-
Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology May 2021To review short- and long-term complications associated with intraoperative rupture of benign ovarian cysts. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To review short- and long-term complications associated with intraoperative rupture of benign ovarian cysts.
DATA SOURCES
The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, BIOSIS, Medline (Ovid), Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar were searched using the following terms and their combinations: "spillage," "rupture," "leakage," "ovarian cyst," "teratoma," "dermoid," "operative," "surgery," "outcome."
METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION
Randomized controlled and observational studies evaluating the operative outcomes of surgical treatment of ovarian cysts with intraoperative spillage compared with those of surgical treatment of ovarian cysts without spillage were included. A systematic review and meta-analysis following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines was performed.
TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS
A total of 28 studies were included in the qualitative analysis and 12 in the quantitative analysis. Ovarian cyst diameter was not found to be associated with the risk for spillage (relative risk [RR] 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.33 to 1.82). Intraoperative benign ovarian cyst rupture was not associated with adverse short- and long-term outcomes such as reoperation (RR 1.16; 95% CI, 0.39-3.48), infertility (RR 0.73; 95% CI, 0.15-3.63), transient fever (RR 3.22; 95% CI, 0.83-12.51), and readmission (RR 1.00; 95% CI, 0.33-2.98). However, intraoperative spillage was found to be associated with increased risk for benign recurrence (RR 3.1; 95% CI, 1.05-9.14). A subgroup analysis of the studies that included only dermoid cysts showed an association between intraoperative cyst rupture and postoperative chemical peritonitis (RR 9.36; 95% CI, 1.20-73.28).
CONCLUSION
Intraoperative ovarian cyst spillage of a benign cyst is associated with limited adverse clinical outcomes. Although the surgical approach (minimally invasive vs open) should not be affected by the concern regarding an intraoperative cyst rupture, maximal efforts should be made to prevent intra-abdominal spillage.
Topics: Female; Humans; Laparoscopy; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Ovarian Cysts; Peritonitis; Postoperative Complications; Teratoma
PubMed: 33279627
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2020.11.025 -
Seminars in Dialysis 2024The timing of peritoneal dialysis (PD) initiation, whether conventional-start (planned) or urgent-start (unplanned), may impact the outcomes of PD and the rate of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Comparative Study Review
The timing of peritoneal dialysis (PD) initiation, whether conventional-start (planned) or urgent-start (unplanned), may impact the outcomes of PD and the rate of associated complications in individuals with chronic kidney disease (CKD). The goal of this study was to evaluate the effects of unplanned/urgent-start PD versus conventional-start PD in this cohort of patients. Electronic search of MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Scopus databases was done from inception until July 2023 for studies reporting outcomes of unplanned/urgent-start and conventional-start PD in CKD patients. Outcomes of interest included mechanical complications, post-procedure infections, mortality, and transfer to hemodialysis. Heterogeneity, publication bias, and the influence of individual studies on the pooled odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were evaluated. Twenty-seven studies were finally included in the review. The overall risk of post-procedure infectious was comparable for both PD initiation methods (OR: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.83-1.34). Similarly, the risks for peritonitis and exit site infections did not differ significantly. However, urgent-start PD correlated with a significantly higher risk of overall mechanical complications (OR: 1.70; 95% CI: 1.23-2.34). Specifically, the risk for leaks was notably higher (OR: 2.47; 95% CI: 1.67-3.65) in the urgent-start group compared to the conventional-start PD group. Urgent-start PD correlated with significantly increased mortality rates (OR: 1.83; 95% CI: 1.39-2.41). There was no difference in the likelihood of technique survival and transfer to hemodialysis. Both urgent-start and conventional-start PD correlated with similar risks of overall infectious complications. Urgent-start PD resulted in significantly increased risks of mechanical complications and mortality. Our findings emphasize the need for meticulous planning and consideration when opting for PD initiation.
Topics: Humans; Peritoneal Dialysis; Kidney Failure, Chronic; Peritonitis
PubMed: 38477178
DOI: 10.1111/sdi.13198 -
Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology Mar 2013Clostridium difficle-associated infection (CDI) is usually treated with antibiotics; nevertheless, the infection has a high relapse rate. Case series and case reports... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Clostridium difficle-associated infection (CDI) is usually treated with antibiotics; nevertheless, the infection has a high relapse rate. Case series and case reports using fecal microbiota transplant (FMT) for CDI show promising results. However, there are no large studies to provide evidence for the efficacy of this therapy. The aim of this pooled patient data meta-analysis was to determine the efficacy of FMT in CDI.
METHODS
We performed a literature search for FMT for CDI or pseudomembranous colitis. Individual patient data were obtained from each study. The primary endpoint was to assess the rate of diarrhea resolution. Secondary endpoints were to identify variables associated with treatment failure and side effects of therapy.
RESULTS
A total of 289 patients from 25 published articles who received FMT for CDI were included in the pooled data analysis. FMT had an overall success rate of 91.2%. On univariate analysis, shorter duration of symptoms before FMT (< 60 days) and gastroduodenal route of fecal instillation were associated with treatment failure. On multivariate regression analysis, shorter duration of symptoms (< 60 days) before the FMT (OR= 11.08; p = 0.0009) was associated with treatment failure. Reported adverse events following FMT were irritable bowel syndrome (n = 1), symptoms of mild enteritis (n = 3), and suspected peritonitis following the procedure (n = 1).
CONCLUSION
FMT is a safe and effective treatment option for CDI. Shorter duration of symptoms (< 60 days) before administering FMT is associated with treatment failure.
Topics: Biological Therapy; Clostridioides difficile; Confidence Intervals; Enterocolitis, Pseudomembranous; Feces; Humans; Odds Ratio; Time Factors
PubMed: 23163886
DOI: 10.3109/00365521.2012.743585 -
Surgery Aug 2023The role of proximal diversion in patients undergoing sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis for diverticulitis with generalized peritonitis is unclear. The aim of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The role of proximal diversion in patients undergoing sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis for diverticulitis with generalized peritonitis is unclear. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis and sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis with a proximal diversion in perforated diverticulitis with diffuse peritonitis.
METHOD
A systematic literature search on sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis and sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis with proximal diversion for diverticulitis with diffuse peritonitis was conducted in the Medline and EMBASE databases. Randomized clinical trials and observational studies reporting the primary outcome of interest (30-day mortality) were included. Secondary outcomes were major morbidity, anastomotic leak, reoperation, stoma nonreversal rates, and length of hospital stay. A meta-analysis of proportions and linear regression models were used to assess the effect of each procedure on the different outcomes.
RESULTS
A total of 17 studies involving 544 patients (sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis: 287 versus sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis with proximal diversion: 257) were included. Thirty-day mortality (odds ratio 1.12, 95% confidence interval 0.53-2.40, P = .76), major morbidity (odds ratio 1.40, 95% confidence interval 0.80-2.44, P = .24), anastomotic leak (odds ratio 0.34, 95% confidence interval 0.099-1.20, P = .10), reoperation (odds ratio 0.49, 95% confidence interval 0.17-1.46, P = .20), and length of stay (sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis: 12.1 vs resection and primary anastomosis with diverting ileostomy: 15 days, P = .44) were similar between groups. The risk of definitive stoma was significantly lower after sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis (odds ratio 0.05, 95% confidence interval 0.006-0.35, P = .003).
CONCLUSION
Sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis with or without proximal diversion have similar postoperative outcomes in selected patients with diverticulitis and diffuse peritonitis. However, further randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these results.
Topics: Humans; Diverticulitis, Colonic; Anastomotic Leak; Colostomy; Intestinal Perforation; Diverticulitis; Anastomosis, Surgical; Peritonitis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37258308
DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2023.04.035 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2016Acute necrotising pancreatitis carries significant mortality, morbidity, and resource use. There is considerable uncertainty as to how people with necrotising... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Acute necrotising pancreatitis carries significant mortality, morbidity, and resource use. There is considerable uncertainty as to how people with necrotising pancreatitis should be treated.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of different interventions in people with acute necrotising pancreatitis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2015, Issue 4), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and trials registers to April 2015 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCT). We also searched the references of included trials to identify further trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered only RCTs performed in people with necrotising pancreatitis, irrespective of aetiology, presence of infection, language, blinding, or publication status for inclusion in the review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently identified trials and extracted data. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) and mean difference with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using Review Manager 5 based on an available-case analysis using fixed-effect and random-effects models. We planned a network meta-analysis using Bayesian methods, but due to sparse data and uncertainty about the transitivity assumption, performed only indirect comparisons and used Frequentist methods.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eight RCTs with 311 participants in this review. After exclusion of five participants, we included 306 participants in one or more outcomes. Five trials (240 participants) investigated the three main treatments: open necrosectomy (121 participants), minimally invasive step-up approach (80 participants), and peritoneal lavage (39 participants) and were included in the network meta-analysis. Three trials (66 participants) investigated the variations in the main treatments: early open necrosectomy (25 participants), delayed open necrosectomy (11 participants), video-assisted minimally invasive step-up approach (12 participants), endoscopic minimally invasive step-up approach (10 participants), minimally invasive step-up approach (planned surgery) (four participants), and minimally invasive step-up approach (continued percutaneous drainage) (four participants). The trials included infected or sterile necrotising pancreatitis of varied aetiology.All the trials were at unclear or high risk of bias and the overall quality of evidence was low or very low for all the outcomes. Overall, short-term mortality was 30% and serious adverse events rate was 139 serious adverse events per 100 participants. The differences in short-term mortality and proportion of people with serious adverse events were imprecise in all the comparisons. The number of serious adverse events and adverse events were fewer in the minimally invasive step-up approach compared to open necrosectomy (serious adverse events: rate ratio 0.41, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.68; 88 participants; 1 study; adverse events: rate ratio 0.41, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.68; 88 participants; 1 study). The proportion of people with organ failure and the mean costs were lower in the minimally invasive step-up approach compared to open necrosectomy (organ failure: OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.60; 88 participants; 1 study; mean difference in costs: USD -11,922; P value < 0.05; 88 participants; 1 studies). There were more adverse events with video-assisted minimally invasive step-up approach group compared to endoscopic-assisted minimally invasive step-up approach group (rate ratio 11.70, 95% CI 1.52 to 89.87; 22 participants; 1 study), but the number of interventions per participant was less with video-assisted minimally invasive step-up approach group compared to endoscopic minimally invasive step-up approach group (difference in medians: 2 procedures; P value < 0.05; 20 participants; 1 study). The differences in any of the other comparisons for number of serious adverse events, proportion of people with organ failure, number of adverse events, length of hospital stay, and intensive therapy unit stay were either imprecise or were not consistent. None of the trials reported long-term mortality, infected pancreatic necrosis (trials that included participants with sterile necrosis), health-related quality of life at any time frame, proportion of people with adverse events, requirement for additional invasive intervention, time to return to normal activity, and time to return to work.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low to very low quality evidence suggested that the minimally invasive step-up approach resulted in fewer adverse events, serious adverse events, less organ failure, and lower costs compared to open necrosectomy. Very low quality evidence suggested that the endoscopic minimally invasive step-up approach resulted in fewer adverse events than the video-assisted minimally invasive step-up approach but increased the number of procedures required for treatment. There is currently no evidence to suggest that early open necrosectomy is superior or inferior to peritoneal lavage or delayed open necrosectomy. However, the CIs were wide and significant benefits or harms of different treatments cannot be ruled out. The TENSION trial currently underway in Netherlands is assessing the optimal way to perform the minimally invasive step-up approach (endoscopic drainage followed by endoscopic necrosectomy if necessary versus percutaneous drainage followed by video-assisted necrosectomy if necessary) and is assessing important clinical outcomes of interest for this review. Implications for further research on this topic will be determined after the results of this RCT are available.
Topics: Humans; Necrosis; Pancreatitis, Acute Necrotizing; Peritoneal Lavage; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Video-Assisted Surgery
PubMed: 27083933
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011383.pub2 -
Tropical Medicine and Infectious Disease May 2019is a genus of obligate parasites belonging to the Pentastomida subclass that was first described as a cause of human disease in 1847. Human infection by is rare and... (Review)
Review
is a genus of obligate parasites belonging to the Pentastomida subclass that was first described as a cause of human disease in 1847. Human infection by is rare and not widely known. These parasites are transmitted to humans by handling or eating undercooked meat from infected snakes, which are the definitive hosts, or oral uptake of environmental ova. The aim of this systematic review was to record all available evidence regarding infections by in humans. A systematic review of PubMed (through 21 December 2018) for studies providing epidemiological, clinical, microbiological, as well as treatment data and outcomes of infections was conducted. A total of 26 studies, containing data of 40 patients, were eventually included in the analysis. The most common sites of infection were the peritoneal cavity, the liver, the lower respiratory and the abdominal tract. The commonest infecting species was and most patients were asymptomatic; however, when symptoms occurred, the commonest was abdominal pain, even though unusual presentations occurred, such as hepatic encephalopathy or neurologic symptoms. Most cases were diagnosed at surgery or by imaging, and most patients were not treated. Mortality was low, but the majority of the cases with ocular infection lead to permanent loss of vision.
PubMed: 31100831
DOI: 10.3390/tropicalmed4020080 -
Seminars in Dialysis Jul 2020Outcomes of patients who are transferred to peritoneal dialysis (PD) after an initial phase of hemodialysis (HD) compared to patients initiating dialysis with PD is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Outcomes of patients who are transferred to peritoneal dialysis (PD) after an initial phase of hemodialysis (HD) compared to patients initiating dialysis with PD is controversial. We performed a systematic literature to assess evidence. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS), while secondary outcomes were technique failure, mortality and peritonitis. Meta-analysis indicated that PD initial group had significantly better OS as compared to HD to PD group. Pooled analysis demonstrated a significantly higher probability of technique failure in the HD to PD group as compared to PD initial group. Mortality rate in HD to PD group was significantly higher but there was no statistically significant difference in peritonitis rates between the two groups. On meta-regression analysis, transfer from HD to PD due to vascular access problems was associated with significantly reduced probability of OS. Our study indicates that patients transferred from HD to PD after at least 3 months of HD therapy may have reduced OS as compared to patients initiating dialysis with PD. Our findings lend some support to PD first policy and the need for heightened vigilance among the switched patients to monitor for adverse events.
Topics: Humans; Kidney Failure, Chronic; Peritoneal Dialysis; Peritonitis; Renal Dialysis; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 32596853
DOI: 10.1111/sdi.12896 -
Clinical Kidney Journal Apr 2022Patients receiving dialysis for end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) commonly co-exhibit risk factors for hepatic impairment. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed...
BACKGROUND
Patients receiving dialysis for end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) commonly co-exhibit risk factors for hepatic impairment. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to quantify the coexistence of chronic liver disease (CLD) and characterize risk factors and outcomes.
METHODS
We searched the following databases from inception to May 2021: CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Embase, Kings Fund Library, MEDLINE and PubMed. The protocol was pre-registered on PROSPERO (study ID: CRD42020206486). Studies were assessed against three inclusion criteria: adults (>18 years) with ESKD receiving dialysis, primary outcome involving CLD prevalence and publications in English. Moderator analysis was performed for age, gender, study size and publication year. Sensitivity analysis was performed where applicable by removing outlier results and studies at high risk of bias.
RESULTS
Searches yielded 7195 articles; of these 15 met the inclusion criteria. A total of 320 777 patients were included. The prevalence of cirrhosis and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) was 5% and 55%, respectively. Individuals with CLD had 2-fold higher mortality than those without {odds ratio [OR] 2.19 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.39-3.45]}. Hepatitis B [OR 13.47 (95% CI 1.37-132.55)] and hepatitis C [OR 7.05 (95% CI 4.00-12.45)], but not diabetes, conferred increased cirrhosis risk. All studies examining NAFLD were judged to be at high risk of bias. We found no data on non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). Deaths from CLD, cancer and infection were greater among cirrhotic patients.
CONCLUSIONS
CLD is prevalent in dialysis patients. Hepatitis B and C confer increased risk of CLD. The impact of NAFLD and NASH cirrhosis requires further study. CLD is associated with an increased risk of mortality in this setting.
PubMed: 35371444
DOI: 10.1093/ckj/sfab230 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2008Peritonitis is a common complication of peritoneal dialysis (PD) and is associated with significant morbidity. Adequate treatment is essential to reduce morbidity and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Peritonitis is a common complication of peritoneal dialysis (PD) and is associated with significant morbidity. Adequate treatment is essential to reduce morbidity and recurrence.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of treatments for PD-associated peritonitis.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's specialised register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, in The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE and reference lists without language restriction. Date of search: February 2005
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs assessing the treatment of peritonitis in peritoneal dialysis patients (adults and children) evaluating: administration of an antibiotic(s) by different routes (e.g. oral, intraperitoneal, intravenous); dose of an antibiotic agent(s); different schedules of administration of antimicrobial agents; comparisons of different regimens of antimicrobial agents; any other intervention including fibrinolytic agents, peritoneal lavage and early catheter removal were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors extracted data on study quality and outcomes. Statistical analyses were performed using the random effects model and the dichotomous results were expressed as relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and continuous outcomes as mean difference (WMD) with 95% CI.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 36 studies (2089 patients): antimicrobial agents (30); urokinase (4), peritoneal lavage (1) intraperitoneal (IP) immunoglobulin (1). No superior antibiotic agent or combination of agents were identified. Primary response and relapse rates did not differ between IP glycopeptide-based regimens compared to first generation cephalosporin regimens, although glycopeptide regimens were more likely to achieve a complete cure (3 studies, 370 episodes: RR 1.66, 95% CI 1.01 to 3.58). For relapsing or persistent peritonitis, simultaneous catheter removal/replacement was superior to urokinase at reducing treatment failure rates (1 study, 37 patients: RR 2.35, 95% CI 1.13 to 4.91). Continuous IP and intermittent IP antibiotic dosing had similar treatment failure and relapse rates. IP antibiotics were superior to IV antibiotics in reducing treatment failure (1 study, 75 patients: RR 3.52, 95% CI 1.26 to 9.81). The methodological quality of most included studies was suboptimal and outcome definitions were often inconsistent. There were no RCTs regarding duration of antibiotics or timing of catheter removal.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on one study, IP administration of antibiotics is superior to IV dosing for treating PD peritonitis. Intermittent and continuous dosing of antibiotics are equally efficacious. There is no role shown for routine peritoneal lavage or use of urokinase. No interventions were found to be associated with significant harm.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Fibrinolytic Agents; Humans; Immunoglobulins; Infusions, Parenteral; Injections, Intravenous; Peritoneal Dialysis; Peritoneal Lavage; Peritonitis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Urokinase-Type Plasminogen Activator
PubMed: 18254075
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005284.pub2 -
Diseases of the Colon and Rectum Jul 2015Oral mechanical bowel preparation is often used before elective colorectal surgery to reduce postoperative complications. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Oral mechanical bowel preparation is often used before elective colorectal surgery to reduce postoperative complications.
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this study was to synthesize the evidence on the comparative effectiveness and safety of oral mechanical bowel preparation versus no preparation or enema.
DATA SOURCES
We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and CINAHL without any language restrictions (last search on September 6, 2013). We also searched the US Food and Drug Administration Web site and ClinicalTrials.gov and supplemented our searches by asking technical experts and perusing reference lists.
STUDY SELECTION
We included English-language, full-text reports of randomized clinical trials and nonrandomized comparative studies of patients undergoing elective colon or rectal surgery. For adverse events we also included single-group cohort studies of at least 200 participants.
INTERVENTIONS
Interventions included oral mechanical bowel preparation, oral mechanical bowel preparation plus enema, enema only, and no oral mechanical bowel preparation or enema.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Anastomotic leakage, all-cause mortality, wound infection, peritonitis/intra-abdominal abscess, reoperation, surgical site infection, quality of life, length of stay, and adverse events were measured. We synthesized results across studies qualitatively and with Bayesian random-effects meta-analyses.
RESULTS
A total of 18 randomized clinical trials, 7 nonrandomized comparative studies, and 6 single-group cohorts were included. In meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials, the credibility intervals of the summary OR included the null value of 1.0 for comparisons of oral mechanical bowel preparation and either no oral preparation or enema for overall mortality, anastomotic leakage, wound infection, peritonitis, surgical site infection, and reoperation. These results were robust to extensive sensitivity analyses. Evidence on adverse events was sparse.
LIMITATIONS
The study was limited by weaknesses in the underlying evidence, such as incomplete reporting of relevant information, exclusion of non-English and relevant unpublished studies, and possible missed indexing of nonrandomized studies.
CONCLUSIONS
Our results could not exclude modest beneficial or harmful effects of oral mechanical bowel preparation compared with no preparation or enema.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Cathartics; Colon; Enema; Humans; Postoperative Complications; Preoperative Care; Rectum
PubMed: 26200685
DOI: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000000375