-
Annals of Medicine Aug 2014While collagenous colitis represents the most common form of the collagenous gastroenteritides, the collagenous entities affecting the proximal part of the... (Review)
Review
AIM
While collagenous colitis represents the most common form of the collagenous gastroenteritides, the collagenous entities affecting the proximal part of the gastrointestinal tract are much less recognized and possibly overlooked. The aim was to summarize the latest information through a systematic review of collagenous gastritis, collagenous sprue, and a combination thereof.
METHOD
The search yielded 117 studies which were suitable for inclusion in the systematic review. Excluding repeated cases, 89 case reports and 28 case series were reported, whereas no prospective studies with or without control groups were identified. Further, no randomized, controlled trials were identified. The total number of patients with proximal collagenous gastroenteritides reported was 330.
RESULTS
An overview of clinical presentations, prognosis, pathophysiology and histopathology, as well as management of these disorders is presented. The prognosis of both collagenous gastritis and sprue seems not to be as dismal as considered previously. Data point to involvement of immune or autoimmune mechanisms potentially driven by luminal antigens initiating the fibroinflammatory condition.
CONCLUSIONS
To reach the diagnosis it is recommended that biopsies are obtained during gastroduodenoscopies. Therapies with anti-secretory strategies, glucocorticoids, and in some cases iron supplementation are suggested, although rational treatment options from randomized, controlled trials do not exist for these rare or even overlooked disorders.
Topics: Biopsy; Colitis, Collagenous; Collagen; Collagenous Sprue; Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal; Gastritis; Gastroenteritis; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Iron Compounds; Prognosis
PubMed: 24716737
DOI: 10.3109/07853890.2014.899102 -
Thrombosis Journal Mar 2021COVID-19 appears to be associated with a high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze the risk of clinically relevant...
BACKGROUND
COVID-19 appears to be associated with a high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze the risk of clinically relevant VTE in patients hospitalized for COVID-19.
METHODS
This meta-analysis included original articles in English published from January 1st, 2020 to June 15th, 2020 in Pubmed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of science, and Cochrane. Outcomes were major VTE, defined as any objectively diagnosed pulmonary embolism (PE) and/or proximal deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Primary analysis estimated the risk of VTE, stratified by acutely and critically ill inpatients. Secondary analyses explored the separate risk of proximal DVT and of PE; the risk of major VTE stratified by screening and by type of anticoagulation.
RESULTS
In 33 studies (n = 4009 inpatients) with heterogeneous thrombotic risk factors, VTE incidence was 9% (95%CI 5-13%, I = 92.5) overall, and 21% (95%CI 14-28%, I = 87.6%) for patients hospitalized in the ICU. Proximal lower limb DVT incidence was 3% (95%CI 1-5%, I = 87.0%) and 8% (95%CI 3-14%, I = 87.6%), respectively. PE incidence was 8% (95%CI 4-13%, I = 92.1%) and 17% (95%CI 11-25%, I = 89.3%), respectively. Screening and absence of anticoagulation were associated with a higher VTE incidence. When restricting to medically ill inpatients, the VTE incidence was 2% (95%CI 0-6%).
CONCLUSIONS
The risk of major VTE among COVID-19 inpatients is high but varies greatly with severity of the disease. These findings reinforce the need for the use of thromboprophylaxis in all COVID-19 inpatients and for clinical trials testing different thromboprophylaxis regimens in subgroups of COVID-19 inpatients.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
The review protocol was registered in PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews ( CRD42020193369 ).
PubMed: 33750409
DOI: 10.1186/s12959-021-00266-x -
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 -
Indian Journal of Orthopaedics Jun 2021Extra-articular proximal tibia fractures make up to one-tenth of all tibia shaft fractures. Treatment options include conservative, nailing, plating and external... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Extra-articular proximal tibia fractures make up to one-tenth of all tibia shaft fractures. Treatment options include conservative, nailing, plating and external fixation. There is no consensus on which method is superior if the patient is to be managed surgically.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to know which definitive surgical treatment option (nailing or plating) is better for extra-articular proximal tibia fracture. We used search engines like PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Ovid Medline and Google Scholar to find articles comparing the results of nailing versus plating. We could identify only 4 articles regarding this and data was extracted and meta-analysis was done.
RESULTS
Delayed union was common in the nailing group with odds ratio of 8.29 favoring the plating group (95% CI 1.77, 38.80, = 0.007) while malunion showed no difference in both groups. Rate of infection was higher in the plating group while anterior knee pain was common in the nailing group with odds ratio of 5.54 favoring the plating group (95% CI 1.49, 13.88, = 0.008). Range of motion showed no difference between both groups, fractures in the nailing group united early and the difference was significant ( = 0.005, odds ratio - 4.48) (95% CI - 8.29, - 1.47).The surgical duration was less in the nailing group but was not significant.
CONCLUSION
Considering lesser time for union, early weight bearing, lower chances of infection and lesser surgical duration, nailing seems to be more promising for extra articular proximal tibia fractures. Further research is required on this topic to provide a definitive evidence.
PubMed: 33995861
DOI: 10.1007/s43465-020-00304-2 -
Journal of International Society of... 2019Resin infiltration is a minimally invasive technique for treating noncavitated proximal caries. It slows/stops the carious lesion progression rate by creating a... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Resin infiltration is a minimally invasive technique for treating noncavitated proximal caries. It slows/stops the carious lesion progression rate by creating a diffusion barrier inside the porous enamel lesion body. The aim was to evaluate the efficacy of resin infiltration on noncavitated proximal carious lesions in primary and permanent teeth.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The records were obtained using electronic and other sources. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed to ensure transparent reporting. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of resin infiltration for noncavitated proximal carious lesions by comparing it with control/placebo. Each included study was assessed concerning the "risk of bias" using the Cochrane Collaboration's "risk-of-bias" assessment tool. High risk-of-bias studies were excluded from the meta-analyses due to selective reporting matters. The statistics were performed by RevMan software (The Cochrane Collaboration, The Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark) utilizing the random effect model. The GRADE approach was implemented for assessing the quality of evidence.
RESULTS
From 106 studies identified, 17 were assessed for eligibility. After "risk-of-bias" assessment, two meta-analyses were conducted to eliminate the limitation of the significant heterogeneity between trials inspecting primary teeth ( = 2) and permanent teeth ( = 3). = 0% indicates the absence of statistical heterogeneity. The risk of carious lesions' progression with resin infiltration was significantly lower in primary (risk ratio [RR]; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.48; 0.30-0.75, = 0.001) and in permanent teeth (RR; 95% CI: 0.19; 0.11-0.33, < 0.00001) compared to that of control/placebo. The GRADE approach revealed high quality of evidence.
CONCLUSION
The available evidence conveys high confidence that proximal resin infiltration has superior efficacy in slowing/arresting the carious lesions' progression rate in comparison to conventional management modalities.
PubMed: 31198691
DOI: 10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_26_19 -
The Journal of Trauma Jan 2011The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the outcomes after angioembolization in blunt trauma patients with splenic injuries and to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the outcomes after angioembolization in blunt trauma patients with splenic injuries and to examine specifically the impact of the technique used. Studies evaluating adult trauma patients who sustained blunt splenic injuries managed by angioembolization were systematically evaluated. The following data were required for inclusion: grade of splenic injury, indication for embolization, and site of embolization (proximal [main splenic artery] or distal [selective]). In addition, major (requiring splenectomy) or minor (not requiring splenectomy) rebleeding, infarction, and infection in relation to the site of embolization (proximal vs. distal) was required. Pooled outcomes were compared between proximal and distal embolizations. To eliminate between-study heterogeneity, a sensitivity analysis was conducted on three reduced sets of studies. Fifteen of 147 evaluated studies were included for analysis. All were retrospective cohort studies and incorporated a total of 479 embolized patients. The overall failure rate of angioembolization was 10.2% (range, 0.0-33.3%). Injury severity and basic demographics did not differ among the study populations. However, the indications for angioembolization (contrast extravasation, large amount of hemoperitoneum, or high-grade splenic injury) differed between the populations but were not associated with a change in the failure rates. Rebleeding was the most common reason for failure; however, it did not differ statistically between the used techniques, and with the 95% confidence interval crossing the 5% zone of clinical indifference, this result was inconclusive. Minor complications occurred statistically and clinically more often after distal than after proximal embolization. The available literature is inconclusive regarding whether proximal or distal embolization should be used to avoid significant rebleeding and larger prospective cohort studies are required. However, both techniques have an equivalent rate of infarctions and infections requiring splenectomy. Minor complications occur more often after distal embolization. This is primarily explained by the higher rate of segmental infarctions after distal embolization.
Topics: Adult; Embolization, Therapeutic; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Spleen; Splenectomy; Splenic Artery; Treatment Failure; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 21217497
DOI: 10.1097/TA.0b013e3181f2a92e -
European Journal of Trauma and... Dec 2022The quality of evidence of the orthopedic literature has been often called into question. The fragility index (FI) has emerged as a means to evaluate the robustness of a...
BACKGROUND
The quality of evidence of the orthopedic literature has been often called into question. The fragility index (FI) has emerged as a means to evaluate the robustness of a significant result. Similarly, reverse fragility index (RFI) can be used for nonsignificant results to evaluate whether one can confidently conclude that there is no difference between groups. The analysis of FI and RFI in proximal humerus fracture (PHF) management is of particular interest, given ongoing controversy regarding optimal management and patient selection. The aim of this study was to report the FI, RFI and quality of the evidence in the proximal humerus fracture literature.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted based on the PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) guidelines, which utilized EMBASE, MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases. Inclusion criteria included randomized controlled clinical trials related to the management of proximal humerus fractures, published from 2000 to 2020 with dichotomous outcome measures and 1:1 allocation. The FI and RFI were calculated by successively changing one nonevent to an event for each outcome measure until the result was made nonsignificant or significant, respectively. The fragility quotient, (FQ), calculated by dividing the FI by the total sample size, was calculated as well.
RESULTS
There were 25 studies that met our criteria with 48 outcome measures recorded. A total of 21 studies had at least one fragile result, with ten studies including a fragile result in the conclusion of the abstract. A total of 31 outcome measures had nonsignificant results and the median RFI was found to be 4, with 71% greater than number of patients lost to follow up. Seventeen outcomes had significant results, with a median FI of 1, with 65% greater than or equal to the number patients lost to follow up. A total of 18 of 25 studies (72%) included a power analysis. In particular, ten studies reported a statistical analysis of complication rates, 90% of which were fragile. The median FQ was found to be 0.037.
CONCLUSIONS
The literature on PHF management is frequently fragile. Outcome measures are often fragile, particularly with regards to comparing complication rates and reoperation rates in treatment arms. Comparing to the studies in other subspecialties PHF RCTs are relatively more fragile and underpowered. Standardized reporting of FI, FQ and RFI can help the reader to reliably draw conclusions based on the fragility of outcome measures.
Topics: Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sample Size; Research Design; Data Collection; Humerus
PubMed: 34056677
DOI: 10.1007/s00068-021-01684-2 -
Medicine Mar 2018The incidence of tumors located in the upper third of the stomach is increasing, and the use of radical proximal gastrectomy is becoming prevalent. After a proximal... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The incidence of tumors located in the upper third of the stomach is increasing, and the use of radical proximal gastrectomy is becoming prevalent. After a proximal gastrectomy, various reconstructions are performed, but surgical outcomes are controversial. This study was performed to review clinical outcomes of reconstructions after proximal gastrectomy.
METHODS
Inclusion criteria focused on postoperative complications of patients who underwent a proximal gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Exclusion criteria were case reports; targeted data not investigated; a duplicate study reported in a larger cohort; esophageal sphincter preservation surgery; near-total gastrectomy; recurrence of tumor; and combined organ resection.
RESULTS
In total, 22 retrospective and 2 prospective studies were included. The studies investigated surgical outcomes of esophagogastrostomy (n = 10), jejunal interposition (n = 12), jejunal pouch interposition (n = 7), double tract jejunal interposition (n = 1), and tube-like stomach esophagogastrostomy (n = 5). Pooled incidences of reflux esophagitis or reflux symptoms for these procedures were 28.6%, 4.5%, 12.9%, 4.7%, and 10.7%, respectively. Incidences of postoperative complications were 9.5%, 18.1%, 7.0%, 11.6%, and 9.3%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite increasing operation complexity, which perhaps increased the risk of other postoperative complications, currently used reconstructions present excellent anti-reflux efficacy. However, the optimal reconstruction method remains to be determined.
Topics: Gastrectomy; Gastric Stump; Gastroesophageal Reflux; Humans; Postoperative Complications; Stomach Neoplasms; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29538208
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000010121 -
Journal of Hand and Microsurgery Oct 2020Proximal interphalangeal joint (PIPJ) fractures and fracture-dislocations are common hand injuries and recognition of this injury pattern is essential in the management... (Review)
Review
Proximal interphalangeal joint (PIPJ) fractures and fracture-dislocations are common hand injuries and recognition of this injury pattern is essential in the management of these fractures. Although a variety of treatment options have been reported in the literature, the optimal treatment remains controversial. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library Database were screened for treatment strategies of PIPJ fracture and fracture-dislocation. Demographic data and outcome data were collected and recorded. A total of 37 studies including 471 patients and 480 fingers were reviewed. PIPJ range of motion (ROM) was greatest postoperatively in patients who underwent volar plate arthroplasty at 90.6 degrees. Dynamic external fixation resulted in the lowest PIP joint ROM with an average of 79.7 degrees. Recurrent pain and osteoarthritis were most often reported in extension block pinning at 38.5 and 46.2%, respectively. Open reduction and internal fixation had the highest rate of revision at 19.7%. Overall, the outcomes of PIP fractures and fracture-dislocations are based on the severity of injury, and the necessary treatment required. Closed reduction with percutaneous pinning and volar plate arthroplasty had good clinical and functional outcomes, with the lowest complication rates. Hemi-hamate arthroplasty and dynamic external fixation were utilized in more complex injuries and resulted in the lowest PIPJ ROM. This is a therapeutic, Level III study.
PubMed: 33335365
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1713323 -
The Journal of Urology Jul 2012We compared the clinical outcomes of patients with ureteral or renal stones treated with ureteroscopy, shock wave lithotripsy using HM3 (Dornier®) and nonHM3... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
We compared the clinical outcomes of patients with ureteral or renal stones treated with ureteroscopy, shock wave lithotripsy using HM3 (Dornier®) and nonHM3 lithotripters, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic literature search identified 6, 4 and 3 randomized, controlled trials of treatment of distal and proximal ureteral stones, and renal stones, respectively, published between 1995 and 2010. Overall stone-free, re-treatment and complication rates were calculated by meta-analytical techniques.
RESULTS
Based on the randomized, controlled trials evaluated the treatment of distal ureteral stones with semirigid ureteroscopy showed a 55% greater probability (pooled RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.13-2.56) of stone-free status at the initial assessment than treatment with shock wave lithotripsy. Patients treated with semirigid ureteroscopy were also less likely to require re-treatment than those treated with shock wave lithotripsy (nonHM3) (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.08-0.23). The risk of complications was no different between the 2 modalities. Only 2 of the 4 randomized, controlled trials identified for proximal ureteral stones evaluated flexible ureteroscopy and each focused specifically on the treatment of stones 1.5 cm or greater, limiting their clinical relevance. The degree of heterogeneity among the studies evaluating renal stones was so great that it precluded any meaningful comparison.
CONCLUSIONS
Semirigid ureteroscopy is more efficacious than shock wave lithotripsy for distal ureteral stones. To our knowledge there are no relevant randomized, controlled trials of flexible ureteroscopy treatment of proximal ureteral calculi of a size commonly noted in the clinical setting. Collectively the comparative effectiveness of ureteroscopy and shock wave lithotripsy for proximal ureteral and renal calculi is poorly characterized with no meaningful published studies.
Topics: Humans; Kidney Calculi; Lithotripsy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Ureteral Calculi; Ureteroscopy
PubMed: 22591962
DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.02.2569