-
Cureus Oct 2022An anal fissure is a common condition that affects patients of all ages. Its clinical presentation is a sharp pain on defecation with or without blood. It is treated by... (Review)
Review
An anal fissure is a common condition that affects patients of all ages. Its clinical presentation is a sharp pain on defecation with or without blood. It is treated by conservative or surgical means. This study aims to assess the efficacy of a sitz bath as compared to lateral internal sphincterotomy in the treatment of anal fissures. The search strategy used keywords related to the topic of study. Three databases were used: PubMed, Google Scholar, and Science Direct. A total of 551 articles were screened. A quality assessment check was done on the articles leaving 11 articles. Four aspects of sitz bath outcomes were evaluated in the articles. In terms of analgesia, articles showed conflicting evidence. However, the overall evidence supports the use of sitz baths for their analgesic properties. In terms of healing, most articles had similar recovery rates of around 80%. Much of the research supported the use of sitz baths as the primary treatment to heal acute fissures. When compared to lateral internal sphincterotomy, the recovery rates of lateral internal sphincterotomy are superior to those of conservative treatment, including sitz baths. However, studies showed incontinence as a side effect of lateral internal sphincterotomy, and no studies reported side effects from the sitz baths. To conclude, the results of the articles support the use of sitz baths to treat anal fissures. Sitz baths have been found to have analgesic properties, as well as a good healing time. But, compared to lateral internal sphincterotomy, there is a significant difference in the healing rate at the end stage of treatment, lateral internal sphincterotomy is found to be superior. With regards to the side effects, none have been reported from using a sitz bath.
PubMed: 36337820
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.30847 -
Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology Nov 2022To assess bowel function in women with deep infiltrating endometriosis according to surgical approach (radical vs conservative). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To assess bowel function in women with deep infiltrating endometriosis according to surgical approach (radical vs conservative).
DATA SOURCES
Five databases were searched from 1970 to September 2021 to retrieve studies comparing radical (colorectal segmental resection) and conservative (shaving or discoid excision) surgery for bowel function in women with deep infiltrating endometriosis.
METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION
No language restriction was applied. Two reviewers extracted and combined data from the included studies, applying a meta-analytic model with random effects in all calculations. Results are expressed in risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Assessment of risk of bias and quality of evidence was performed by the Newcastle-Ottawa and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation, respectively.
TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS
We included 13 studies in our meta-analysis, and most of them were of nonrandomized design. Conservative surgery had fewer events of constipation and frequent bowel movements when compared with radical surgery (RR, 2.31; 95% CI, 1.21-4.43; I = 0%; 3 studies; RR, 2.80; 95% CI 1.17-6.75; I = 0%; 2 studies, respectively). Defecation pain, anal incontinence loss, minor and major lower anterior resection syndrome, and Clavien-Dindo complications grade I to IV showed no statistically significant difference between surgeries. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation assessment was low to very low for all outcomes.
CONCLUSION
Conservative surgery (shaving or discoid excision) presented fewer events of constipation and frequent bowel movements than colorectal segmental resection. There was a very low quality of evidence to provide recommendations regarding bowel function.
Topics: Female; Humans; Rectal Diseases; Endometriosis; Digestive System Surgical Procedures; Defecation; Treatment Outcome; Postoperative Complications; Constipation; Colorectal Neoplasms
PubMed: 36184064
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2022.09.551 -
Cureus Aug 2022The WHO recommends HIV self-testing (HIVST) as an innovative strategy and an additional testing approach to attain UNAIDS targets to end HIV by 2030. HIVST is a process... (Review)
Review
The WHO recommends HIV self-testing (HIVST) as an innovative strategy and an additional testing approach to attain UNAIDS targets to end HIV by 2030. HIVST is a process whereby a person collects his or her own specimen (either oral fluid or blood), performs an HIV test, and interprets the result. It has been described as a discreet and convenient way to reach the hidden, unreached key populations (KPs) who do not know their HIV status or do not get tested. Among the KPs, men who have sex with men (MSM) is one such group that by far remains hidden due to feared stigma and discrimination associated both with their sexuality and HIV. Fear of pain and blood while HIV testing also deters MSM from getting tested. In this review, we assessed the effect of oral HIVST on the uptake and frequency of testing and risk behavior as compared to standard HIV testing. For this review, we systematically searched various electronic databases for clinical trials comparing HIVST to standard HIV testing from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2021. A meta-analysis of studies was conducted using a random-effects model for relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The protocol was registered with PROSPERO, and PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses were followed. The quality of the clinical trials was assessed using Cochrane's risk of bias tool version 2.0 (RoB 2.0). We identified eight studies comparing HIVST to standard HIV testing services (HTSs). The eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) enrolled 5,297 participants, of which 5,212 were MSM and 85 were transgender (TG) women. Seven RCTs were conducted in high-income countries (HICs): four in the USA, two in Australia, and one in Hong Kong. One was conducted in a low-middle-income country (LMIC) in Myanmar.In all the studies, HIVST intervention was provided with oral HIVST kits, except for one study in which both blood-based and oral HIVST kits were used. Meta-analysis (five RCTs) showed that HIVST increased the uptake of HIV testing by 1.43 times compared to standard of care (SoC) (RR = 1.43; 95% CI = 1.25, 1.64). Meta-analysis (four RCTs) found that HIVST increased the mean number of HIV tests by 2.34 during follow-up (mean difference = 2.34; 95% CI = 1.66, 3.02). Meta-analysis (four RCTs) showed that HIVST doubled the detection of new HIV infections among those tested (RR = 2.10; 95% CI = 1.35, 3.28) and reported higher repeat testing as compared to the control arm (RR = 2.04; 95% CI = 1.22, 3.42). A meta-analysis of three trials found no significant difference in risk behavior in respect of condomless anal intercourse (CAI) (odds ratio (OR) = 0.90; 95% CI = 0.67, 1.22) and multiple male partnership (RR = 0.89; 95% CI = 0.83, 0.94). Oral HIVST could increase the HIV testing and detection of new HIV infections among MSM who may not otherwise test, as compared to standard testing services alone. However, further research from low-middle-income countries is required for generalizability.
PubMed: 36158381
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.28157 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2022Although various solutions have been recommended for cleansing wounds, normal saline is favoured as it is an isotonic solution and is not thought to interfere with the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Although various solutions have been recommended for cleansing wounds, normal saline is favoured as it is an isotonic solution and is not thought to interfere with the normal healing process. Tap water is commonly used in community settings for cleansing wounds because it is easily accessible, efficient and cost-effective; however, there is an unresolved debate about its use.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of water for wound cleansing.
SEARCH METHODS
For this fifth update, in May 2021 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed wound cleansing using different types of water (e.g. tap water, distilled, boiled) compared with no cleansing or with other solutions (e.g. normal saline). For this update, we excluded quasi-RCTs, thereby removing some studies which had been included in the previous version of the review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently carried out trial selection, data extraction and GRADE assessment of the certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 13 trials in this update including a total of 2504 participants ranging in age from two to 95 years. Participants in the trials experienced open fractures, surgical wounds, traumatic wounds, anal fissures and chronic wounds. The trials were conducted in six different countries with the majority conducted in India and the USA. Three trials involving 148 participants compared cleansing with tap water with no cleansing. Eight trials involving 2204 participants assessed cleansing with tap water compared with cleansing with normal saline. Two trials involving 152 participants assessed cleansing with distilled water compared with cleansing with normal saline. One trial involving 51 participants also assessed cleansing with cooled boiled water compared with cleansing with normal saline, and cleansing with distilled water compared with cleansing with cooled boiled water. Wound infection: no trials reported on wound infection for the comparison cleansing with tap water versus no cleansing. For all wounds, eight trials found the effect of cleansing with tap water compared with normal saline is uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 1.19); very low-certainty evidence. Two trials comparing the use of distilled water with normal saline for cleansing open fractures found that the effect on the number of fractures that were infected is uncertain (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.09); very low-certainty evidence. One trial compared the use of cooled boiled water with normal saline for cleansing open fractures and found that the effect on the number of fractures infected is uncertain (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.87); very low-certainty evidence. This trial also compared the use of distilled water with cooled boiled water and found that the effect on the number of fractures infected is uncertain (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.47); very low-certainty evidence. Wound healing: results from three trials comparing the use of tap water with no wound cleansing demonstrated there may be little or no difference in the number of wounds that did not heal between the groups (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.14); low-certainty evidence. The effect of tap water compared with normal saline is uncertain; two trials were pooled (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.07) but the certainty of the evidence is very low. Results from one study comparing the use of distilled water with normal saline for cleansing open fractures found that there may be little or no difference in the number of fractures that healed (RR could not be estimated, all wounds healed); the certainty of the evidence is low. Reduction in wound size: the effect of cleansing with tap water compared with normal saline on wound size reduction is uncertain (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.68); the certainty of the evidence is very low. Rate of wound healing: the effect of cleansing with tap water compared with normal saline on wound healing rate is uncertain (mean difference (MD) -3.06, 95% CI -6.70 to 0.58); the certainty of the evidence is very low.
COSTS
two trials reported cost analyses but the cost-effectiveness of tap water compared with the use of normal saline is uncertain; the certainty of the evidence is very low. Pain: results from one study comparing the use of tap water with no cleansing for acute and chronic wounds showed that there may be little or no difference in pain scores. The certainty of the evidence is low. Patient satisfaction: results from one study comparing the use of tap water with no cleansing for acute and chronic wounds showed that there may be little or no difference in patient satisfaction. The certainty of evidence is low. The effect of cleansing with tap water compared with normal saline is uncertain as the certainty of the evidence is very low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
All the evidence identified in the review was low or very low certainty. Cleansing with tap water may make little or no difference to wound healing compared with no cleansing; there are no data relating to the impact on wound infection. The effects of cleansing with tap water, cooled boiled water or distilled water compared with cleansing with saline are uncertain, as is the effect of distilled water compared with cooled boiled water. Data for other outcomes are limited across all the comparisons considered and are either uncertain or suggest that there may be little or no difference in the outcome.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Child; Child, Preschool; Drinking Water; Fractures, Open; Humans; Middle Aged; Pain; Saline Solution; Sodium Chloride; Therapeutic Irrigation; Wound Infection; Young Adult
PubMed: 36103365
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003861.pub4 -
Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology Feb 2023Botulinum Toxin (BTX) has been found to have anti-spasm and analgesic effects. The utility of BTX after conventional hemorrhoidectomy remains unclear. Thus, a systematic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Botulinum Toxin (BTX) has been found to have anti-spasm and analgesic effects. The utility of BTX after conventional hemorrhoidectomy remains unclear. Thus, a systematic review and meta-analysis are required to find out its utility after conventional hemorrhoidectomy.
METHODS
Using specific keywords, we comprehensively go through the potential articles on PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Europe PMC sources until March 27, 2022. All published studies on botulinum toxin anal sphincter injection after conventional hemorrhoidectomy were collected. We were using Review Manager 5.4 software to conduct statistical analysis.
RESULTS
Five clinical trial studies with a total of 260 patients undergoing hemorrhoidectomy were included in the analysis Our pooled analysis revealed that BTX injection after hemorrhoidectomy was associated with lower VAS at 24 h post-operative [Mean Difference -1.35 (95% CI -1.90, -0.80), < 0.00001, = 0%] and shorter time to return work [Mean Difference -8.94 days (95% CI -12.57, -5.30), < 0.00001, = 0%]. However, BTX injection did not differ significantly from placebo in terms of time to first defecation ( = 0.22), fecal incontinence ( = 0.91) and urinary retention incidence ( = 0.18).
CONCLUSION
BTX sphincter injection may offer some benefit after conventional hemorrhoidectomy in reducing pain from the first day after the procedure and promoting wound healing without complication. Further randomized clinical trials are still needed to confirm the results of our study.
Topics: Humans; Hemorrhoidectomy; Hemorrhoids; Botulinum Toxins; Anal Canal; Pain, Postoperative; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36048469
DOI: 10.1080/00365521.2022.2116292 -
International Journal of Colorectal... Sep 2022Squamous cell carcinoma of the anus (SCCA) suffers a constant increase each year in the last decades. Recent studies suggested the possibility of local excision (LE) as...
PURPOSE
Squamous cell carcinoma of the anus (SCCA) suffers a constant increase each year in the last decades. Recent studies suggested the possibility of local excision (LE) as an option for early-stage SCAC patients. This systematic review aims to summarize the available evidence on the comparison of LE vs. chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in the treatment of early SCCA patients.
METHODS
We conducted a literature review including MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, clinicaltrials.gov, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews through June 2022. MOOSE guidelines were followed. We used the methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS) tool to assess quality. Data on survival and procedure-associated costs were extracted.
RESULTS
Four retrospective studies including 3323 patients were included. They were all comparative retrospective cohort studies (three were registry-based studies, either NCDB or SEER) with a MINORS score of 16-19 points. Overall survival (OS) was comparable between LE and CRT patients in three studies, with a 5-year OS of 85.3-100% in LE patients and 85-91.6% in CRT patients. One study investigated cancer-specific survival (CSS) and reported similar 5-year CSS in LE (98%) and CRT patients (96%). One investigated progression-free survival (PFS) and did not report any statistically significant difference in 5-year PFS between LE (91%) and CRT patients (83%). Only one study considered the mean costs associated with the two approaches (29,210 USD with LE and 46,350 USD with CRT).
CONCLUSIONS
LE may potentially be considered a valid alternative to CRT for patients with early-stage SCAA. Results of prospective randomized long-term trials comparing LE with CRT are warranted to draw definitive conclusions and consider LE as a true cost-effective strategy for T1N0 SCCA with similar oncologic results offered by CRT, which-to date-remains the "gold standard."
PROSPERO REGISTRATION
CRD42022338750.
Topics: Humans; Anal Canal; Anus Neoplasms; Carcinoma, Squamous Cell; Chemoradiotherapy; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 36002749
DOI: 10.1007/s00384-022-04241-4 -
BMC Gastroenterology Aug 2022The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate whether self-expandable implantable vs non-self-expandable injectable bulking agents (second-line therapies) are...
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate whether self-expandable implantable vs non-self-expandable injectable bulking agents (second-line therapies) are equal/superior in terms of effectiveness (severity, quality of life [QoL]) and safety (adverse events) for faecal incontinence (FI).
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted, and five databases were searched (Medline via Ovid, Embase, Cochrane Library, University of York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, and International Network of Agencies for Health Technology database). In-/exclusion criteria were predefined according to the PICOS scheme. The Institute of Health Economics risk of bias (RoB) tool assessed studies' internal validity. According to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach, the strength of evidence for safety outcomes was rated. A qualitative synthesis of the evidence was used to analyse the data.
RESULTS
The evidence consists of eight prospective single-arm, before-after studies (166 patients) fulfilling the inclusion criteria for assessing clinical effectiveness and safety of implantable bulking agents. FI severity statistically significantly improved in five of seven studies rated by the Cleveland Clinic FI Score and in three of five studies measured by the Vaizey score. Statistically significant improved disease-related QoL was found in one of five studies measured by the FI QoL Score and in one of two studies rated by the American Medical Systems score. Procedure-related adverse events occurred in 16 of 166 patients (i.e., intraoperative complications, anal discomfort and pain). Device-related adverse events occurred in 48 of 166 patients, including prostheses' dislodgement and removed/extruded prostheses. Studies were judged with moderate/high RoB. The strength of evidence for safety was judged to be very low.
CONCLUSION
Implantable bulking agents might be an effective and safe minimally invasive option in FI treatment if conservative therapies fail. FI severity significantly improved, however, effects on QoL need to be explored in further studies. Due to the uncontrolled nature of the case series, comparative studies need to be awaited.
Topics: Fecal Incontinence; Humans; Prospective Studies; Prostheses and Implants; Quality of Life; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35978293
DOI: 10.1186/s12876-022-02441-4 -
International Journal of Colorectal... Sep 2022A meta-analysis of the relevant literature evaluated the feasibility, safety, and potential benefits of single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) relative to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
A meta-analysis of the relevant literature evaluated the feasibility, safety, and potential benefits of single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) relative to those of conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA).
METHODS
The major biomedical databases, including ClinicalTrials.gov, were searched up to January 2022 for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). SILA and CLA were compared regarding patient body mass index, operative time, and perioperative complications. The Cochrane Handbook and RevMan 5.3 were used to judge trial quality and perform the meta-analysis, respectively.
RESULTS
The 17 included RCTs comprised 2068 patients, of whom 1039 and 1029 patients underwent SILA and CLA, respectively. The operative time for SILA was longer than that for CLA (MD = 8.35 min, 95% CI = 6.58 to 10.11, P < 0.00001), but the cosmetic results from SILA were superior (SMD = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.58 to 1.03, P < 0.00001). However, the incidence rates were similar in terms of patient body mass index; postoperative pain scores; and rates of abdominal abscess, conversion to open surgery, ileus, surgical site infection, and overall perioperative complications between the two groups.
CONCLUSION
SILA is a safe technique for acute appendicitis, and its cosmetic outcomes are superior to those of CLA.
Topics: Acute Disease; Appendectomy; Appendicitis; Conversion to Open Surgery; Humans; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Operative Time; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35934748
DOI: 10.1007/s00384-022-04231-6 -
International Journal of Colorectal... Aug 2022Haemorrhoidal disease (HD) plagues one in every ten people, with a plethora of surgical treatment modalities, of which laser haemorrhoidoplasty (LHP) is a relatively... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Systematic review and meta-analysis of postoperative pain and symptoms control following laser haemorrhoidoplasty versus Milligan-Morgan haemorrhoidectomy for symptomatic haemorrhoids: a new standard.
PURPOSE
Haemorrhoidal disease (HD) plagues one in every ten people, with a plethora of surgical treatment modalities, of which laser haemorrhoidoplasty (LHP) is a relatively novel option. This systematic review and meta-analysis objectively evaluated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of LHP compared against conventional (Milligan-Morgan) open haemorrhoidectomy (CoH).
METHOD
A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and Google Scholar was conducted. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative cohort studies (CCSs) which compared LHP against CoH were included, with postoperative pain as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative characteristics, short- and moderate-term outcome, and complications.
RESULTS
A total of 12 studies (6 RCTs and 6 CCSs), with a total of 1824 patients, were analysed. LHP resulted in reduced postoperative pain for the first day (mean difference of 2.07 visual analogue scale units), week, and month. The mean dosage and duration of postoperative analgesia use was similarly lower, with a mean difference of 4.88 mg (morphine) and 2.25 days, respectively. Crucially, recurrence was equivocal (HR: 0.72, CI: 0.21-2.40) at a mean follow-up duration of 8.58 ± 9.55 months. LHP resulted in lower blood loss and was 12.74 min shorter on average. LHP's postoperative recovery time was 9.03 days less with equivalent or decreased risk of most short- and moderate-term complications except anal thrombosis.
CONCLUSION
Our study suggests that LHP is more tolerable than CoH, providing patients with superior postoperative quality of life at equivalent moderate-term efficacy. These findings contribute to improved understanding of LHP and its potential at enhancing the quality of HD care.
Topics: Hemorrhoidectomy; Hemorrhoids; Humans; Lasers; Pain Measurement; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 35906356
DOI: 10.1007/s00384-022-04225-4 -
Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis Aug 2022Non-coding RNAs (ncRNAs) are involved in neuropathic pain development. Herein, we systematically searched for neuropathic pain-related ncRNAs expression changes,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Non-coding RNAs (ncRNAs) are involved in neuropathic pain development. Herein, we systematically searched for neuropathic pain-related ncRNAs expression changes, including microRNAs (miRNAs), long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs), and circular non-coding RNAs (circRNAs).
METHODS
We searched two databases, PubMed and GeenMedical, for relevant studies.
RESULTS
Peripheral nerve injury or noxious stimuli can induce extensive changes in the expression of ncRNAs. For example, higher serum miR-132-3p, -146b-5p, and -384 was observed in neuropathic pain patients. Either sciatic nerve ligation, dorsal root ganglion (DRG) transaction, or ventral root transection (VRT) could upregulate miR-21 and miR-31 while downregulating miR-668 and miR-672 in the injured DRG. lncRNAs, such as early growth response 2-antisense-RNA (Egr2-AS-RNA) and Kcna2-AS-RNA, were upregulated in Schwann cells and inflicted DRG after nerve injury, respectively. Dysregulated circRNA homeodomain-interacting protein kinase 3 (circHIPK3) in serum and the DRG, abnormally expressed lncRNAs X-inactive specific transcript (XIST), nuclear enriched abundant transcript 1 (NEAT1), small nucleolar RNA host gene 1 (SNHG1), as well as ciRS-7, zinc finger protein 609 (cirZNF609), circ_0005075, and circAnks1a in the spinal cord were suggested to participate in neuropathic pain development. Dysregulated miRNAs contribute to neuropathic pain via neuroinflammation, autophagy, abnormal ion channel expression, regulating pain-related mediators, protein kinases, structural proteins, neurotransmission excitatory-inhibitory imbalances, or exosome miRNA-mediated neuron-glia communication. In addition, lncRNAs and circRNAs are essential in neuropathic pain by acting as antisense RNA and miRNA sponges, epigenetically regulating pain-related molecules expression, or modulating miRNA processing.
CONCLUSIONS
Numerous dysregulated ncRNAs have been suggested to participate in neuropathic pain development. However, there is much work to be done before ncRNA-based analgesics can be clinically used for various reasons such as conservation among species, proper delivery, stability, and off-target effects.
Topics: Ganglia, Spinal; Humans; MicroRNAs; Neuralgia; RNA, Circular; RNA, Long Noncoding
PubMed: 35808924
DOI: 10.1002/jcla.24592