-
The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care... Feb 2017The open abdomen (OA) is an important approach for managing intra-abdominal catastrophes and continues to be the standard of care. Despite this, challenges remain with... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The open abdomen (OA) is an important approach for managing intra-abdominal catastrophes and continues to be the standard of care. Despite this, challenges remain with it associated with a high incidence of complications and poor outcomes. The objective of this article is to perform a systematic review in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to identify prognostic factors in OA patients in regard to definitive fascial closure (DFC), mortality and intra-abdominal complications.
METHODS
An electronic database search was conducted involving Medline, Excerpta Medica, Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cumulative Index to Nursing, and Allied Health Literature and Clinicaltrials.gov. All studies that described prognostic factors in regard to the above outcomes in OA patients were eligible for inclusion. Data collected were synthesized by each outcome of interest and assessed for methodological quality.
RESULTS
Thirty-one studies were included in the final synthesis. Enteral nutrition, organ dysfunction, local and systemic infection, number of reexplorations, worsening Injury Severity Score, and the development of a fistula appeared to significantly delay DFC. Age and Adult Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation version II score were predictors for in-hospital mortality. Failed DFC, large bowel resection and >5 to 10 L of intravenous fluids in <48 hours were predictors of enteroatmospheric fistula. The source of infection (small bowel as opposed to colon) was a predictor for ventral hernia. Large bowel resection, >5 to 10 and >10 L of intravenous fluids in <48 hours were predictors of intra-abdominal abscess. Fascial closure on (or after) day 5 and having a bowel anastomosis were predictors for anastomotic leak. Overall methodological quality was of a moderate level.
LIMITATIONS
Overall methodological quality, high number of retrospective studies, low reporting of prognostic factors and the multitude of factors potentially affecting patient outcome that were not analyzed.
CONCLUSION
Careful selection and management of OA patients will avoid prolonged treatment and facilitate early DFC. Future research should focus on the development of a prognostic model.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Systematic review, level III.
Topics: APACHE; Abdominal Cavity; Abdominal Injuries; Abdominal Wall; Abdominal Wound Closure Techniques; Fasciotomy; Humans; Injury Severity Score; Laparotomy; Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy; Prognosis; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Survival Analysis
PubMed: 27918375
DOI: 10.1097/TA.0000000000001314 -
Medicine Mar 2010Pyogenic liver abscess is a severe condition and a therapeutic challenge. Treatment failure may be due to an unrecognized ingested foreign body that migrated from the... (Review)
Review
Pyogenic liver abscess is a severe condition and a therapeutic challenge. Treatment failure may be due to an unrecognized ingested foreign body that migrated from the gastrointestinal tract. There has recently been a marked increase in the number of reported cases of this condition, but initial misdiagnosis as cryptogenic liver abscess still occurs in the majority of cases. We conducted the current study to characterize this entity and provide a diagnostic strategy applicable worldwide. To this end, data were collected from our case and from a systematic review that identified 59 well-described cases. Another systematic review identified series of cryptogenic-and Asian Klebsiella-liver abscess; these data were pooled and compared with the data from the cases of migrated foreign body liver abscess. The review points out the low diagnostic accuracy of history taking, modern imaging, and even surgical exploration. A fistula found through imaging procedures or endoscopy warrants surgical exploration. Findings suggestive of foreign body migration are symptoms of gastrointestinal perforation, computed tomography demonstration of a thickened gastrointestinal wall in continuity with the abscess, and adhesions seen during surgery. Treatment failure, left lobe location, unique location (that is, only 1 abscess location within the liver), and absence of underlying conditions also point to the diagnosis, as shown by comparison with the cryptogenic liver abscess series. This study demonstrates that migrated foreign body liver abscess is a specific entity, increasingly reported. It usually is not cured when unrecognized, and diagnosis is mainly delayed. This study provides what we consider the best available evidence for timely diagnosis with worldwide applicability. Increased awareness is required to treat this underestimated condition effectively, and further studies are needed.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Algorithms; Diagnosis, Differential; Female; Foreign-Body Migration; Gastrointestinal Tract; Humans; Klebsiella; Klebsiella Infections; Liver Abscess; Liver Abscess, Pyogenic; Male; Middle Aged; Radiography; Young Adult
PubMed: 20517180
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0b013e3181d41c38 -
The Journal of Surgical Research Apr 2014Conflicting results were found between radiofrequency-assisted liver resection (RF-LR) and clamp-crush liver resection (CC-LR) during liver surgery. We conducted a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Conflicting results were found between radiofrequency-assisted liver resection (RF-LR) and clamp-crush liver resection (CC-LR) during liver surgery. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis that included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs to compare the effectiveness and safety of RF-LR versus CC-LR during liver surgery.
METHODS
Articles comparing RF-LR and CC-LR that were published before December 2012 were retrieved and subjected to a systematic review and meta-analysis. Data synthesis and statistical analysis were carried out by Review Manager Version 5.2 software.
RESULTS
In all, four RCTs and five nonrandomized studies evaluating 728 patients were included. Compared with CC-LR, the RF-LR group had significantly reduced total intraoperative blood loss (weighted mean difference [WMD] = -187 mL; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -312, -62; data on 628 patients), and blood loss during liver transection (WMD = -143.7 mL; 95% CI = -200, -87; data on 190 patients). However, RF-LR is associated with a higher rate of intra-abdominal abscess than the clamp-crushing method (odds ratio = 3.61; 95% CI = 1.26, 10.32; data on 366 patients). No significant difference was observed between both the groups for the incidence of both blood transfusion and bile leak.
CONCLUSIONS
There is currently not sufficient evidence to support or refute the use of RF-LR in liver surgery. RF-LR has advantages in terms of reducing blood loss. However, RF-LR may increase the rates of both bile leak and abdominal abscess. So, the safety of RF-LR has not been established. Future well-designed RCTs are awaited to further investigate the efficacy and safety of RF devices in liver resection.
Topics: Catheter Ablation; Hemostasis, Surgical; Hepatectomy; Humans; Liver Diseases; Liver Neoplasms; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Instruments
PubMed: 24290429
DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2013.10.055 -
Techniques in Coloproctology Apr 2022The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of the literature on and updated meta-analysis of surgical postoperative complications after laparoscopic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of the literature on and updated meta-analysis of surgical postoperative complications after laparoscopic Hartmann's reversal (LHR) and open Hartmann's reversal (OHR).
METHODS
Studies comparing LHR versus OHR published from inception until June 2020 were selected and submitted to a systematic review and meta-analysis. Articles were searched in the MEDLINE and Cochrane Trials Register databases. Meta-analysis was performed with Review Manager 5.0.
RESULTS
Twenty-three retrospective comparative studies (including 5 case-controlled studies) with a total of 3139 patients with LHR and a total of 10,325 patients with OHR were included. Meta-analysis showed that LHR was significantly associated with a decreased rate of revision surgery (OR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.60-0.89, p < 0.001), anastomotic leakage (OR = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.49-0.75, p < 0.00001), postoperative morbidity (OR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.47-0.58, p < 0.00001), intra-abdominal abscess (OR = 0.67 [0.52-0.87], 95% CI = , p = 0.003), wound abscess (OR = 0.53 [0.46-0.61], 95% CI = , p < 0.00001), and postoperative ileus (OR = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.29-0.72, p = 0.0008), respectively. Conversely, mortality was comparable between LHR and OHR.
CONCLUSIONS
These results suggest that LHR significantly improved surgical postoperative outcomes. However, considering the low level of evidence, further randomized trials are required to validate these findings.
Topics: Anastomosis, Surgical; Colostomy; Humans; Laparoscopy; Laparotomy; Postoperative Complications; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35133538
DOI: 10.1007/s10151-021-02560-2 -
Medicine Oct 2020In this analysis, we aimed to systematically compare the procedural and post-operative complications (POC) associated with laparoscopic versus open abdominal surgery for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Procedural and post-operative complications associated with laparoscopic versus open abdominal surgery for right-sided colonic cancer resection: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
In this analysis, we aimed to systematically compare the procedural and post-operative complications (POC) associated with laparoscopic versus open abdominal surgery for right-sided colonic cancer resection.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Central, and Google scholar for English studies comparing the POC in patients who underwent laparoscopic versus open surgery (OS) for right colonic cancer. Data were assessed by the Cochrane-based RevMan 5.4 software (The Cochrane Community, London, UK). Mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to represent the results for continuous variables, whereas risk ratios (RR) with 95% CIs were used for dichotomous data.
RESULTS
Twenty-six studies involving a total number of 3410 participants with right colonic carcinoma were included in this analysis. One thousand five hundred and fifteen participants were assigned to undergo invasive laparoscopic surgery whereas 1895 participants were assigned to the open abdominal surgery. Our results showed that the open resection was associated with a shorter length of surgery (MD: 48.63, 95% CI: 30.15-67.12; P = .00001) whereas laparoscopic intervention was associated with a shorter hospital stay [MD (-3.09), 95% CI [-5.82 to (-0.37)]; P = .03]. In addition, POC such as anastomotic leak (RR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.60-1.55; P = .88), abdominal abscess (RR: 1.13, 95% CI: 0.52-2.49; P = .75), pulmonary embolism (RR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.09-1.69; P = .21) and deep vein thrombosis (RR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.39-2.28; P = .89) were not significantly different. Paralytic ileus (RR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.67-1.11; P = .26), intra-abdominal infection (RR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.15-4.48; P = .82), pulmonary complications (RR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.57-1.20; P = .32), cardiac complications (RR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.42-1.27; P = .27) and urological complications (RR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.52-1.33; P = .44) were also similarly manifested. Our analysis also showed 30-day re-admission and re-operation, and mortality to be similar between laparoscopic versus OS for right colonic carcinoma resection. However, surgical wound infection (RR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.50-0.86; P = .002) was significantly higher with the OS.
CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion, laparoscopic surgery was almost comparable to OS in terms of post-operative outcomes for right-sided colonic cancer resection and was not associated with higher unwanted outcomes. Therefore, laparoscopic intervention should be considered as safe as the open abdominal surgery for right-sided colonic cancer resection, with a decreased hospital stay.
Topics: Aged; Colectomy; Colonic Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Male; Middle Aged; Operative Time; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 33019422
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000022431 -
Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced... Sep 2013Recent systematic reviews have suggested an increased incidence of intraabdominal abscess (IAA) formation following laparoscopic appendicectomy (LA) compared with the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIMS
Recent systematic reviews have suggested an increased incidence of intraabdominal abscess (IAA) formation following laparoscopic appendicectomy (LA) compared with the open approach (OA). As the majority of these analyses have focused on appendicectomy in adults, our aim was to review the evidence base for pediatric patients.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS
We performed a comprehensive review of relevant studies published between 1990 and 2012. Specific inclusion and exclusion criteria were used to identify studies that investigated the incidence of IAA following LA and OA in pediatric patients. The primary outcome measure in the present meta-analysis was IAA formation, and secondary outcomes included wound infection (WI) and incidence of postoperative small bowel obstruction (SBO).
RESULTS
Sixty-six studies with a total of 22,060 pediatric patients were included: 56.5% OA and 43.5% LA. There was no overall difference in the incidence of IAA formation: 2.7% for OA (333/12,460) versus 2.9% for LA (282/9600) (P=.25). However, OA patients had a higher incidence of wound infection: 3.7% for OA (337/9228) versus 2.2% for LA (183/8154) (P<.001). Moreover, the incidence of SBO was lower in patients undergoing LA: 0.4% LA (86/5767) versus 1.5% (29/6840) (P<.001).
CONCLUSIONS
The IAA incidence is comparable in LA versus OA in pediatric patients. LA confers a significantly lower risk of other postoperative complications, including WI and SBO.
Topics: Abdominal Abscess; Appendectomy; Child; Humans; Incidence; Intestinal Obstruction; Laparoscopy; Risk Factors; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 24001159
DOI: 10.1089/lap.2012.0522 -
The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care... Mar 2016The liver is one of the most frequently injured abdominal organs. Hepatic hemorrhage is a complex and challenging complication following hepatic trauma. Significant... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The liver is one of the most frequently injured abdominal organs. Hepatic hemorrhage is a complex and challenging complication following hepatic trauma. Significant shifts in the treatment of hepatic hemorrhage, including the increasing use of angioembolization, are believed to have improved patient outcomes. We aimed to describe the efficacy of angioembolization in the setting of acute hepatic arterial hemorrhage as well as the complications associated with this treatment modality.
METHODS
A systematic review of published literature (MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and Cochrane Library) describing hepatic angioembolization in the setting of trauma was performed. Articles that fulfilled the predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria were included. We analyzed the efficacy rate of angioembolization in the setting of traumatic hepatic hemorrhage as well as the complications associated with hepatic angioembolization.
RESULTS
Four hundred fifty-nine articles were identified in the literature search. Of these, 10 retrospective studies and 1 prospective study met inclusion and exclusion criteria. Efficacy rate of angioembolization was 93%. The most frequently reported complications following hepatic angioembolization included hepatic necrosis (15%), abscess formation (7.5%), and bile leaks.
CONCLUSION
Although the outcomes of hepatic angioembolization were generally favorable with a high success rate, the treatment modality is not without associated morbidity. The most frequently associated major complication was hepatic necrosis. Rates of complications were affected by study heterogeneity and should be better defined in future studies.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Systematic review, level III.
Topics: Abdominal Injuries; Embolization, Therapeutic; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Humans; Liver; Treatment Outcome; Wounds, Nonpenetrating
PubMed: 26670113
DOI: 10.1097/TA.0000000000000942 -
Chinese Journal of Traumatology =... Feb 2019Vacuum sealing drainage (VSD) is frequently used in abdominal surgeries. However, relevant guidelines are rare. Chinese Trauma Surgeon Association organized a committee...
Vacuum sealing drainage (VSD) is frequently used in abdominal surgeries. However, relevant guidelines are rare. Chinese Trauma Surgeon Association organized a committee composed of 28 experts across China in July 2017, aiming to provide an evidence-based recommendation for the application of VSD in abdominal surgeries. Eleven questions regarding the use of VSD in abdominal surgeries were addressed: (1) which type of materials should be respectively chosen for the intraperitoneal cavity, retroperitoneal cavity and superficial incisions? (2) Can VSD be preventively used for a high-risk abdominal incision with primary suture? (3) Can VSD be used in severely contaminated/infected abdominal surgical sites? (4) Can VSD be used for temporary abdominal cavity closure under some special conditions such as severe abdominal trauma, infection, liver transplantation and intra-abdominal volume increment in abdominal compartment syndrome? (5) Can VSD be used in abdominal organ inflammation, injury, or postoperative drainage? (6) Can VSD be used in the treatment of intestinal fistula and pancreatic fistula? (7) Can VSD be used in the treatment of intra-abdominal and extra-peritoneal abscess? (8) Can VSD be used in the treatment of abdominal wall wounds, wound cavity, and defects? (9) Does VSD increase the risk of bleeding? (10) Does VSD increase the risk of intestinal wall injury? (11) Does VSD increase the risk of peritoneal adhesion? Focusing on these questions, evidence-based recommendations were given accordingly. VSD was strongly recommended regarding the questions 2-4. Weak recommendations were made regarding questions 1 and 5-11. Proper use of VSD in abdominal surgeries can lower the risk of infection in abdominal incisions with primary suture, treat severely contaminated/infected surgical sites and facilitate temporary abdominal cavity closure.
Topics: Abdomen; China; Drainage; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Societies, Medical; Surgical Wound Infection; Traumatology; Vacuum
PubMed: 30850324
DOI: 10.1016/j.cjtee.2018.10.005 -
Inflammatory Bowel Diseases Oct 2022Perianal Crohn's disease (pCD) is a potentially severe phenotype of CD. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis to estimate cumulative incidence, risk... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Perianal Crohn's disease (pCD) is a potentially severe phenotype of CD. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis to estimate cumulative incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of pCD in population-based cohort studies.
METHODS
Through a systematic literature review through March 1, 2021, we identified population-based inception cohort studies reporting cumulative incidence of perianal disease (primarily abscess and/or fistula) in patients with CD. We estimated the cumulative incidence of pCD at presentation and 1-, 5-, and 10-year follow-up, and risk factors for perianal disease and outcomes including risk of major (bowel resection, proctectomy, ostomy) and minor perianal (incision and drainage, seton placement, etc.) surgery.
RESULTS
In 12 population-based studies, prevalence of pCD was 18.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 12.5%-27.0%) with 1-, 5-, and 10-year risk of perianal disease being 14.3% (95% CI, 7.9%-24.6%), 17.6% (95% CI, 11.3%-26.5%), and 18.9% (95% CI, 15.0%-23.4%), respectively. Approximately 11.5% of patients (95% CI, 6.7%-19.0%) had perianal disease at or before CD diagnosis. Colonic disease location and rectal involvement were associated with higher risk of pCD. Overall, 63.3% of patients (95% CI, 53.3-72.3) required minor perianal surgery and 6.4% of patients (95% CI, 1.8%-20.6%) required major abdominal surgery for pCD. Use of biologic therapy for pCD is common and has steadily increased throughout the years.
CONCLUSIONS
Approximately 1 in 5 patients with CD develops perianal disease within 10 years of CD diagnosis, including 11.5% who have perianal disease at presentation. Approximately two-thirds of patients require perianal surgery, with a smaller fraction requiring major abdominal surgery.
Topics: Cohort Studies; Crohn Disease; Humans; Incidence; Proctectomy; Rectal Fistula; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34792604
DOI: 10.1093/ibd/izab287 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2013Perforated peptic ulcer is a common abdominal disease that is treated by surgery. The development of laparoscopic surgery has changed the way to treat such abdominal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Perforated peptic ulcer is a common abdominal disease that is treated by surgery. The development of laparoscopic surgery has changed the way to treat such abdominal surgical emergencies. The results of some clinical trials suggest that laparoscopic surgery could be a better strategy than open surgery in the correction of perforated peptic ulcer but the evidence is not strongly in favour for or against this intervention.
OBJECTIVES
To measure the effect of laparoscopic surgical treatment versus open surgical treatment in patients with a diagnosis of perforated peptic ulcer in relation to abdominal septic complications, surgical wound infection, extra-abdominal complications, hospital length of stay and direct costs.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) on The Cochrane Library (2004, Issue 2), PubMed/MEDLINE (1966 to July 2004), EMBASE (1985 to November 2004) and LILACS (1988 to November 2004) as well as the reference lists of relevant articles. Searches in all databases were updated in December 2009 and January 2012. We did not confine our search to English language publications.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized clinical trials comparing laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for the repair of perforated peptic ulcer using any mechanical method of closure (suture, omental patch or fibrin sealant).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Primary outcome measures included proportion of septic and other abdominal complications (surgical site infection, suture leakage, intra-abdominal abscess, postoperative ileus) and extra-abdominal complications (pulmonary). Secondary outcomes included mortality, time to return to normal diet, time of nasogastric aspiration, hospital length-of-stay and costs. Outcomes were summarized by reporting odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using the fixed-effect model.
MAIN RESULTS
We included three randomized clinical trials of acceptable quality. We found no statistically significant differences between laparoscopic and open surgery in the proportion of abdominal septic complications (OR 0.66; 95% CI 0.30 to 1.47), pulmonary complications (OR 0.43; 95% CI 0.17 to 1.12) or number of septic abdominal complications (OR 0.60; 95% CI 0.32 to 1.15). Heterogeneity was significant for pulmonary complications and operating time.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review suggests that a decrease in septic abdominal complications may exist when laparoscopic surgery is used to correct perforated peptic ulcer. However, it is necessary to perform more randomized controlled trials with a greater number of patients to confirm such an assumption, guaranteeing a long learning curve for participating surgeons. With the information provided it could be said that laparoscopic surgery results are not clinically different from those of open surgery.
Topics: Humans; Laparoscopy; Peptic Ulcer Perforation; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 23450555
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004778.pub3