-
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2023The primary objective of this study was to compare the risk of hypotension, as well as the induction and recovery characteristics between remimazolam and propofol in...
The primary objective of this study was to compare the risk of hypotension, as well as the induction and recovery characteristics between remimazolam and propofol in patients receiving surgery under general anesthesia. The Embase, Medline, Google scholar, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to March 2022 for randomized controlled trials The primary outcome was the risk of post-induction hypotension between the two agents, while the secondary outcomes included anesthetic depth, induction efficacy, time to loss of consciousness (LOC), hemodynamic profiles, time to eye opening, extubation time as well as the incidence of injection pain and postoperative nausea/vomiting (PONV). Meta-analysis of eight studies published from 2020 to 2022 involving 738 patients revealed a significantly lower risk of post-induction hypotension with the use of remimazolam compared to that with propofol [risk ratio (RR) = 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.43 to 0.75, < 0.0001, I = 12%, five studies, 564 patients]. After anesthetic induction, the anesthetic depth measured by bispectral index (BIS) was lighter in the remimazolam group than that in the propofol group (MD = 9.26, 95% confidence interval: 3.06 to 15.47, = 0.003, I = 94%, five studies, 490 patients). The time to loss of consciousness was also longer in the former compared to the latter (MD = 15.49 s, 95%CI: 6.53 to 24.46, = 0.0007, I = 61%, three studies, 331 patients). However, the use of remimazolam correlated with a lower risk of injection pain (RR = 0.03, 95%CI: 0.01 to 0.16, < 0.0001, I = 0%, three studies, 407 patients) despite comparable efficacy of anesthetic induction (RR = 0.98, 95%CI: 0.9 to 1.06, = 0.57, I = 76%, two studies, 319 patients). Our results demonstrated no difference in time to eye opening, extubation time, and risk of PONV between the two groups. Remimazolam was associated with a lower risk of post-induction hypotension after anesthetic induction compared with propofol with similar recovery characteristics. Further studies are required to support our findings. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/; Identifier: CRD42022320658.
PubMed: 36814492
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1101728 -
Clinical Ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) 2023Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) is a corneal endothelial transplantation procedure with selective removal of a patient's defective Descemet membrane... (Review)
Review
Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) is a corneal endothelial transplantation procedure with selective removal of a patient's defective Descemet membrane and endothelium. It is replaced with a healthy donor Descemet membrane and endothelium without a stromal component. Corneal graft rejection can be at the level of epithelium, stroma as well endothelium. DMEK graft rejection is relatively less common than rejection with DSAEK or penetrating keratoplasty, and a good outcome may be achieved with prompt management. The clinical picture of DMEK rejection is usually similar to endothelial rejection in Descemet Stripping Endothelial Keratoplasty (DSEK/DSAEK), which generally manifests as pain, redness, reduction in visual acuity, stromal edema, endothelial rejection line, keratic precipitates at the back of the cornea and corneal neovascularization. However, more subtle forms of rejection or immune reactions are more common in DMEK compared to DSAEK eyes. Early clinical diagnosis, prompt intervention, and meticulous management safeguard visual acuity and graft survival in these cases. Intensive topical steroids form the mainstay in the management of DMEK rejection. Sometimes, oral or intravenous steroids or other systemic immunomodulators may be required. DMEK graft failure can be primary or secondary, and failure usually requires a second procedure in the form of repeat DMEK or DSEK or penetrating keratoplasty (PKP). A detailed literature search was performed using search engines such as Google Scholar, PubMed, and Google books, and a comprehensive review on DMEK rejection was found to be lacking. This review is a comprehensive update on the risk factors, pathophysiology, primary and secondary graft failure, recent advances in diagnosis, prevention of rejection, and updates in the management of DMEK rejection. The review also discusses the differential diagnosis of DMEK failure and rejection, prognosis, and future perspectives considering DMEK failure and rejection.
PubMed: 36755886
DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S398418 -
Clinical Optometry 2023Artificial tears are the mainstay of dry eye disease management, but also have a role in corneal abrasion and wound healing, pain and inflammation management,... (Review)
Review
Artificial tears are the mainstay of dry eye disease management, but also have a role in corneal abrasion and wound healing, pain and inflammation management, conjunctivitis, keratitis, contact lens rewetting and removal, and foreign body removal. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (PROSPERO registration CRD42022369619) comparing the efficacy of artificial tears in patients with dry eye to inform prescribing choices using Web of Science, PubMed and Medline databases identified 64 relevant articles. There is good evidence that artificial tears improve symptoms of dry eye disease within a month of regular use, applied about four times a day, but signs generally take several months to improve. Not all patients with dry eye disease benefit from artificial tears, so if there is no benefit over a month, alternative management should be considered. Combination formulations are more effective than single active ingredient artificial tears. Artificial tears containing polyethylene glycol are more effective than those containing carboxymethylcellulose/carmellose sodium and hydroxypropyl methylcellulose. Those classified as having evaporative dry eye disease, benefit from artificial tears with liposomes, especially of higher concentration. The data available is limited by the definition of dry eye disease applied in published studies being variable, as well as the disease severity examined and compliance with artificial tears being rarely quantified.
PubMed: 36647552
DOI: 10.2147/OPTO.S350185 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2023Primary angle-closure glaucoma is a type of glaucoma associated with a physically obstructed anterior chamber angle. For example, contact between the iris and lens at... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Primary angle-closure glaucoma is a type of glaucoma associated with a physically obstructed anterior chamber angle. For example, contact between the iris and lens at the pupillary margin creates a pupillary block that increases resistance to aqueous outflow. Obstruction of the anterior chamber angle blocks drainage of fluids (aqueous humor) within the eye and may raise intraocular pressure (IOP). Elevated IOP is associated with glaucomatous optic nerve damage and visual field loss. Laser peripheral iridotomy ('iridotomy') is a procedure to eliminate pupillary block by allowing aqueous humor to pass directly from the posterior to anterior chamber, which is achieved by creating a hole in the iris using laser. Iridotomy is used to treat patients with primary angle-closure glaucoma, patients with primary angle-closure (narrow angles and no signs of glaucomatous optic neuropathy), and patients who are primary angle-closure suspects (patients with reversible obstruction). However, the effectiveness of iridotomy on slowing progression of visual field loss is uncertain.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of iridotomy compared with no iridotomy for primary angle-closure glaucoma, primary angle-closure, and primary angle-closure suspect.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2021, Issue 10), which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; MEDLINE Ovid; Embase Ovid; PubMed; LILACS; ClinicalTrials.gov; and the WHO ICTRP. The date of the most recent search was 10 October 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials that compared iridotomy with no iridotomy in primary angle-closure suspects, people with primary angle-closure, or people with primary angle-closure glaucoma in one or both eyes were eligible.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodology and assessed the certainty of the body of evidence for prespecified outcomes using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified four studies (3086 eyes of 1543 participants) that compared iridotomy with no iridotomy in participants (range of mean age 59.6 to 62.9 years) who were primary angle-closure suspects from China, Singapore, or the UK. Study investigators randomized one eye of each participant to iridotomy and the other to no iridotomy. Two studies provided long-term (five or more years) results. We judged the certainty of the evidence as moderate to low across the prespecified outcomes, downgrading for high risk of bias (e.g. performance and detection biases) and imprecision of results. Meta-analyses of data from two studies suggest that iridotomy probably results in little to no difference in IOP compared with no iridotomy at one year (mean difference (MD) 0.04 mm Hg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.17 to 0.24; I = 65%; 2598 eyes of 1299 participants; moderate certainty evidence) and five years (MD 0.12 mm Hg, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.35; I = 0%; 2016 eyes of 1008 participants), and in best-corrected visual acuity measured as logMAR at one year (MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01; I = 69%; 2596 eyes of 1298 participants; moderate certainty evidence) and five years (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.03; I = 0%; 2002 eyes of 1001 participants). In terms of gonioscopic findings, eyes treated with iridotomy likely had wider angles in Shaffer grading scale (MD 4.93 units, 95% CI 4.73 to 5.12; I = 59%; 2598 eyes of 1299 participants at one year; MD 5.07, 95% CI 4.78 to 5.36; I = 97%; 2016 eyes of 1008 participants at five years; moderate certainty evidence) and experienced fewer peripheral anterior synechiae (PAS) than eyes that received no iridotomy at five years (risk ratio (RR) 0.41, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.67; I = 28%; 2 studies, 2738 eyes of 1369 participants), but the evidence was less conclusive at one year (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.54; I = 57%; 3 studies, 2896 eyes of 1448 participants; low certainty evidence). No studies reported data on the proportion of participants with progressive visual field loss during follow-up (the primary outcome of this review), mean number of medications to control IOP, or quality of life outcomes. Low certainty evidence suggests that iridotomy may result in little to no difference in the incidence of acute angle-closure (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.20; I = 0%; 3 studies, 3006 eyes of 1503 participants). Other ocular adverse events (e.g. eye pain, dry eye, redness of eyes, and ocular discomfort), although rare, were more common in eyes treated with iridotomy than in eyes in the control group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We did not find sufficient evidence to draw any meaningful conclusions on the use of iridotomy for the purpose of slowing progression of visual field loss. No study reported on progressive visual field loss, the primary outcome of this review. Although there is moderate certainty evidence that iridotomy results in improved gonioscopic findings, in is unclear if these findings translate to clinically meaningful benefits.
Topics: Humans; Middle Aged; Glaucoma, Angle-Closure; Visual Fields; Quality of Life; Glaucoma; Intraocular Pressure; Vision Disorders
PubMed: 36621864
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012270.pub3 -
Frontiers in Veterinary Science 2022Facial expression scoring has proven to be useful for pain evaluation in humans. In the last decade, equivalent scales have been developed for various animal species,...
INTRODUCTION
Facial expression scoring has proven to be useful for pain evaluation in humans. In the last decade, equivalent scales have been developed for various animal species, including large domestic animals. The research question of this systematic review was as follows: is facial expression scoring (intervention) a valid method to evaluate pain (the outcome) in large domestic animals (population)?
METHOD
We searched two databases for relevant articles using the search string: "grimace scale" OR "facial expression" AND animal OR "farm animal" NOT "mouse" NOT "rat" NOT "laboratory animal." The risk of bias was estimated by adapting the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) checklist.
RESULTS
The search strategy extracted 30 articles, with the major share on equids and a considerable number on cows, pigs, and sheep. Most studies evaluated facial action units (FAUs), including the eye region, the orbital region, the cheek or the chewing muscles, the lips, the mouth, and the position of the ears. Interobserver reliability was tested in 21 studies. Overall FAU reliability was substantial, but there were differences for individual FAUs. The position of the ear had almost perfect interobserver reliability (interclass coefficient (ICC): 0.73-0.97). Validity was tested in five studies with the reported accuracy values ranging from 68.2 to 80.0%.
DISCUSSION
This systematic review revealed that facial expression scores provide an easy method for learning and reliable test results to identify whether an animal is in pain or distress. Many studies lack a reference standard and a true control group. Further research is warranted to evaluate the test accuracy of facial expression scoring as a live pen side test.
PubMed: 36561394
DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2022.1002681 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2022Dry eye disease (DED), arising from various etiologic factors, leads to tear film instability, ocular surface damage, and neurosensory changes. DED causes symptoms such... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Dry eye disease (DED), arising from various etiologic factors, leads to tear film instability, ocular surface damage, and neurosensory changes. DED causes symptoms such as ocular dryness, burning, itching, pain, and visual impairment. Given their well-established anti-inflammatory effects, topical steroid preparations have been widely used as a short-term treatment option for DED. Because of potential risks of ocular hypertension, cataracts, and infections associated with the long-term use of topical steroids, published trials comparing the efficacy and safety of topical steroids (versus placebo) have mostly been of short duration (three to eight weeks).
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of topical corticosteroids compared with no treatment, placebo, other steroidal or non-steroidal therapies, or a combination of therapies for DED.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2021, Issue 8); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences database (LILACS); ClinicalTrials.gov; and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), without restriction on language or year of publication. The date of the last search was 20 August 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which topical corticosteroids, alone or in combination with tobramycin, were compared with no treatment, artificial tears (AT), vehicles, AT plus tobramycin, or cyclosporine A (CsA).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We applied standard Cochrane methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 22 RCTs conducted in the USA, Italy, Spain, China, South Korea, and India. These RCTs reported outcome data from a total of 4169 participants with DED. Study characteristics and risk of bias All trials recruited adults aged 18 years or older, except one trial that enrolled children and adolescents aged between 3 and 14 years. Half of these trials involved predominantly female participants (median 79%, interquartile range [IQR] 76% to 80%). On average, each trial enrolled 86 participants (IQR 40 to 158). The treatment duration of topical steroids ranged between one week and three months; trial duration lasted between one week and six months. Eight trials were sponsored exclusively by industry, and four trials were co-sponsored by industry and institutional or governmental funds. We assessed the risk of bias of both subjective and objective outcomes using RoB 2, finding nearly half of the trials to be at high risk of bias associated with selective outcome reporting. Findings Of the 22 trials, 16 evaluated effects of topical steroids, alone or in combination with tobramycin, as compared with lubricants (AT, vehicle), AT plus tobramycin, or no treatment. Corticosteroids probably have a small to moderate effect on improving patient-reported symptoms by 0.29 standardized mean difference (SMD) (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.16 to 0.42) as compared with lubricants (moderate certainty evidence). Topical steroids also likely have a small to moderate effect on lowering corneal staining scores by 0.4 SMDs (95% CI 0.18 to 0.62) (moderate certainty evidence). However, steroids may increase tear film break-up time (TBUT) slightly (mean difference [MD] 0.70 s, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.34; low certainty evidence) but not tear osmolarity (MD 1.60 mOsm/kg, 95% CI -10.47 to 13.67; very low certainty evidence). Six trials examined topical steroids, either alone or in combination with CsA, against CsA alone. Low certainty evidence indicates that steroid-based interventions may have a small to moderate effect on improving participants' symptoms (SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.15), but little to no effect on corneal staining scores (SMD 0.05, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.35) as compared with CsA. The effect of topical steroids compared to CsA alone on TBUT (MD 0.37 s, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.87) or tear osmolarity (MD 5.80 mOsm/kg, 95% CI -0.94 to 12.54; loteprednol etabonate alone) is uncertain because the certainty of the evidence is low or very low. None of the included trials reported on quality of life scores. Adverse effects The evidence for adverse ocular effects of topical corticosteroids is very uncertain. Topical corticosteroids may increase participants' risk of intraocular pressure (IOP) elevation (risk ratio [RR] 5.96, 95% CI 1.30 to 27.38) as compared with lubricants. However, when compared with CsA, steroids alone or combined with CsA may decrease or increase IOP elevation (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.25 to 8.33). It is also uncertain whether topical steroids may increase risk of cataract formation when compared with lubricants (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.22), given the short-term use and study duration (four weeks or less) to observe longer-term adverse effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the evidence for the specified review outcomes was of moderate to very low certainty, mostly due to high risk of bias associated with selective results reporting. For dry eye patients whose symptoms require anti-inflammatory control, topical corticosteroids probably provide small to moderate degrees of symptom relief beyond lubricants, and may provide small to moderate degrees of symptom relief beyond CsA. However, the current evidence is less certain about the effects of steroids on improved tear film quality or quantity. The available evidence is also very uncertain regarding the adverse effects of topical corticosteroids on IOP elevation or cataract formation or progression. Future trials should generate high certainty evidence to inform physicians and patients of the optimal treatment strategies with topical corticosteroids in terms of regimen (types, formulations, dosages), duration, and its time-dependent adverse profile.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Child; Child, Preschool; Female; Humans; Male; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Cataract; Cyclosporine; Dry Eye Syndromes; Glucocorticoids; Loteprednol Etabonate; Lubricant Eye Drops; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tobramycin
PubMed: 36269562
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015070.pub2 -
Dystonia (Lausanne, Switzerland) 2022Blepharospasm is a type of dystonia where the diagnosis is often delayed because its varied clinical manifestations are not well recognized. The purpose of this study...
OBJECTIVE
Blepharospasm is a type of dystonia where the diagnosis is often delayed because its varied clinical manifestations are not well recognized. The purpose of this study was to provide a comprehensive picture of its clinical features including presenting features, motor features, and non-motor features.
METHODS
This was a two-part study. The first part involved a systematic literature review that summarized clinical features for 10,324 cases taken from 41 prior reports. The second part involved a summary of clinical features for 884 cases enrolled in a large multicenter cohort collected by the Dystonia Coalition investigators, along with an analysis of the factors that contribute to the spread of dystonia beyond the periocular region.
RESULTS
For cases in the literature and the Dystonia Coalition, blepharospasm emerged in the 50s and was more frequent in women. Many presented with non-specific motor symptoms such as increased blinking (51.9%) or non-motor sensory features such as eye soreness or pain (38.7%), photophobia (35.5%), or dry eyes (10.7%). Non-motor psychiatric features were also common including anxiety disorders (34-40%) and depression (21-24%). Among cases presenting with blepharospasm in the Dystonia Coalition cohort, 61% experienced spread of dystonia to other regions, most commonly the oromandibular region and neck. Features associated with spread included severity of blepharospasm, family history of dystonia, depression, and anxiety.
CONCLUSIONS
This study provides a comprehensive summary of motor and non-motor features of blepharospasm, along with novel insights into factors that may be responsible for its poor diagnostic recognition and natural history.
PubMed: 36248010
DOI: 10.3389/dyst.2022.10359 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Aug 2022Dry eye disease (DED) is a multifactorial disease that causes ocular discomfort and visual impairment on a damaged ocular surface. Lifitegrast, a novel T-cell integrin... (Review)
Review
Dry eye disease (DED) is a multifactorial disease that causes ocular discomfort and visual impairment on a damaged ocular surface. Lifitegrast, a novel T-cell integrin antagonist, was approved in the United States in July 2016 as a 5% (50 mg/mL) ophthalmic solution for DED management. Currently, no meta-analysis and systemic review based on relevant studies have been conducted. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lifitegrast in patients with DED. We systematically searched Embase, Medline, PubMed, and Web of Science for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized studies evaluating lifitegrast effects on symptomatic DED. Then, inferior corneal staining score, total corneal staining score (TCSS), nasal lissamine staining score (NLSS), total lissamine staining score, ocular discomfort score (ODS), eye discomfort score (visual analog scale (VAS) score), eye dryness score (EDS), ocular surface disease index score (OSDI-S), and tear break-up time (TBUT) were assessed. Clinical global impression and safety profiles were also evaluated. The studies were pooled in a random-effects model. We included five RCTs, one case-control study, and four longitudinal or retrospective studies, comprising 3197 participants. In the meta-analysis, lifitegrast was superior to the placebo because it improved TCSS, NLSS, TBUT, ODS, eye discomfort score, EDS, and OSDI-Sin DED. However, lifitegrast showed higher risks for ocular and non-ocular treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) overall or at a mild or moderate level. Nonetheless, its incidence of adverse events slightly differed from that in the placebo, especially instillation site discomforts and dysgeusia, thereby considered safe and tolerable. Claims of withdrawal during follow-up caused by TEAEs were extremely rare. Lifitegrast improves DED, although dysgeusia, installation site pain, and irritation may be a concern for some. Overall, most of the adverse events are tolerable. Lifitegrast can alleviate refractory DED and improves patients' quality of life.
PubMed: 36078948
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11175014 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2022Ocular surface burns can be caused by chemicals (alkalis and acids) or direct heat. One effect of the burn is damage to the limbal epithelial stem cells of the ocular... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Ocular surface burns can be caused by chemicals (alkalis and acids) or direct heat. One effect of the burn is damage to the limbal epithelial stem cells of the ocular surface with delayed re-epithelialisation, stem cell failure, and conjunctivalisation of the cornea. Amniotic membrane transplantation (AMT) performed in the acute phase (day 0 to day 7) following an ocular surface burn is claimed to reduce pain and accelerate healing. The surgery involves securing a layer of amniotic membrane (AM) to the eyelid margins as a patch to cover the entire ocular surface. However, there is debate about the severity of an ocular burn that may benefit from AMT and uncertainty of whether AMT improves outcomes.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effect of AMT with medical therapy in the first seven days after an ocular surface burn, compared to medical therapy alone.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2021, Issue 9); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; LILACS; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 29 September 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised trials that compared an AMT applied in the first seven days following an ocular surface burn in addition to medical therapy with medical therapy alone. The outcome measures were failure of re-epithelialisation by day 21 post injury, visual acuity at final follow-up, corneal neovascularisation, symblepharon, time to re-epithelialisation and adverse effects.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened search results, assessed the included studies for risk of bias and extracted relevant data. We contacted trial investigators for missing information. We summarised data using risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) as appropriate.
MAIN RESULTS
We analysed two RCTs, but excluded individual patients who had been treated outside the acute phase in one of the studies (data provided by study authors). In total, 36 moderate burns from one RCT and 92 severe burns from two RCTs were evaluated separately. For both categories, the certainty of the evidence was downgraded principally as a result of high risks of performance and detection biases, and because of imprecision indicated by very wide confidence intervals. In addition, follow-up was insufficiently frequent to calculate time-to-epithelialisation precisely. Moderate severity ocular burns (Roper-Hall classification II-III) The relative risk of AMT on failure of epithelialisation by day 21 was 0.18 (0.02 to 1.31), and LogMAR visual acuity was 0.32 lower (0.55 to 0.09 lower) in the treatment group (i.e. better), suggesting a possible benefit of AMT. The GRADE assessment for failure of epithelialisation by day 21 was downgraded to very low due to the risk of bias and imprecision (very wide confidence intervals including no effect). The GRADE assessment for visual acuity at final follow-up was downgraded to low due to the risk of bias and imprecision (optimal information size not met). The relative effects of AMT on corneal neovascularisation (RR 0.56; 0.21 to 1.48), symblepharon (RR 0.41; 0.02 to 9.48) and time-to-epithelialisation (13 days lower; 26.30 lower to 0.30 higher) suggest possible benefit of AMT, but the wide confidence intervals indicate that both harm and benefit are possible. GRADE assessments for these outcomes were once again downgraded to very low due to the risk of bias and imprecision. Since adverse effects are rare, the small sample would have fewer occurrences of rare but potentially important adverse effects. The GRADE assessment for adverse effects was therefore considered to be low. Severe ocular burns (Roper-Hall classification IV) The relative risk of AMT on failure of epithelialisation by day 21 was 1.03 (0.94 to 1.12), and LogMAR visual acuity was 0.01 higher (0.29 lower to 0.31 higher) in the treatment group (i.e, worse), indicating no benefit of AMT. GRADE assessments for failure of epithelialisation by day 21 and final outcomes were downgraded to low. The relative effects of AMT on corneal neovascularisation (RR 0.84; 0.66 to 1.06), symblepharon (RR 0.89; 0.56 to 1.42) and time-to-epithelialisation (1.66 days lower; 11.09 lower to 7.77 higher) may include both benefit and harm. GRADE assessments for corneal neovascularisation, symblepharon and time-to-epithelialisation were downgraded to low due to risk of bias and imprecision. For adverse effects, the GRADE assessment was downgraded to low, reflecting the small sample sizes in the RCTs.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is uncertain evidence to support the treatment of moderate acute ocular surface burns with AMT in addition to standard medical therapy as a means of preventing failure of epithelialisation by day 21, improving visual outcome and reducing corneal neovascularisation, symblepharon formation and time-to-epithelialisation. For severe burns, the available evidence does not indicate any significant benefit of treatment with AMT.
Topics: Amnion; Corneal Neovascularization; Eye Burns; Humans; Visual Acuity; Wound Healing
PubMed: 36047788
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009379.pub3 -
Journal of Anesthesia Oct 2022This meta-analysis of all relevant clinical trials investigated surgical plethysmographic index (SPI)-guided analgesia's efficacy under general anesthesia for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
This meta-analysis of all relevant clinical trials investigated surgical plethysmographic index (SPI)-guided analgesia's efficacy under general anesthesia for perioperative opioid requirement and emergence time after anesthesia.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched up to January 2022 to identify clinical trials comparing SPI-guided and conventional clinical practice for patients who underwent general anesthesia. With the random-effects model, we compared intraoperative opioid consumption, emergence time, postoperative pain, analgesia requirement, and incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV).
RESULTS
Thirteen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 1314) met our selection criteria. The overall pooled effect sizes of all RCTs indicated that SPI-guided analgesia could not significantly reduce opioid consumption during general anesthesia. SPI-guided analgesia accompanied with hypnosis monitoring could decrease intraoperative opioid consumption (standardized mean difference [SMD] - 0.31, 95% confidence interval [CI] - 0.63 to 0.00) more effectively than SPI without hypnosis monitoring (SMD 1.03, 95% CI 0.53-1.53), showing a significant difference (p < 0.001). SPI-guided analgesia could significantly shorten the emergence time, whether assessed by extubation time (SMD - 0.36, 95% CI - 0.70 to - 0.03, p < 0.05, I = 67%) or eye-opening time (SMD - 0.40, 95% CI - 0.63 to - 0.18, p < 0.001, I = 54%). SPI-guided analgesia did not affect the incidence of PONV, postoperative pain, and analgesia management.
CONCLUSION
SPI-guided analgesia under general anesthesia could enhance recovery after surgery without increasing the postoperative complication risk. However, it did not affect intraoperative opioid requirement. Notably, SPI-guided analgesia with hypnosis monitoring could effectively reduce intraoperative opioid requirement.
Topics: Airway Extubation; Analgesia; Analgesics, Opioid; Humans; Pain, Postoperative; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting
PubMed: 35986787
DOI: 10.1007/s00540-022-03094-z