-
Journal of Neurosurgery Oct 2017OBJECTIVE Various international and national gastrointestinal guidelines take different positions on whether ventriculoperitoneal shunt (VPS) insertion is a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE Various international and national gastrointestinal guidelines take different positions on whether ventriculoperitoneal shunt (VPS) insertion is a contraindication to percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). The objective of this meta-analysis was to try to answer the question of whether VPS insertion is a contraindication to PEG. METHODS A systematic review of the literature was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) criteria. Electronic databases PubMed and Embase were searched using variations of the terms "ventriculo-peritoneal shunt" and "percutaneous (endoscopic) gastrostomy." This search resulted in 70 studies, 9 of which were relevant. These were cross-referenced, and 1 additional study was found, resulting in 10 studies in this systematic review. RESULTS The 10 relevant studies in adult cohorts included 208 patients. All studies save one were retrospective and, in general, poor quality. Among the studies with relevant data, there were 26 (12.5% of 208 cases) VPS infections and 4 (4.4% of 90 cases) VPSs that malfunctioned. In 137 patients the VPS had been placed before the PEG tube, with a VPS infection rate of 4.4%. More VPS infections occurred among the 55 patients who first had a PEG and a subsequent VPS (21.8%) and in the 16 patients who had simultaneous PEG tube and VPS placement (50%). The heterogeneity of the studies in this analysis prohibited statistical comparisons of the timing of VPS and PEG tube placement. CONCLUSIONS This systematic review indicated that VPS placement in combination with a PEG has a high but acceptable VPS complication rate. Therefore, VPS insertion should not be considered a contraindication to the placement of a PEG tube. Preferably, a PEG tube should be placed after the VPS. Waiting 7-10 days between VPS insertion and a PEG seems reasonable, but this could not be corroborated in this review.
Topics: Contraindications, Procedure; Gastroscopy; Gastrostomy; Humans; Postoperative Complications; Ventriculoperitoneal Shunt
PubMed: 27911231
DOI: 10.3171/2016.8.JNS152701 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2017Surgeons who perform laparotomy have a number of decisions to make regarding abdominal closure. Material and size of potential suture types varies widely. In addition,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Surgeons who perform laparotomy have a number of decisions to make regarding abdominal closure. Material and size of potential suture types varies widely. In addition, surgeons can choose to close the incision in anatomic layers or mass ('en masse'), as well as using either a continuous or interrupted suturing technique, of which there are different styles of each. There is ongoing debate as to which suturing techniques and suture materials are best for achieving definitive wound closure while minimising the risk of short- and long-term complications.
OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this review were to identify the best available suture techniques and suture materials for closure of the fascia following laparotomy incisions, by assessing the following comparisons: absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures; mass versus layered closure; continuous versus interrupted closure techniques; monofilament versus multifilament sutures; and slow absorbable versus fast absorbable sutures. Our objective was not to determine the single best combination of suture material and techniques, but to compare the individual components of abdominal closure.
SEARCH METHODS
On 8 February 2017 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two trials registries, and Science Citation Index. There were no limitations based on language or date of publication. We searched the reference lists of all included studies to identify trials that our searches may have missed.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared suture materials or closure techniques, or both, for fascial closure of laparotomy incisions. We excluded trials that compared only types of skin closures, peritoneal closures or use of retention sutures.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We abstracted data and assessed the risk of bias for each trial. We calculated a summary risk ratio (RR) for the outcomes assessed in the review, all of which were dichotomous. We used random-effects modelling, based on the heterogeneity seen throughout the studies and analyses. We completed subgroup analysis planned a priori for each outcome, excluding studies where interventions being compared differed by more than one component, making it impossible to determine which variable impacted on the outcome, or the possibility of a synergistic effect. We completed sensitivity analysis, excluding trials with at least one trait with high risk of bias. We assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADEpro guidelines.
MAIN RESULTS
Fifty-five RCTs with a total of 19,174 participants met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. Included studies were heterogeneous in the type of sutures used, methods of closure and patient population. Many of the included studies reported multiple comparisons.For our primary outcome, the proportion of participants who developed incisional hernia at one year or more of follow-up, we did not find evidence that suture absorption (absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures, RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.32, moderate-quality evidence; or slow versus fast absorbable sutures, RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.06, moderate-quality evidence), closure method (mass versus layered, RR 1.92, 95% CI 0.58 to 6.35, very low-quality evidence) or closure technique (continuous versus interrupted, RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.35, moderate-quality evidence) resulted in a difference in the risk of incisional hernia. We did, however, find evidence to suggest that monofilament sutures reduced the risk of incisional hernia when compared with multifilament sutures (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.98, I = 30%, moderate-quality evidence).For our secondary outcomes, we found that none of the interventions reduced the risk of wound infection, whether based on suture absorption (absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures, RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.17, moderate-quality evidence; or slow versus fast absorbable sutures, RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.57, moderate-quality evidence), closure method (mass versus layered, RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.30, low-quality evidence) or closure technique (continuous versus interrupted, RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.34, moderate-quality evidence).Similarily, none of the interventions reduced the risk of wound dehiscence whether based on suture absorption (absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures, RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.10, moderate-quality evidence; or slow versus fast absorbable sutures, RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.61, moderate-quality evidence), closure method (mass versus layered, RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.52, moderate-quality evidence) or closure technique (continuous versus interrupted, RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.64, moderate-quality evidence).Absorbable sutures, compared with non-absorbable sutures (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.94, low-quality evidence) reduced the risk of sinus or fistula tract formation. None of the other comparisons showed a difference (slow versus fast absorbable sutures, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.05 to 16.05, very low-quality evidence; mass versus layered, RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.62, low-quality evidence; continuous versus interrupted, RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.64 to 3.61, very low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on this moderate-quality body of evidence, monofilament sutures may reduce the risk of incisional hernia. Absorbable sutures may also reduce the risk of sinus or fistula tract formation, but this finding is based on low-quality evidence.We had serious concerns about the design or reporting of several of the 55 included trials. The comparator arms in many trials differed by more than one component, making it impossible to attribute differences between groups to any one component. In addition, the patient population included in many of the studies was very heterogeneous. Trials included both emergency and elective cases, different types of disease pathology (e.g. colon surgery, hepatobiliary surgery, etc.) or different types of incisions (e.g. midline, paramedian, subcostal).Consequently, larger, high-quality trials to further address this clinical challenge are warranted. Future studies should ensure that proper randomisation and allocation techniques are performed, wound assessors are blinded, and that the duration of follow-up is adequate. It is important that only one type of intervention is compared between groups. In addition, a homogeneous patient population would allow for a more accurate assessment of the interventions.
Topics: Abdominal Wound Closure Techniques; Fistula; Humans; Incisional Hernia; Laparotomy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Wound Dehiscence; Surgical Wound Infection; Suture Techniques; Sutures
PubMed: 29099149
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005661.pub2 -
American Journal of Surgery Jan 2018Topical antibiotics have been shown to reduce exit-site infection and peritonitis. The aim of this study was to compare infection rates between mupirocin and gentamicin. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Topical antibiotics have been shown to reduce exit-site infection and peritonitis. The aim of this study was to compare infection rates between mupirocin and gentamicin.
METHODS
Multiple comprehensive databases were searched systematically to include relevant randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for the incidences of exit-site infection and peritonitis.
RESULTS
Seven studies (mupirocin group n = 458, gentamicin group n = 448) were analyzed for exit-site infection. The risk of gram-positive exit-site infection was similar between the groups. Gram-negative exit-site infection rate was higher in the mupirocin group (RR = 2.125, P = 0.037). Six studies were assessed the peritonitis risk. There was no difference in the gram-positive and -negative peritonitis rate.
CONCLUSIONS
Topical use of gentamicin is associated with fewer exit-site infections caused by gram-negative organisms. Gentamicin has comparable efficacy to mupirocin for peritonitis and gram-positive exit-site infection.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Catheter-Related Infections; Gentamicins; Gram-Negative Bacterial Infections; Gram-Positive Bacterial Infections; Humans; Models, Statistical; Mupirocin; Peritoneal Dialysis; Peritonitis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28341139
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2017.03.005 -
BMC Nephrology Jul 2012Peritoneal dialysis has been proven to be a safe and effective mode of renal replacement therapy for patients with end-stage renal disease. The usage of laparoscopic... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Peritoneal dialysis has been proven to be a safe and effective mode of renal replacement therapy for patients with end-stage renal disease. The usage of laparoscopic catheter placement technique was increased in recent years. But the advantages and disadvantages between the laparoscopic catheter placement technique and open laparotomy technique were still http://in controversy. The objective of this study is to access the operation-related data and complications of catheter placement for peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients, Then to determine the better method for catheter insertion.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis on published studies identified by the databases PubMed, EMBASE, Highwire, and the Cochrane Library. Analysis was performed using the statistical software Review Manager Version 5.0.
RESULTS
We assessed the operation-related data and complications of four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and ten observational studies. The available data showed that laparoscope prolonged the time for catheter insertion in PD patients, however, the two groups did not significantly differ in hospital stays, early and late complications, including infection, dialysate leaks, catheter migration, pericannular bleeding, blockage and hernia.
CONCLUSIONS
The data showed that Laparoscopic catheter placement had no superiority to open surgery. However, this treatment still needs to be confirmed in a large, multi-center, well-designed RCT.
Topics: Catheters, Indwelling; Humans; Laparoscopy; Peritoneal Dialysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 22839745
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2369-13-69 -
European Review For Medical and... Mar 2019The present study was aimed at illustrating short- or long-term patient outcome among individuals with urgent-start peritoneal dialysis (PD) compared with those with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The present study was aimed at illustrating short- or long-term patient outcome among individuals with urgent-start peritoneal dialysis (PD) compared with those with conventional PD.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases. Cohort studies were investigated comparing the effects of urgent start of PD (<14 days after catheter insertion) to those of conventional start of PD (≥14 days after catheter insertion). Risks of bias across studies were evaluated using Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. We calculated the pooled risk ratios and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals for dichotomous data and continuous data, respectively.
RESULTS
Six studies involving 1,242 patients were identified. Compared with conventional PD, urgent-start PD was not associated with a high mortality (RR: 1.25, 95% CI: 0.92 to 1.69; I2=0%, p=0.99) and a higher prevalence of overall mechanical complications (RR: 1.79, 95% CI: 0.85 to 3.78; p=0.12; I2=64%, p=0.02). However, urgent-start PD was associated with a higher prevalence of leakage (RR: 6.72, 95% CI: 2.11 to 21.32; I2=0%, p=0.60). In terms of infectious complications, data analysis of the fixed-effects model showed no difference between the two groups. (RR: 1.36, 95% CI: 0.90 to 2.05, p=0.14), regardless of peritonitis (RR: 1.36, 95% CI: 0.90 to 2.05, p=0.14; I2=0%, p=0.70) or other infections (RR: 1.15, 95% CI: 0.49 to 2.69, p=0.99; I2=0%, p=0.75).
CONCLUSIONS
Urgent-start PD was not associated with a higher risk of mortality and dialysis-related complications. However, compared with conventional PD, an urgent start of PD may increase the risk of a leak.
Topics: Catheterization; Female; Humans; Kidney Failure, Chronic; Male; Peritoneal Dialysis; Peritonitis; Survival Analysis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30915761
DOI: 10.26355/eurrev_201903_17261 -
Kidney International Apr 2014Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is an effective treatment for end-stage renal disease. There are several configurations of PD catheter design that may impact catheter function,... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is an effective treatment for end-stage renal disease. There are several configurations of PD catheter design that may impact catheter function, such as the shape of the intraperitoneal segment, the number of cuffs, and the subcutaneous configuration. This review and meta-analysis was carried out to determine whether there is a clinical advantage for one of the catheter types or configurations. Comprehensive searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library 2012, issue 10). The methodology was in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Interventional Systematic Reviews and written based on the PRISMA statement. The initial search yielded 682 hits from which 13 randomized controlled trials were identified. Outcomes of interest were as follows: catheter survival, drainage dysfunction, migration, leakage, exit-site infections, peritonitis, and catheter removal. Comparing straight vs. swan neck and single vs. double-cuffed catheters, no differences were found when results were pooled. Comparison of straight vs. coiled-tip catheters demonstrated that survival was significantly different in favor of straight catheters (hazard ratio 2.05; confidence interval 1.10-3.79, P=0.02). For surgically inserted catheters, the removal rate and survival at 1 year after insertion were significantly in favor of straight catheters. Our meta-analysis clearly demonstrates benefits for catheters with a straight intraperitoneal segment.
Topics: Catheters, Indwelling; Humans; Peritoneal Dialysis
PubMed: 24088961
DOI: 10.1038/ki.2013.365 -
Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and... 2021Home-based peritoneal dialysis (PD) is an alternative to facility-based hemodialysis and has lower costs and greater freedom for patients with kidney failure. For a...
BACKGROUND
Home-based peritoneal dialysis (PD) is an alternative to facility-based hemodialysis and has lower costs and greater freedom for patients with kidney failure. For a patient to undergo PD, a safe and reliable method of accessing the peritoneum is needed. However, different catheter insertion techniques may affect patient health outcomes.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the risk of infectious and mechanical complications between surgical (open and laparoscopic) PD catheter insertion and percutaneous catheter insertion.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
SETTING
We searched for observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, and SCOPUS from inception until June 2018. Data were extracted by 2 independent reviewers based on a preformed template.
PATIENTS
Adult (aged 18+) patients with kidney failure who underwent a PD catheter insertion procedure.
MEASUREMENTS
We analyzed leak, malfunction, and bleed as early complications (occurring within 1 month of catheter insertion). Infectious complications (exit-site infections, tunnel infections, and peritonitis) were presented as both early complications and with the longest duration of follow-up.
METHODS
Random effects meta-analyses with the generic inverse variance method to estimate pooled rate ratios and 95% confidence intervals. We quantified heterogeneity by using the I2 statistic for inconsistency and assessed heterogeneity using the χ test. Sensitivity analysis was performed by removing studies at high risk of bias as measured with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool.
RESULTS
Twenty-four studies (22 observational, 2 RCTs) with 3108 patients and 3777 catheter insertions were selected. Data from 2 studies were unable to be extracted and were qualitatively assessed. In the remaining 22 studies, percutaneous insertion was associated with a lower risk of both exit-site infections (risk ratio [RR] = 0.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.24-0.53, I = 0%) and peritonitis (RR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.36-0.77, I = 3%) within 1 month of the procedure. There was no difference in mechanical complication rates between the 2 techniques.
LIMITATIONS
Lack of consistency in the time periods for the various outcomes reported, risk of bias concerns with respect to population comparability, and the inability to analyze individual component causes of primary nonfunction (catheter obstruction, catheter migration, and leak).
CONCLUSIONS
Our meta-analysis suggests differences in early infectious complications in favor of percutaneous insertion and no significant differences in mechanical complications compared with surgical insertion. These findings have implications on the direction of PD programs in terms of maximizing operating room resources.
PubMed: 34795905
DOI: 10.1177/20543581211052731 -
Peritoneal Dialysis International :... Nov 2021The current consensus recommended the peritoneal dialysis catheter (PDC) techniques based on the patients' anesthesia situation and previous abdominal surgery. However,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The current consensus recommended the peritoneal dialysis catheter (PDC) techniques based on the patients' anesthesia situation and previous abdominal surgery. However, the research comparing of all the existing PDC techniques is lacking. The objective was to compare the efficacy and safety of PDC techniques by network meta-analysis (NMA). A systematic review of databases was conducted to identify eligible studies. NMA was used to estimate the ranking for endpoints. Our NMA included 41 studies (9 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 32 observational trials) and enrolled 3902 patients, comparing three techniques: the laparoscopic catheterization (LC), open surgery catheterization (OSC), and percutaneous catheterization (PC). NMA in RCTs showed OSC had the highest incidence of catheter mechanical dysfunction, PC and LC were very similar, but this result had no statistical difference. NMA in observational studies showed that LC had the highest 1-year catheter survival but without statistical difference (LC vs. OSC: odds ratio (OR) 1.75, 95% credible intervals (CrIs) 0.90-3.40; PC vs. OSC: OR 1.55, 95% CrIs 0.80-2.97; PC vs. LC: OR 0.88, 95% CrIs 0.54-1.44). OSC had the lowest incidence for bleeding. The complications of leakage, peritonitis, and exit/tunnel infection were inconclusive due to the inconsistent results between RCTs and observational studies. Our NMA revealed LC may have the best 1-year catheter survival. PC and LC might be efficacious in lowering the mechanical dysfunction. OSC had the lowest incidence for bleeding. More RCTs with larger scale and higher quality are needed in order to obtain more credible evidence.
Topics: Catheterization; Catheters; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Peritoneal Dialysis; Peritonitis
PubMed: 32914705
DOI: 10.1177/0896860820953720 -
BMC Nephrology Aug 2016This study was performed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of alternative strategies for the prevention and treatment of patients with chronic kidney disease... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This study was performed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of alternative strategies for the prevention and treatment of patients with chronic kidney disease undergoing peritoneal dialysis and colonized by Staphylococcus aureus.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed. The literature search involved the following databases: the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Embase, LILACS, CINAHL, SciELO, and PubMed/Medline. The descriptors were "Staphylococcus aureus," "MRSA," "MSSA," "treatment," "decolonization," "nasal carrier," "colonization," "chronic kidney disease," "dialysis," and "peritoneal dialysis." Randomized controlled trials that exhibited agreement among reviewers as shown by a kappa value of >0.80 were included in the study; methodological quality was evaluated using the STROBE statement. Patients who received various antibiotic treatments (antibiotic group) or topical mupirocin (mupirocin group) were compared with those who received either no treatment or placebo (control group). Patients in the antibiotic group were also compared with those in the mupirocin group.
RESULTS
In total, nine studies involving 839 patients were included in the analysis, 187 (22.3 %) of whom were nasal carriers of S. aureus. The probability of S. aureus infection at the catheter site for peritoneal dialysis was 74 % lower in the mupirocin than control group (odds ratio [OR], 0.26; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.14-0.46; p < 0.001), 56 % lower in the antibiotic than control group (OR, 0.44; 95 % CI, 0.19-0.99; p = 0.048), and 52 % lower in the mupirocin than antibiotic group (OR, 0.48; 95 % CI, 0.21-1.10; p = 0.084). The difference in the probability of S. aureus peritonitis in patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis was not statistically significant among the three groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Mupirocin and topical antibiotics were effective for reduction of S. aureus catheter site infection in patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis when compared with no treatment or placebo. However, evidence was insufficient to identify the optimal agent, route, or duration of antibiotics to treat peritonitis.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Equipment Contamination; Humans; Peritoneal Dialysis; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic; Staphylococcal Infections; Staphylococcus aureus; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27527505
DOI: 10.1186/s12882-016-0329-0 -
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Nov 2022An increasing number of patients treated with peritoneal dialysis eventually undergo kidney transplantation. Owing to opposing reports, we aimed to find evidence about... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
An increasing number of patients treated with peritoneal dialysis eventually undergo kidney transplantation. Owing to opposing reports, we aimed to find evidence about the best time for peritoneal dialysis catheter removal in transplant patients.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and random effects meta-analysis of non-randomized studies of intervention comparing patients with peritoneal dialysis catheters left in place or removed during kidney transplantation in regard to the need for dialysis and occurrence of catheter-related complications. We searched (last update on 8 December 2021) PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science for eligible studies. ROBINS-I tool and funnel plot asymmetry analysis were used to assess the quality of included articles.
RESULTS
Eight observational studies were evaluated. Five of them, which involved 338 patients, were included in a meta-analysis. All were at moderate to serious risk of bias. The odds of needing dialysis are more than twice as high for patients with peritoneal dialysis catheters left in situ (pooled odds ratio, 2.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03 to 4.73; I = 0%). No statistically significant difference was noted when adult and pediatric subgroups were compared (Q = 0.13, P = .720). More individuals with catheters left in place required dialysis (pooled prevalence, 20.9%; 95% CI, 13.6 to 30.7%; I = 59% vs. 12.4%; 95% CI, 5.6 to 25.2%; I = 0%) and experienced catheter-related infections.
CONCLUSION
Available evidence is scarce. Unless new data from a randomized controlled trial are available, the dilemma of peritoneal dialysis catheter removal cannot be solved.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO Protocol ID: CRD42020207707.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Child; Kidney Transplantation; Catheters, Indwelling; Peritoneal Dialysis; Time Factors; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 35945300
DOI: 10.1007/s00423-022-02637-y