-
European Spine Journal : Official... May 2014Assessing the benefits of surgical treatments for sciatica is critical for clinical and policy decision-making. To compare minimally invasive (MI) and conventional... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Assessing the benefits of surgical treatments for sciatica is critical for clinical and policy decision-making. To compare minimally invasive (MI) and conventional microdiscectomy (MD) for patients with sciatica due to lumbar disc herniation.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials including patients with sciatica due to lumbar disc herniation. Conventional microdiscectomy was compared separately with: (1) Interlaminar MI discectomy (ILMI vs. MD); (2) Transforaminal MI discectomy (TFMI vs. MD).
OUTCOMES
Back pain, leg pain, function, improvement, work status, operative time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, complications, reoperations, analgesics and cost outcomes were extracted and risk of bias assessed. Pooled effect estimates were calculated using random effect meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Twenty-nine studies, 16 RCTs and 13 non-randomised studies (n = 4,472), were included. Clinical outcomes were not different between the surgery types. There is low quality evidence that ILMI takes 11 min longer, results in 52 ml less blood loss and reduces mean length of hospital stay by 1.5 days. There were no differences in complications or reoperations. The main limitations were high risk of bias, low number of studies and small sample sizes comparing TF with MD.
CONCLUSIONS
There is moderate to low quality evidence of no differences in clinical outcomes between MI surgery and conventional microdiscectomy for patients with sciatica due to lumbar disc herniation. Studies comparing transforaminal MI with conventional surgery with sufficient sample size and methodological robustness are lacking.
Topics: Diskectomy; Humans; Intervertebral Disc Displacement; Length of Stay; Lumbar Vertebrae; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Pain; Radiography; Sciatica
PubMed: 24442183
DOI: 10.1007/s00586-013-3161-2 -
BMC Surgery Aug 2023Preventive colostomy is required for colorectal surgery, and the incidence of complications associated with ileostomy and colostomy remains controversial. This study... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Preventive colostomy is required for colorectal surgery, and the incidence of complications associated with ileostomy and colostomy remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the incidence of postoperative complications between ileostomy and colostomy procedures.
METHODS
Data analysis was conducted on 30 studies, and meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) were performed on five studies. The basic indicators, such as stoma prolapse, leak, wound infection, ileus, and a series of other indicators, were compared.
RESULTS
No statistically significant differences were observed with complications other than stoma prolapse. Meta-analysis and TSA showed that the incidence of ileostomy prolapse was lower than that of colostomy prolapse, and the difference was statistically significant. Apart from the four complications listed above, the general data analysis showed differences in incidence between the two groups. The incidence of skin irritation, parastomal hernia, dehydration, pneumonia, and urinary tract infections was higher with ileostomy than with colostomy. In contrast, the incidence of parastomal fistula, stenosis, hemorrhage, and enterocutaneous fistula was higher with colostomy than with ileostomy.
CONCLUSIONS
There were differences in the incidence of ileostomy and colostomy complications in the selected studies, with a low incidence of ileostomy prolapse.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42022303133.
Topics: Humans; Colostomy; Ileostomy; Anastomosis, Surgical; Postoperative Complications; Prolapse
PubMed: 37568176
DOI: 10.1186/s12893-023-02129-w -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Feb 2017The increased popularity of paravertebral block (PVB) can be attributed to its relative safety and comparable efficacy when compared with epidural analgesia. It has thus... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The increased popularity of paravertebral block (PVB) can be attributed to its relative safety and comparable efficacy when compared with epidural analgesia. It has thus been recommended for open cholecystectomy and other less painful surgeries such as inguinal herniorraphy and appendectomy. We performed a systematic review of PVB in paediatric abdominal conditions to assess its clinical efficacy and side effects compared with other analgesic therapies.A search of Medline, Embase, and Web of Science and hand-searching references from inception date to May 2016 was done. Relevant studies were randomized clinical trials in patients 0-18 years old comparing PVB (single shot or continuous catheter) with any comparator and analgesic medication. Pain scores, rescue analgesia and adverse events were compared.The systematic reviews identified six trials enrolling 358 paediatric patients. PVB medications included bupivacaine, ropivacaine, lidocaine, and fentanyl. Surgical procedures included inguinal herniorraphy, cholecystectomy, and appendectomy. The standardized mean difference in early pain scores favoured PVB: 0.85 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12-1.58] at 4-6 h and 0.64 (95% CI 0.28-1.00) at 24 h. One study reported a reduced length of stay. Parental [odds ratio (OR) 5.12 (95% CI 2.59-10.1)] and surgeon [OR 6.05 (95% CI 2.25-16.3)] satisfaction were higher in those receiving a PVB. No major complications occurred with a PVB.PVB resulted in minimally improved pain scores for up to 24 h after surgery, reduced rescue analgesia requirements, and increased surgeon and parental satisfaction. PVB is a good alternative to caudal and ilioinguinal block in paediatric abdominal surgery.
Topics: Abdomen; Adolescent; Child; Child, Preschool; Humans; Nerve Block; Pain, Postoperative; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 28100519
DOI: 10.1093/bja/aew387 -
The Lancet. Global Health Jun 2014The perception of surgery as expensive and complex might be a barrier to its widespread acceptance in global health efforts. We did a systematic review and analysis of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The perception of surgery as expensive and complex might be a barrier to its widespread acceptance in global health efforts. We did a systematic review and analysis of cost-effectiveness studies that assess surgical interventions in low-income and middle-income countries to help quantify the potential value of surgery.
METHODS
We searched Medline for all relevant articles published between Jan 1, 1996 and Jan 31, 2013, and searched the reference lists of retrieved articles. We converted all results to 2012 US$. We extracted cost-effectiveness ratios (CERs) and appraised economic assessments for their methodological quality using the 10-point Drummond checklist.
FINDINGS
Of the 584 identified studies, 26 met full inclusion criteria. Together, these studies gave 121 independent CERs in seven categories of surgical interventions. The median CER of circumcision ($13·78 per disability-adjusted life year [DALY]) was similar to that of standard vaccinations ($12·96-25·93 per DALY) and bednets for malaria prevention ($6·48-22·04 per DALY). Median CERs of cleft lip or palate repair ($47·74 per DALY), general surgery ($82·32 per DALY), hydrocephalus surgery ($108·74 per DALY), and ophthalmic surgery ($136 per DALY) were similar to that of the BCG vaccine ($51·86-220·39 per DALY). Median CERs of caesarean sections ($315·12 per DALY) and orthopaedic surgery ($381·15 per DALY) are more favourable than those of medical treatment for ischaemic heart disease ($500·41-706·54 per DALY) and HIV treatment with multidrug antiretroviral therapy ($453·74-648·20 per DALY).
INTERPRETATION
Our findings suggest that many essential surgical interventions are cost-effective or very cost-effective in resource-poor countries. Quantification of the economic value of surgery provides a strong argument for the expansion of global surgery's role in the global health movement. However, economic value should not be the only argument for resource allocation--other organisational, ethical, and political arguments can also be made for its inclusion.
Topics: Cost-Benefit Analysis; Developing Countries; Humans; Income; Poverty; Surgical Procedures, Operative
PubMed: 25103302
DOI: 10.1016/S2214-109X(14)70213-X -
The Surgeon : Journal of the Royal... Apr 2015Lean and Six Sigma are improvement methodologies developed in the manufacturing industry and have been applied to healthcare settings since the 1990 s. They use a... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Lean and Six Sigma are improvement methodologies developed in the manufacturing industry and have been applied to healthcare settings since the 1990 s. They use a systematic and reproducible approach to provide Quality Improvement (QI), with a flexible process that can be applied to a range of outcomes across different patient groups. This review assesses the literature with regard to the use and utility of Lean and Six Sigma methodologies in surgery.
METHODS
MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, British Nursing Index, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Health Business Elite and the Health Management Information Consortium were searched in January 2014. Experimental studies were included if they assessed the use of Lean or Six Sigma on the ability to improve specified outcomes in surgical patients.
RESULTS
Of the 124 studies returned, 23 were suitable for inclusion with 11 assessing Lean, 6 Six Sigma and 6 Lean Six Sigma. The broad range of outcomes can be collated into six common aims: to optimise outpatient efficiency, to improve operating theatre efficiency, to decrease operative complications, to reduce ward-based harms, to reduce mortality and to limit unnecessary cost and length of stay. The majority of studies (88%) demonstrate improvement; however high levels of systematic bias and imprecision were evident.
CONCLUSION
Lean and Six Sigma QI methodologies have the potential to produce clinically significant improvement for surgical patients. However there is a need to conduct high-quality studies with low risk of systematic bias in order to further understand their role.
Topics: Efficiency, Organizational; Humans; Length of Stay; Operating Rooms; Patient Safety; Postoperative Complications; Quality Improvement; Surgical Procedures, Operative; Total Quality Management
PubMed: 25189692
DOI: 10.1016/j.surge.2014.08.002 -
Facial Plastic Surgery & Aesthetic... Dec 2021To compare the effectiveness of tranexamic acid (TXA) in reducing blood loss and decreasing surgery duration in craniomaxillofacial surgery. The literature was... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
To compare the effectiveness of tranexamic acid (TXA) in reducing blood loss and decreasing surgery duration in craniomaxillofacial surgery. The literature was searched systematically for all comparative studies of the effect of TXA on craniomaxillofacial surgery with placebo to evaluate the efficacy of TXA in craniomaxillofacial surgery. The primary outcome was intraoperative blood loss, and secondary outcomes were postoperative hematocrit, postoperative hemoglobin, and operation duration. This systematic review included 16 studies consisting of 958 patients. Meta-analysis revealed that compared with the placebo group, the TXA group showed a significant reduction in intraoperative blood loss of 139.81 mL (95% confidence interval, CI: -179.66 to -99.96 mL; < 0.01), a shortening of the maxillary surgery duration of 15.48 min (95% CI: -21.03 to -9.92 min; < 0.01), an elevation of the postoperative hemoglobin level of 0.74 mg/dL (95% CI: 0.42 to 1.07 mg/dL; < 0.01), and a limited effect on increasing the postoperative hematocrit level of 1.77% (95% CI: 0.17 to 3.36; = 0.03). The use of TXA in craniomaxillofacial surgery can effectively reduce intraoperative blood loss, maintain elevate postoperative hemoglobin and hematocrit levels, and reduce the operation duration.
Topics: Antifibrinolytic Agents; Blood Loss, Surgical; Hemostasis, Surgical; Humans; Operative Time; Orthopedic Procedures; Skull; Surgery, Oral; Tranexamic Acid; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33661026
DOI: 10.1089/fpsam.2020.0590 -
International Journal of Surgery... Jul 2020During the COVID-19 pandemic, surgical departments were forced to re-schedule their activity giving priority to urgent procedures and non-deferrable oncological cases....
BACKGROUND
During the COVID-19 pandemic, surgical departments were forced to re-schedule their activity giving priority to urgent procedures and non-deferrable oncological cases. There is a lack of evidence-based literature providing clinical and organizational guidelines for the management of a general surgery department. Aim of our study was to review the available recommendations published by general Surgery Societies and Health Institutions and evaluate the underlying Literature.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A review of the English Literature was conducted according to the AMSTAR and to the 2009 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines.
RESULTS
After eligibility assessment, a total of 22 papers and statements were analyzed. Surgical societies have established criteria for triage and prioritization in order to identify procedures that can be postponed after the pandemic and those that should not. Prioritization among oncologic cases represents a difficult task: clinicians have to balance a possible delay in cancer diagnosis or treatment against the risk for a potential COVID-19 exposure. There is broad agreement among guidelines that indication to proceed with surgery should be discussed in virtual Tumor Boards taking into consideration alternative therapeutic approaches. Several guidelines deal with the role of laparoscopic surgery during the pandemic: a tailored approach is currently suggested, with a case-by-case evaluation provided that appropriate personal protective equipment is available in order to minimize the potential risk of transmission. Finally, there is a considerable agreement in the published Literature concerning the management of the personnel during the peri- and intraoperative phase and on the technical advices regarding the induction, operative and recover maneuvers in COVID-19 cases.
CONCLUSIONS
During COVID-19 pandemic, it is of paramount importance to face the emergency in the most effective and efficient manner, retrieving resources from non-essential settings and, at the same time, providing care to high priority non-COVID-19 related diseases.
Topics: Betacoronavirus; COVID-19; Coronavirus Infections; Emergency Service, Hospital; Humans; Infection Control; Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional; Laparoscopy; Pandemics; Personal Protective Equipment; Pneumonia, Viral; SARS-CoV-2; Surgery Department, Hospital; Surgical Procedures, Operative; Triage
PubMed: 32454253
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.05.061 -
Journal of Clinical Anesthesia Feb 2016Goal-directed fluid therapy (GDHT) has been proposed as a method to reduce complications and mortality. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
STUDY OBJECTIVE
Goal-directed fluid therapy (GDHT) has been proposed as a method to reduce complications and mortality.
DESIGN
Meta-analysis of the effects of perioperative GDHT in adult noncardiac surgery on mortality and postoperative complications was performed using the PRISMA methodology. A systematic search was performed in MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library (last update, October 2014). Inclusion criteria were as follows: randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in which perioperative GDHT was compared with conventional fluid management in noncardiac surgery. Exclusion criteria were as follows: trauma and pediatric surgery studies. End points were mortality and number of patients with complications.
SETTING
District general hospital.
PATIENTS
Thirty-nine RCTs were initially identified, with 8 fulfilling the inclusion criteria. Two RCTs were added by manual search, resulting in 10 RCTs in the final analysis, including 1527 patients.
MEASUREMENTS
Those studies that fulfilled the entry criteria were examined in full and subjected to quantifiable analysis, predefined subgroup analysis (stratified by supraphysiological or physiological hemodynamic goal and by time the intervention was carried out, perioperative or postoperative), and predefined sensitivity analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
A significant reduction was observed in mortality associated with GDHT compared with conventional fluid therapy (risk ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.42-0.94; P = .02). However, no differences were found in the number of patients with complications (risk ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-1.17; P = .21), and the sensitivity analysis did not confirm the results.
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis, with its limitations, shows that the use of perioperative GDHT may reduce postoperative mortality, but it is unable to show a reduction in the number of patients with complications.
Topics: Fluid Therapy; Goals; Hemodynamics; Humans; Perioperative Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Procedures, Operative
PubMed: 26440438
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2015.08.004 -
Archives of Internal Medicine Jun 2011To examine existing smoking studies that compare surgical patients who have recently quit smoking with those who continue to smoke to provide an evidence-based... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To examine existing smoking studies that compare surgical patients who have recently quit smoking with those who continue to smoke to provide an evidence-based recommendation for front-line staff. Concerns have been expressed that stopping smoking within 8 weeks before surgery may be detrimental to postoperative outcomes. This has generated considerable uncertainty even in health care systems that consider smoking cessation advice in the hospital setting an important priority. Smokers who stop smoking shortly before surgery (recent quitters) have been reported to have worse surgical outcomes than early quitters, but this may indicate only that recent quitting is less beneficial than early quitting, not that it is risky.
DESIGN
Systematic review with meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
British Nursing Index (BNI), The Cochrane Library database, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Embase, Medline, PsycINFO to May 2010, and reference lists of included studies.
STUDY SELECTION
Studies were included that allow a comparison of postoperative complications in patients undergoing any type of surgery who stopped smoking within 8 weeks prior to surgery and those who continued to smoke.
DATA EXTRACTION
Two reviewers independently screened potential studies and assessed their methodologic quality. Data were entered into 3 separate meta-analyses that considered all available studies, studies with a low risk of bias that validated self-reported abstinence (to assess possible benefits), and studies of pulmonary complications only (to assess possible risks). Results were combined by using a random-effects model, and heterogeneity was evaluated by using the I(2) statistic.
RESULTS
Nine studies met the inclusion criteria. One found a beneficial effect of recent quitting compared with continuing smoking, and none identified any detrimental effects. In meta-analyses, quitting smoking within 8 weeks before surgery was not associated with an increase or decrease in overall postoperative complications for all available studies (relative risk [RR], 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57-1.07), for a group of 3 studies with high-quality scores (RR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.16-2.01), or for a group of 4 studies that specifically evaluated pulmonary complications (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.95-1.46).
CONCLUSIONS
Existing data indicate that the concern that stopping smoking only a few weeks prior to surgery might worsen clinical outcomes is unfounded. Further larger studies would be useful to arrive at a more robust conclusion. Patients should be advised to stop smoking as early as possible, but there is no evidence to suggest that health professionals should not be advising smokers to quit at any time prior to surgery.
Topics: Humans; Postoperative Complications; Smoking Cessation; Surgical Procedures, Operative; Time Factors
PubMed: 21403009
DOI: 10.1001/archinternmed.2011.97 -
Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia =... Nov 2023Postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) is a common complication following cardiac surgery. Although the evidence suggests that beta blockers prevent POAF, they often... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) is a common complication following cardiac surgery. Although the evidence suggests that beta blockers prevent POAF, they often cause hypotension. Landiolol, an ultra-short-acting β blocker, may prevent POAF, without adverse hemodynamic consequences.
SOURCE
We searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Embase, and trial registries between January 1970 and March 2022. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effect of landiolol for the prevention of POAF after cardiac surgery. Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. We pooled data using random-effects models. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations framework to assess certainty of evidence.
PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
Nine RCTs including 868 participants met the eligibility criteria. Patients randomized to landiolol (56/460) had less POAF compared with controls (133/408) with a relative risk (RR) of 0.40 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.30 to 0.54; I = 0%;) and an absolute risk of 12.2% vs 32.6% (absolute risk difference, 20.4%; 95% CI, 15.0 to 25.0). Landiolol resulted in a shorter hospital length-of-stay (LOS) (268 patients; mean difference, -2.32 days; 95% CI, -4.02 to -0.57; I = 0%). We found no significant difference in bradycardia (RR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.48 to 2.56; I = 0%). No hypotension was reported with landiolol. We judged the certainty of evidence as moderate for POAF (because of indirectness as outcomes were not clearly defined) and low for LOS (because of imprecision and concern of reporting bias).
CONCLUSION
In patients undergoing cardiac surgery, landiolol likely reduces POAF and may reduce LOS. A definitive large RCT is needed to confirm these findings.
STUDY REGISTRATION
PROSPERO (CRD42021262703); registered 25 July 2021.
Topics: Humans; Atrial Fibrillation; Postoperative Complications; Cardiac Surgical Procedures; Morpholines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37917331
DOI: 10.1007/s12630-023-02586-0