-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2018Biocompatible peritoneal dialysis (PD) solutions, including neutral pH, low glucose degradation product (GDP) solutions and icodextrin, have previously been shown to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Biocompatible peritoneal dialysis (PD) solutions, including neutral pH, low glucose degradation product (GDP) solutions and icodextrin, have previously been shown to favourably influence some patient-level outcomes, albeit based on generally sub-optimal quality studies. Several additional randomised controlled trials (RCT) evaluating biocompatible solutions in PD patients have been published recently. This is an update of a review first published in 2014.
OBJECTIVES
This review aimed to look at the benefits and harms of biocompatible PD solutions in comparison to standard PD solutions in patients receiving PD.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register was searched up to 12 February 2018 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Specialised Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All RCTs and quasi-RCTs in adults and children comparing the effects of biocompatible PD solutions (neutral pH, lactate-buffered, low GDP; neutral pH, bicarbonate(± lactate)-buffered, low GDP; glucose polymer (icodextrin)) in PD were included. Studies of amino acid-based solutions were excluded.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors extracted data on study quality and outcomes. Summary effect estimates were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for categorical variables, and mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) and 95% CI for continuous variables.
MAIN RESULTS
This review update included 42 eligible studies (3262 participants), including six new studies (543 participants). Overall, 29 studies (1971 participants) compared neutral pH, low GDP PD solution with conventional PD solution, and 13 studies (1291 participants) compared icodextrin with conventional PD solution. Risk of bias was assessed as high for sequence generation in three studies, allocation concealment in three studies, attrition bias in 21 studies, and selective outcome reporting bias in 16 studies.Neutral pH, low GDP versus conventional glucose PD solutionUse of neutral pH, low GDP PD solutions improved residual renal function (RRF) preservation (15 studies, 835 participants: SMD 0.19, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.33; high certainty evidence). This approximated to a mean difference in glomerular filtration rate of 0.54 mL/min/1.73 m (95% CI 0.14 to 0.93). Better preservation of RRF was evident at all follow-up durations with progressively greater preservation observed with increasing follow up duration. Neutral pH, low GDP PD solution use also improved residual urine volume preservation (11 studies, 791 participants: MD 114.37 mL/day, 95% CI 47.09 to 181.65; high certainty evidence). In low certainty evidence, neutral pH, low GDP solutions may make little or no difference to 4-hour peritoneal ultrafiltration (9 studies, 414 participants: SMD -0.42, 95% CI -0.74 to -0.10) which approximated to a mean difference in peritoneal ultrafiltration of 69.72 mL (16.60 to 122.00 mL) lower, and may increase dialysate:plasma creatinine ratio (10 studies, 746 participants: MD 0.01, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.03), technique failure or death compared with conventional PD solutions. It is uncertain whether neutral pH, low GDP PD solution use led to any differences in peritonitis occurrence, hospitalisation, adverse events (6 studies, 519 participants) or inflow pain (1 study, 58 participants: RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.08).Glucose polymer (icodextrin) versus conventional glucose PD solutionIn moderate certainty evidence, icodextrin probably reduced episodes of uncontrolled fluid overload (2 studies, 100 participants: RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.59) and augmented peritoneal ultrafiltration (4 studies, 102 participants: MD 448.54 mL/d, 95% CI 289.28 to 607.80) without compromising RRF (4 studies, 114 participants: SMD 0.12, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.49; low certainty evidence) which approximated to a mean creatinine clearance of 0.30 mL/min/1.73m higher (0.65 lower to 1.23 higher) or urine output (3 studies, 69 participants: MD -88.88 mL/d, 95% CI -356.88 to 179.12; low certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether icodextrin use led to any differences in adverse events (5 studies, 816 participants) technique failure or death.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This updated review strengthens evidence that neutral pH, low GDP PD solution improves RRF and urine volume preservation with high certainty. These effects may be related to increased peritoneal solute transport and reduced peritoneal ultrafiltration, although the evidence for these outcomes is of low certainty due to significant heterogeneity and suboptimal methodological quality. Icodextrin prescription increased peritoneal ultrafiltration and mitigated uncontrolled fluid overload with moderate certainty. The effects of either neutral pH, low GDP solution or icodextrin on peritonitis, technique survival and patient survival remain uncertain and require further high quality, adequately powered RCTs.
Topics: Adult; Bicarbonates; Child; Dialysis Solutions; Glucose; Humans; Hydrogen-Ion Concentration; Icodextrin; Kidney; Peritoneal Dialysis; Peritoneum; Pharmaceutical Solutions; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Urine
PubMed: 30362116
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007554.pub3 -
Critical Care Research and Practice 2020Intravenous fluid therapy plays a role in maintaining the hemodynamic status for tissue perfusion and electrolyte hemostasis during surgery. Recent trials in critically... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Intravenous fluid therapy plays a role in maintaining the hemodynamic status for tissue perfusion and electrolyte hemostasis during surgery. Recent trials in critically ill patients reported serious side effects of some types of fluids. Since the most suitable type of fluid is debatable, a consensus in perioperative patients has not been reached.
METHOD
We performed a systematic review of randomized control trials (RCTs) that compared two or more types of fluids in major abdominal surgery. The outcomes were related to bleeding, hemodynamic status, length of hospital stay, and complications, such as kidney injury, electrolyte abnormality, major cardiac adverse event, nausea, vomiting, and mortality. A literature search was performed using Medline and EMBASE up to December 2019. The data were pooled to investigate the effect of fluid on macrocirculation and intravascular volume effect.
RESULTS
Forty-three RCTs were included. Eighteen fluids were compared: nine were crystalloids and nine were colloids. The results were categorized into macrocirculation and intravascular volume effect, microcirculation, anti-inflammatory parameters, vascular permeability, renal function (colloids), renal function and electrolytes (crystalloids), coagulation and bleeding, return of bowel function, and postoperative nausea vomiting (PONV). We found that no specific type of fluid led to mortality and every type of colloid was equivalent in volume expansion and did not cause kidney injury. However, hydroxyethyl starch and dextran may lead to increased bleeding. Normal saline can cause kidney injury which can lead to renal replacement therapy, and dextrose fluid can decrease PONV.
CONCLUSION
In our opinion, it is safe to give a balanced crystalloid as the maintenance fluid and give a colloid, such as HES130/0.4, 4% gelatin, or human albumin, as a volume expander.
PubMed: 32832150
DOI: 10.1155/2020/2170828 -
Anesthesia and Analgesia Apr 2022In critically ill patients, warnings about a risk of death and acute kidney injury (AKI) with hydroxyethyl starch (HES) solutions have been raised. However, HES... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
In critically ill patients, warnings about a risk of death and acute kidney injury (AKI) with hydroxyethyl starch (HES) solutions have been raised. However, HES solutions may yet have a role to play in major abdominal surgery. This meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) aimed to investigate the effect of HES intravascular volume replacement on the risk of AKI, intraoperative blood transfusion, and postoperative intra-abdominal complications compared to crystalloid intravascular volume replacement.
METHODS
In this meta-analysis and TSA, we searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing intraoperative HES intravascular volume replacement to crystalloid intravascular volume replacement in adult patients undergoing major abdominal surgery. Primary outcome was 30-day AKI, defined as a binary outcome according to Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) criteria, combining stages 1, 2, and 3 into an AKI category versus no AKI category (stage 0). Secondary outcomes included rates of intraoperative blood transfusion and postoperative intra-abdominal complications. We used random effects models to calculate summary estimates. We used relative risk (RR) as summary measure for dichotomous outcomes, with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the primary outcome (P value <.05 was considered statistically significant) and 99% CI after Bonferroni correction for the secondary outcomes (P value <.01 was considered statistically significant).
RESULTS
Seven RCTs including 2398 patients were included. HES intravascular volume replacement was not associated with an increased risk of 30-day AKI (RR = 1.22, 95% CI, 0.94-1.59; P = .13), when compared to crystalloid intravascular volume replacement. According to TSA, this analysis was underpowered. HES intravascular volume replacement was associated with higher rates of blood transfusion (RR = 1.57 99% CI, 1.10-2.25; P = .001), and similar rates of postoperative intra-abdominal complications (RR = 0.76 99% CI, 0.57-1.02; P = .02).
CONCLUSIONS
In this meta-analysis to focus on HES intravascular volume replacement in major abdominal surgery, HES intravascular volume replacement was not associated with a higher risk of 30-day AKI when compared to crystalloid intravascular volume replacement. However, CI and TSA do not exclude harmful effects of HES intravascular volume replacement on the renal function.
Topics: Abdomen; Acute Kidney Injury; Crystalloid Solutions; Female; Fluid Therapy; Humans; Hydroxyethyl Starch Derivatives; Male; Plasma Substitutes; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 34854822
DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000005803 -
International Journal of Surgery... Nov 2023Staging laparoscopy for gastric cancer is recommended to assess the tumor's locoregional extension and exclude peritoneal disease. As there is no consensus on optimizing...
BACKGROUND
Staging laparoscopy for gastric cancer is recommended to assess the tumor's locoregional extension and exclude peritoneal disease. As there is no consensus on optimizing the procedure's diagnostic accuracy, we aimed to systematically review the literature on operative techniques, followed by peritoneal lavage fluid assessment in gastric cancer patients. Specifically, we sought to indicate the most common characteristics of the procedure and cytological evaluation.
METHODS
This study was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The protocol for this systematic review was registered on PROSPERO database (CRD: 42022306746). On September 2022, a search was carried out using Embase, Medline ALL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science Core Collection.
RESULTS
The search identified 1632 studies on staging laparoscopy and 2190 studies on peritoneal fluid assessment. Some 212 studies were included. Open Hasson was the method of choice in accessing the peritoneal cavity in 65% of the studies, followed by establishing a pneumoperitoneum at 10-12 mmHg in 52% of reports. Most frequently, the patient was positioned supine (70%), while a 30° scope and three ports were used to assess the peritoneal cavity clockwise (72%, 77%, and 85%, respectively). Right and left upper abdomen quadrants were the predominant area of laparoscopic exploration (both 65%), followed by the primary tumor region (54%), liver and pelvis (both 30%), and small bowel and spleen (19% and 17%, respectively). Regions of peritoneal lavage and aspiration were limited to the pelvis (50%), followed by right and left upper abdomen quadrants (37.5% and 50%, respectively). No studies compared different methods of operative techniques or analysis of ascites/fluid.
CONCLUSIONS
This study indicates a high heterogeneity in the technique of staging laparoscopy and peritoneal fluid assessment in gastric cancer patients. Further research and initiatives to reach a consensus on the standardization of the procedure are warranted.
Topics: Humans; Stomach Neoplasms; Ascitic Fluid; Neoplasm Staging; Laparoscopy; Peritoneal Lavage
PubMed: 37581636
DOI: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000000632 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Mar 2022During general anaesthesia for noncardiac surgery, there remain knowledge gaps regarding the effect of goal-directed haemodynamic therapy on patient-centred outcomes. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
During general anaesthesia for noncardiac surgery, there remain knowledge gaps regarding the effect of goal-directed haemodynamic therapy on patient-centred outcomes.
METHODS
Included clinical trials investigated goal-directed haemodynamic therapy during general anaesthesia in adults undergoing noncardiac surgery and reported at least one patient-centred postoperative outcome. PubMed and Embase were searched for relevant articles on March 8, 2021. Two investigators performed abstract screening, full-text review, data extraction, and bias assessment. The primary outcomes were mortality and hospital length of stay, whereas 15 postoperative complications were included based on availability. From a main pool of comparable trials, meta-analyses were performed on trials with homogenous outcome definitions. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE).
RESULTS
The main pool consisted of 76 trials with intermediate risk of bias for most outcomes. Overall, goal-directed haemodynamic therapy might reduce mortality (odds ratio=0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64 to 1.09) and shorten length of stay (mean difference=-0.72 days; 95% CI, -1.10 to -0.35) but with low certainty in the evidence. For both outcomes, larger effects favouring goal-directed haemodynamic therapy were seen in abdominal surgery, very high-risk surgery, and using targets based on preload variation by the respiratory cycle. However, formal tests for subgroup differences were not statistically significant. Goal-directed haemodynamic therapy decreased risk of several postoperative outcomes, but only infectious outcomes and anastomotic leakage reached moderate certainty of evidence.
CONCLUSIONS
Goal-directed haemodynamic therapy during general anaesthesia might decrease mortality, hospital length of stay, and several postoperative complications. Only infectious postoperative complications and anastomotic leakage reached moderate certainty in the evidence.
Topics: Anesthesia, General; General Surgery; Hemodynamics; Humans; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 34916049
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2021.10.046 -
Critical Care (London, England) Jun 2021Postoperative complications impact on early and long-term patients' outcome. Appropriate perioperative fluid management is pivotal in this context; however, the most... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Perioperative liberal versus restrictive fluid strategies and postoperative outcomes: a systematic review and metanalysis on randomised-controlled trials in major abdominal elective surgery.
BACKGROUND
Postoperative complications impact on early and long-term patients' outcome. Appropriate perioperative fluid management is pivotal in this context; however, the most effective perioperative fluid management is still unclear. The enhanced recovery after surgery pathways recommend a perioperative zero-balance, whereas recent findings suggest a more liberal approach could be beneficial. We conducted this trial to address the impact of restrictive vs. liberal fluid approaches on overall postoperative complications and mortality.
METHODS
Systematic review and meta-analysis, including randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We performed a systematic literature search using MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Ovid) and the Cochrane Controlled Clinical trials register databases, published from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2019. We included RCTs enrolling adult patients undergoing elective abdominal surgery and comparing the use of restrictive/liberal approaches enrolling at least 15 patients in each subgroup. Studies involving cardiac, non-elective surgery, paediatric or obstetric surgeries were excluded.
RESULTS
After full-text examination, the metanalysis finally included 18 studies and 5567 patients randomised to restrictive (2786 patients; 50.0%) or liberal approaches (2780 patients; 50.0%). We found no difference in the occurrence of severe postoperative complications between restrictive and liberal subgroups [risk difference (95% CI) = 0.009 (- 0.02; 0.04); p value = 0.62; I (95% CI) = 38.6% (0-66.9%)]. This result was confirmed also in the subgroup of five studies having a low overall risk of bias. The liberal approach was associated with lower overall renal major events, as compared to the restrictive [risk difference (95% CI) = 0.06 (0.02-0.09); p value = 0.001]. We found no difference in either early (p value = 0.33) or late (p value = 0.22) postoperative mortality between restrictive and liberal subgroups CONCLUSIONS: In major abdominal elective surgery perioperative, the choice between liberal or restrictive approach did not affect overall major postoperative complications or mortality. In a subgroup analysis, a liberal as compared to a restrictive perioperative fluid policy was associated with lower overall complication renal major events, as compared to the restrictive.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
CRD42020218059; Registration: February 2020, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=218059 .
Topics: Digestive System Surgical Procedures; Fluid Therapy; Humans; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34116707
DOI: 10.1186/s13054-021-03629-y -
Polski Przeglad Chirurgiczny Jun 2021An ongoing debate concerns the need for routine placement of prophylactic intra-abdominal drains following kidney transplantation. <br/><br/>Aim: We... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
An ongoing debate concerns the need for routine placement of prophylactic intra-abdominal drains following kidney transplantation. <br/><br/>Aim: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether such an approach brings any advantages in the prevention of perirenal transplant fluid collection, surgical site infection, lymphocele, hematoma, urinoma, wound dehiscence, graft loss, and need for reoperation. <br/><br/>Methods: We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis of non-randomized studies of intervention comparing drained and drain-free adult renal graft recipients regarding perirenal transplant fluid collection and other wound complications. ROBINS-I tool and funnel plot asymmetry analysis were used to assess the risk of bias. <br/><br/>Results: Five studies at moderate to critical risk of bias were included. A total of 2094 renal graft recipients were evaluated. Our analysis revealed no significant differences between drained and drain-free patients regarding perirenal transplant fluid collection (pooled odds ratio [OR], 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28-2.17; I 2 = 72%), surgical site infection (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 0.11-24.88; I 2 = 80%), lymphocele (OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.02-15.27; I 2 = 0%), hematoma (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.12-3.99; I 2 = 71%), and wound dehiscence (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.21-2.70; I 2 = 0%). There was insufficient data concerning urinoma, graft loss, and need for reoperation. <br/><br/>Conclusions: The available evidence is weak. Our findings show that the use of intra-abdominal drains after kidney transplantation seems to have neither beneficial nor harmful effects on perirenal transplant fluid collection and other wound complications. The present study does not support the routine placement of surgical drains after kidney transplantation. <i>In this systematic review and meta-analysis we summarize the most up-to-date evidence for and against the routine use of intra-abdominal drain following renal transplantation.</i>.
Topics: Adult; Drainage; Hematoma; Humans; Kidney Transplantation; Reoperation; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 34515654
DOI: 10.5604/01.3001.0014.9166 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2018Point-of-care sonography (POCS) has emerged as the screening modality of choice for suspected body trauma in many emergency departments worldwide. Its best known... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Point-of-care sonography (POCS) has emerged as the screening modality of choice for suspected body trauma in many emergency departments worldwide. Its best known application is FAST (focused abdominal sonography for trauma). The technology is almost ubiquitously available, can be performed during resuscitation, and does not expose patients or staff to radiation. While many authors have stressed the high specificity of POCS, its sensitivity varied markedly across studies. This review aimed to compile the current best evidence about the diagnostic accuracy of POCS imaging protocols in the setting of blunt thoracoabdominal trauma.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the diagnostic accuracy of POCS for detecting and excluding free fluid, organ injuries, vascular lesions, and other injuries (e.g. pneumothorax) compared to a diagnostic reference standard (i.e. computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), thoracoscopy or thoracotomy, laparoscopy or laparotomy, autopsy, or any combination of these) in patients with blunt trauma.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to July 2017) and Ovid Embase (1974 to July 2017), as well as PubMed (1947 to July 2017), employing a prospectively defined literature and data retrieval strategy. We also screened the Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and BIOSIS for potentially relevant citations, and scanned the reference lists of full-text papers for articles missed by the electronic search. We performed a top-up search on 6 December 2018, and identified eight new studies which may be incorporated into the first update of this review.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We assessed studies for eligibility using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. We included either prospective or retrospective diagnostic cohort studies that enrolled patients of any age and gender who sustained any type of blunt injury in a civilian scenario. Eligible studies had to provide sufficient information to construct a 2 x 2 table of diagnostic accuracy to allow for calculating sensitivity, specificity, and other indices of diagnostic test accuracy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened titles, abstracts, and full texts of reports using a prespecified data extraction form. Methodological quality of individual studies was rated by the QUADAS-2 instrument (the revised and updated version of the original Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies list of items). We calculated sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CI), tabulated the pairs of sensitivity and specificity with CI, and depicted these estimates by coupled forest plots using Review Manager 5 (RevMan 5). For pooling summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity, and investigating heterogeneity across studies, we fitted a bivariate model using Stata 14.0.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 34 studies with 8635 participants in this review. Summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity were 0.74 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.81) and 0.96 (95% CI 0.94 to 0.98). Pooled positive and negative likelihood ratios were estimated at 18.5 (95% CI 10.8 to 40.5) and 0.27 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.37), respectively. There was substantial heterogeneity across studies, and the reported accuracy of POCS strongly depended on the population and affected body area. In children, pooled sensitivity of POCS was 0.63 (95% CI 0.46 to 0.77), as compared to 0.78 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.84) in an adult or mixed population. Associated specificity in children was 0.91 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.96) and in an adult or mixed population 0.97 (95% CI 0.96 to 0.99). For abdominal trauma, POCS had a sensitivity of 0.68 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.75) and a specificity of 0.95 (95% CI 0.92 to 0.97). For chest injuries, sensitivity and specificity were calculated at 0.96 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.99) and 0.99 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.00). If we consider the results of all 34 included studies in a virtual population of 1000 patients, based on the observed median prevalence (pretest probability) of thoracoabdominal trauma of 28%, POCS would miss 73 patients with injuries and falsely suggest the presence of injuries in another 29 patients. Furthermore, in a virtual population of 1000 children, based on the observed median prevalence (pretest probability) of thoracoabdominal trauma of 31%, POCS would miss 118 children with injuries and falsely suggest the presence of injuries in another 62 children.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In patients with suspected blunt thoracoabdominal trauma, positive POCS findings are helpful for guiding treatment decisions. However, with regard to abdominal trauma, a negative POCS exam does not rule out injuries and must be verified by a reference test such as CT. This is of particular importance in paediatric trauma, where the sensitivity of POCS is poor. Based on a small number of studies in a mixed population, POCS may have a higher sensitivity in chest injuries. This warrants larger, confirmatory trials to affirm the accuracy of POCS for diagnosing thoracic trauma.
Topics: Abdominal Injuries; Adult; Age Factors; Child; Female; Focused Assessment with Sonography for Trauma; Humans; Male; Point-of-Care Systems; Reference Standards; Sensitivity and Specificity; Thoracic Injuries; Wounds, Nonpenetrating
PubMed: 30548249
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012669.pub2 -
The Journal of Trauma Jul 2002Abdominal computed tomographic (CT) scan is accepted as the primary diagnostic modality in stable patients with blunt abdominal trauma. A recent survey of 328 trauma... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Abdominal computed tomographic (CT) scan is accepted as the primary diagnostic modality in stable patients with blunt abdominal trauma. A recent survey of 328 trauma surgeons demonstrated marked variation in the management of patients with head injuries and the finding of free intra-abdominal fluid without solid organ injury on CT scan. This study was undertaken to attempt to determine what to do when free fluid without solid organ injury is seen on abdominal CT scan in patients with blunt trauma.
METHODS
Articles concerning the incidence and significance of free intra-abdominal fluid on CT scan of blunt trauma patients without solid organ injury were systematically reviewed. A MEDLINE search was performed using terms such as tomography-x-ray computed, wounds-nonpenetrating, small intestine/injuries, time factors, and abdominal trauma and diagnostic tests. Bibliographies of pertinent articles were reviewed. Appropriate articles were evaluated for quality and data were combined to reach a conclusion.
RESULTS
Meta-analysis could not be performed because no randomized, prospective, controlled trials could be found. Forty-one articles were excluded from the analysis because they looked at only patients with known injuries to intestine, diaphragm, or pancreas and the investigation of the CT scan findings did not include negative scans. Ten articles, which described CT scan results for all patients presenting with blunt abdominal trauma for a defined period of time, formed the basis of this study. Isolated free fluid was seen in 463 (2.8%) of over 16,000 blunt trauma patients scanned. A therapeutic laparotomy was performed in only 122 (27%) of these patients.
CONCLUSION
The isolated finding of free intra-abdominal fluid on CT scan in patients with blunt trauma and no solid organ injury does not warrant laparotomy. Alert patients may be followed with physical examination. Patients with altered mental status should undergo diagnostic peritoneal lavage.
Topics: Abdominal Injuries; Algorithms; Consciousness Disorders; Decision Trees; Evidence-Based Medicine; Hemoperitoneum; Humans; Incidence; Laparotomy; Patient Selection; Peritoneal Lavage; Physical Examination; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Research Design; Sensitivity and Specificity; Tomography, X-Ray Computed; Traumatology; Viscera; Wounds, Nonpenetrating
PubMed: 12131394
DOI: 10.1097/00005373-200207000-00016 -
Journal of Personalized Medicine Apr 2022(1) Background: Whether goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) provides any outcome benefit as compared to non-goal-directed fluid therapy (N-GDFT) in elective abdominal... (Review)
Review
(1) Background: Whether goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) provides any outcome benefit as compared to non-goal-directed fluid therapy (N-GDFT) in elective abdominal laparoscopic surgery has not been determined yet. (2) Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Scopus. The main outcomes were length of hospital stay (LOHS), time to first flatus and stool, intraoperative fluid and vasopressor requirements, serum lactate levels, and urinary output. Pooled risks ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes and weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes. (3) Results: Eleven studies were included in the quantitative, and fifteen in the qualitative synthesis. LOHS (WMD: -1.18 days, 95% CI: -1.84 to -0.53) and time to first stool (WMD: -9.8 h; CI -12.7 to -7.0) were significantly shorter in the GDFT group. GDFT resulted in significantly less intraoperative fluid administration (WMD: -441 mL, 95% CI: -790 to -92) and lower lactate levels at the end of the operation: WMD: -0.25 mmol L; 95% CI: -0.36 to -0.14. (4) Conclusions: GDFT resulted in enhanced recovery of the gastrointestinal function and shorter LOHS as compared to N-GDFT.
PubMed: 35629156
DOI: 10.3390/jpm12050734