophylactic cholecystectomy in individuals with SCI and cholelithiasis.
METHODS
A systematic search of literature up to July 10, 2022 was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines using the Medline, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases. Keywords used were "cholecystectomy," "gallbladder," "cholelithiasis," "gallstone," and "spinal cord injury."
RESULTS
The search identified 118 articles, of which 4 met the inclusion criteria. All these were retrospective observational studies. Prophylactic cholecystectomy was performed in 4-16.5% of the participants. The causes of cholecystectomy were chronic cholecystitis with biliary colic (44.5-63.5%), acute cholecystitis (4-26%), choledocholithiasis (6-11%) and pancreatitis (2-6%). Operative times, conversion rates, estimated blood loss, severity of complications, morbidity and mortality did not differ significantly between individuals with SCI and neurologically able individuals.
CONCLUSION
No prospective cohort studies comparing prophylactic cholecystectomy with conservative management in individuals with SCI and gallstone disease have been conducted. Therefore, there is no robust evidence to support prophylactic cholecystectomy and further studies are required.
Topics: Humans; Spinal Cord Injuries; Retrospective Studies; Cholecystectomy; Cholelithiasis
PubMed: 36355833
DOI: 10.1080/10790268.2022.2144026 -
Pain Medicine (Malden, Mass.) Jul 2019To assess the evidence for the safety and efficacy of invasive procedures for reducing chronic pain and improving function and health-related quality of life compared... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To assess the evidence for the safety and efficacy of invasive procedures for reducing chronic pain and improving function and health-related quality of life compared with sham (placebo) procedures.
DESIGN
Systematic review with meta-analysis.
METHODS
Studies were identified by searching multiple electronic databases, examining reference lists, and communicating with experts. Randomized controlled trials comparing invasive procedures with identical but otherwise sham procedures for chronic pain conditions were selected. Three authors independently extracted and described study characteristics and assessed Cochrane risk of bias. Two subsets of data on back and knee pain, respectively, were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. Overall quality of the literature was assessed through Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation.
RESULTS
Twenty-five trials (2,000 participants) were included in the review assessing the effect of invasive procedures over sham. Conditions included low back (N = 7 trials), arthritis (4), angina (4), abdominal pain (3), endometriosis (3), biliary colic (2), and migraine (2). Thirteen trials (52%) reported an adequate concealment of allocation. Fourteen studies (56%) reported on adverse events. Of these, the risk of any adverse event was significantly higher for invasive procedures (12%) than sham procedures (4%; risk difference = 0.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.01 to 0.09, P = 0.01, I2 = 65%). In the two meta-analysis subsets, the standardized mean difference for reduction of low back pain in seven studies (N = 445) was 0.18 (95% CI = -0.14 to 0.51, P = 0.26, I2 = 62%), and for knee pain in three studies (N = 496) it was 0.04 (95% CI = -0.11 to 0.19, P = 0.63, I2 = 36%). The relative contribution of within-group improvement in sham treatments accounted for 87% of the effect compared with active treatment across all conditions.
CONCLUSIONS
There is little evidence for the specific efficacy beyond sham for invasive procedures in chronic pain. A moderate amount of evidence does not support the use of invasive procedures as compared with sham procedures for patients with chronic back or knee pain. Given their high cost and safety concerns, more rigorous studies are required before invasive procedures are routinely used for patients with chronic pain.
Topics: Chronic Pain; Humans; Pain Management
PubMed: 30204920
DOI: 10.1093/pm/pny154 -
F1000Research 2021Urolithiasis cases are a common condition, and the number is still growing today. The prevalence of urinary tract stones globally currently ranges from 2-20% with a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Urolithiasis cases are a common condition, and the number is still growing today. The prevalence of urinary tract stones globally currently ranges from 2-20% with a recurrence rate of around 50%. The present study aims to investigate the efficacy of adjunctive alpha-blockers in improving the success rate of ureteroscopy (URS) procedure for urolithiasis. We reviewed articles obtained from MEDLINE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and Elsevier from 14 August to 9 September 2020, comparing alpha-blockers as adjunctive therapy, versus either a placebo or no drug at all, in post-URS urolithiasis patients. There were no restrictions on the type of URS and alpha-blockers given to patients. The quality of studies included was assessed using Cochrane's Risk of Bias Assessment for Randomized-Controlled Trials. Forest plot analysis emphasizes the statistically significant difference among the group, where the adjunctive alpha-blocker group had pooled relative risk (RR) of being stone-free, readmitted due to initial URS failure, having an overall complication, having haematuria, getting their ureteral mucous injured, and suffering a colic episode was 1.71 (95% CI, 1.11-1.24), 0.50 (95% CI, 0.25-1.01), 0.41 (95% CI, 0.27-0.61), 0.42 (95% CI, 0.22-0.79), 0.31 (95% CI, 0.13-0.73), and 0.21 (95% CI, 0.06-0.69), respectively. Alpha blockers minimize the frequency and duration of ureteral contractions, allowing smooth stone expulsion. With this knowledge, it is expected to help clinicians decide the importance of adjunctive alpha-blocker administration.
Topics: Adrenergic alpha-Antagonists; Female; Humans; Male; Ureteral Calculi; Ureteroscopy
PubMed: 35464176
DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.52072.2