-
Surgical Endoscopy Dec 2021In high-income countries, laparoscopic surgery is the preferred approach for many abdominal conditions. Conventional laparoscopy is a complex intervention that is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
In high-income countries, laparoscopic surgery is the preferred approach for many abdominal conditions. Conventional laparoscopy is a complex intervention that is challenging to adopt and implement in low resource settings. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluate the clinical effectiveness of gasless laparoscopy compared to conventional laparoscopy with CO pneumoperitoneum and open surgery for general surgery and gynaecological procedures.
METHODS
A search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Global Health, AJOL databases and Cochrane Library was performed from inception to January 2021. All randomised (RCTs) and comparative cohort (non-RCTs) studies comparing gasless laparoscopy with open surgery or conventional laparoscopy were included. The primary outcomes were mortality, conversion rates and intraoperative complications.
SECONDARY OUTCOMES
operative times and length of stay. The inverse variance random-effects model was used to synthesise data.
RESULTS
63 studies were included: 41 RCTs and 22 non-RCTs (3,620 patients). No procedure-related deaths were reported in the studies. For gasless vs conventional laparoscopy there was no difference in intraoperative complications for general RR 1.04 [CI 0.45-2.40] or gynaecological surgery RR 0.66 [0.14-3.13]. In the gasless laparoscopy group, the conversion rates for gynaecological surgery were high RR 11.72 [CI 2.26-60.87] when compared to conventional laparoscopy. For gasless vs open surgery, the operative times were longer for gasless surgery in general surgery RCT group MD (mean difference) 10 [CI 0.64, 19.36], but significantly shorter in the gynaecology RCT group MD - 18.74 [CI - 29.23, - 8.26]. For gasless laparoscopy vs open surgery non-RCT, the length of stay was shorter for gasless laparoscopy in general surgery MD - 3.94 [CI - 5.93, - 1.95] and gynaecology MD - 1.75 [CI - 2.64, - 0.86]. Overall GRADE assessment for RCTs and Non-RCTs was very low.
CONCLUSION
Gasless laparoscopy has advantages for selective general and gynaecological procedures and may have a vital role to play in low resource settings.
Topics: Abdomen; Female; Gynecologic Surgical Procedures; Humans; Insufflation; Laparoscopy; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34398284
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-021-08677-7 -
International Journal of Environmental... Jul 2021Rehabilitative ultrasound imaging (RUSI) is used by physical therapists as a feedback tool for measuring changes in muscle morphology during therapeutic interventions...
Rehabilitative ultrasound imaging (RUSI) is used by physical therapists as a feedback tool for measuring changes in muscle morphology during therapeutic interventions such as motor control exercises (MCE). However, a structured overview of its efficacy is lacking. We aimed to systematically review the efficacy of RUSI for improving MCE programs compared with no feedback and other feedback methods. MEDLINE, PubMed, SCOPUS and Web of Science databases were searched for studies evaluating efficacy data of RUSI to improve muscular morphology, quality, and/or function of skeletal muscles and MCE success. Eleven studies analyzing RUSI feedback during MCE were included. Most studies showed acceptable methodological quality. Seven studies assessed abdominal wall muscles, one assessed pelvic floor muscles, one serratus anterior muscle, and two lumbar multifidi. Eight studies involved healthy subjects and three studies clinical populations. Eight studies assessed muscle thickness and pressure differences during MCE, two assessed the number of trials needed to successfully perform MCE, three assessed the retain success, seven assessed the muscle activity with electromyography and one assessed clinical severity outcomes. Visual RUSI feedback seems to be more effective than tactile and/or verbal biofeedback for improving MCE performance and retention success, but no differences with pressure unit biofeedback were found.
Topics: Abdominal Muscles; Biofeedback, Psychology; Humans; Low Back Pain; Muscle, Skeletal; Ultrasonography
PubMed: 34300002
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18147554 -
The British Journal of Radiology Aug 2021With the increasing recognition of gastrointestinal (GI) manifestation of coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19), various abdominal imaging findings are increasingly being...
OBJECTIVES
With the increasing recognition of gastrointestinal (GI) manifestation of coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19), various abdominal imaging findings are increasingly being noted. We scoped the existing literature on the abdominal imaging findings in COVID-19.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed on PubMed, Embase, Google scholar and World Health Organization COVID-19 database.
RESULTS
35 studies were included in the final descriptive synthesis. Among the studies reporting positive abdominal imaging findings in patients with COVID-19, majority described imaging abnormalities of the GI tract (16 studies), of which bowel wall thickening was most frequently reported. Other findings noted were abdominal imaging manifestations of bowel ischemia with thrombosis of the splanchnic vasculature, and imaging features suggestive of pancreatitis. Imaging findings suggestive of solid organ infarction were reported in nine studies. An association between imaging evidence of hepatic steatosis and COVID-19 was noted in three studies. Incidental lung base findings on abdominal imaging were noted in 18 studies, where patients presented with predominant GI symptoms. The most common finding was bilateral ground glass opacities (90.7%) with predominant multilobar (91.1%) and peripheral (64.4%) distribution.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review provides insight into the abdominal imaging findings in patients with COVID-19. Knowledge of these imaging manifestations will not only help in further research but also will aid in curtailing transmission of the SARS-CoV-2. Further prospective studies are needed to gain better insight into the pathophysiology of these imaging manifestations.
ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE
This review highlights the abdominal imaging findings in patients with COVID-19, to gain insight into the disease pathophysiology and gear the abdominal radiologist through the pandemic.
Topics: Abdomen; COVID-19; Gastrointestinal Diseases; Humans
PubMed: 34260323
DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20201220 -
Annals of Translational Medicine May 2021Laparoscopic and robotic techniques allow surgeons to dissect and observe the groin area from the inside out, this study was to evaluate and compare the effects and...
BACKGROUND
Laparoscopic and robotic techniques allow surgeons to dissect and observe the groin area from the inside out, this study was to evaluate and compare the effects and safety of robotic inguinal hernia repair (R-IHR) and laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (L-IHR) in Caucasian patients.
METHODS
We searched the full texts of studies comparing R-IHR and L-IHR in multiple databases. Meta-, sensitivity, and bias analyses of the included literature were performed with Review Manager 5.2, and forest plots were drawn. The joint estimate of the risk ratio (RR) and the mean difference (MD) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) was used as a measure of the effect size.
RESULTS
This meta-analysis included 8 eligible studies involving 1,379 Caucasian patients with inguinal hernia (IH). No significant difference was found in pain score (MD =1.52, 95% CI, -0.30, 3.35, P=0.10; I=97%), length of hospital stay (MD =0.14, 95% CI, -0.03, 0.30, P for overall effect =1.63, I=0%), or complications (RR =1.24 with 95% CI, 0.94, 1.63, P for overall effect =0.13, I=0%) between R-IHR and L-IHR. However, there was significant difference in operative time between R-IHR and L-IHR (MD =17.17, 95% CI, 6.32, 28.03, P=0.002; I=84%).
DISCUSSION
This meta-analysis revealed only minor differences between R-IHR and L-IHR in terms of clinical effects and safety in Caucasian patients, although R-IHR has a longer operative time than L-IHR. Both R-IHR and L-IHR are suitable to treat Caucasian patients with IH.
PubMed: 34164519
DOI: 10.21037/atm-21-2126 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2021There has been extensive debate in the surgical literature regarding the optimum surgical access approach to the infrarenal abdominal aorta during an operation to repair... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
There has been extensive debate in the surgical literature regarding the optimum surgical access approach to the infrarenal abdominal aorta during an operation to repair an abdominal aortic aneurysm. The published trials comparing retroperitoneal (RP) and transperitoneal (TP) aortic surgery show conflicting results. This is an update of the review first published in 2016.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of the retroperitoneal versus transperitoneal approach for elective open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair on mortality, complications, hospital stay and blood loss.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and the ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 30 November 2020. The review authors searched the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database and handsearched reference lists of relevant articles to identify additional trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the RP approach versus the TP approach for elective open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. There were no restrictions on language or publication status.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data from the included trials. We resolved any disagreements through discussion with a third review author. Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias in included trials with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the odds ratio (OR) with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous data, we calculated a pooled estimate of treatment effect by calculating the mean difference (MD) and standard deviation (SD) with corresponding 95% CIs. We pooled data using a fixed-effect model, unless we identified heterogeneity, in which case we used a random-effects model. We used GRADE to assess the overall certainty of the evidence. We evaluated the outcomes of mortality, complications, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, hospital stay, blood loss, aortic cross-clamp time and operating time.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified no new studies from the updated searches. After reassessment, we included one study which had previously been excluded. Five RCTs with a combined total of 152 participants are included. The overall certainty of the evidence ranged from low to very low because of the low methodological quality of the included trials (unclear random sequence generation method and allocation concealment, and no blinding of outcome assessors), small sample sizes, small number of events, high heterogeneity and inconsistency between the included trials, no power calculations and relatively short follow-up. There was no evidence of a difference between the RP approach and the TP approach regarding mortality (odds ratio (OR) 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.25; 3 studies, 110 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Similarly, there was no evidence of a difference in complications such as hematoma (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.13 to 6.48; 2 studies, 75 participants; very low-certainty evidence), abdominal wall hernia (OR 10.76, 95% CI 0.55 to 211.78; 1 study, 48 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or chronic wound pain (OR 2.20, 95% CI 0.36 to 13.34; 1 study, 48 participants; very low-certainty evidence) between the RP and TP approaches in participants undergoing elective open AAA repair. The RP approach may reduce ICU stay (mean difference (MD) -19.02 hours, 95% CI -30.83 to -7.21; 3 studies, 106 participants; low-certainty evidence); hospital stay (MD -3.30 days, 95% CI -4.85 to-1.75; 5 studies, 152 participants; low-certainty evidence); and blood loss (MD -504.87 mL, 95% CI -779.19 to -230.56; 4 studies, 129 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the RP approach and the TP approach regarding aortic cross-clamp time (MD 0.69 min, 95% CI -7.23 to 8.60; 4 studies, 129 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or operating time (MD -15.94 min, 95% CI -34.76 to 2.88; 4 studies, 129 participants; very low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Very low-certainty evidence from five small RCTs showed no clear evidence of a difference between the RP approach and the TP approach for elective open AAA repair in terms of mortality, or for rates of complications including hematoma (very low-certainty evidence), abdominal wall hernia (very low-certainty evidence), or chronic wound pain (very low-certainty evidence). However, a shorter intensive care unit (ICU) stay and shorter hospital stay was probably indicated following the RP approach compared to the TP approach (both low-certainty evidence). A possible reduction in blood loss was also shown after the RP approach (very low-certainty evidence). There is no clear difference between the RP approach and TP approach in aortic cross-clamp time or operating time. Further well-designed, large-scale RCTs assessing the RP approach versus TP approach for elective open AAA repair are required.
Topics: Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal; Bias; Blood Loss, Surgical; Elective Surgical Procedures; Hematoma; Humans; Length of Stay; Operative Time; Pain, Postoperative; Peritoneum; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Retroperitoneal Space
PubMed: 34152003
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010373.pub3 -
Emerging Microbes & Infections Dec 2021The World Health Organization (WHO) introduced the new dengue classification in 2009. We aimed to assess the association of clinical signs and symptoms with WHO severe... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The World Health Organization (WHO) introduced the new dengue classification in 2009. We aimed to assess the association of clinical signs and symptoms with WHO severe dengue classification in clinical practice. A systematic literature search was performed using the databases of PubMed, Embase, and Scopus between 2009 and 2018 according to PRISMA guideline. Meta-analysis was performed with the RevMan software. A random or fixed-effect model was applied to pool odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals of important signs and symptoms across studies. Thirty nine articles from 1790 records were included in this review. In our meta-analysis, signs and symptoms associated with higher risk of severe dengue were comorbidity, vomiting, persistent vomiting, abdominal pain or tenderness, pleural effusion, ascites, epistaxis, gum bleeding, GI bleeding, skin bleeding, lethargy or restlessness, hepatomegaly (>2 cm), increased HCT with decreased platelets, shock, dyspnea, impaired consciousness, thrombocytopenia, elevated AST and ALT, gall bladder wall thickening and secondary infection. This review shows new factors comorbidity, epistaxis, GI and skin bleeding, dyspnea, gall bladder wall thickening and secondary infection may be useful to refine the 2009 classification to triage severe dengue patients.
Topics: Comorbidity; Female; Humans; Male; Odds Ratio; Risk Factors; Severe Dengue; World Health Organization
PubMed: 34036893
DOI: 10.1080/22221751.2021.1935327 -
Gut Mar 2022Effective medical therapy and validated trial outcomes are lacking for small bowel Crohn's disease (CD) strictures. Histopathology of surgically resected specimens is...
OBJECTIVE
Effective medical therapy and validated trial outcomes are lacking for small bowel Crohn's disease (CD) strictures. Histopathology of surgically resected specimens is the gold standard for correlation with imaging techniques. However, no validated histopathological scoring systems are currently available for small bowel stricturing disease. We convened an expert panel to evaluate the appropriateness of histopathology scoring systems and items generated based on panel opinion.
DESIGN
Modified RAND/University of California Los Angeles methodology was used to determine the appropriateness of 313 candidate items related to assessment of CD small bowel strictures.
RESULTS
In this exercise, diagnosis of naïve and anastomotic strictures required increased bowel wall thickness, decreased luminal diameter or internal circumference, and fibrosis of the submucosa. Specific definitions for stricture features and technical sampling parameters were also identified. Histopathologically, a stricture was defined as increased thickness of all layers of the bowel wall, fibrosis of the submucosa and bowel wall, and muscularisation of the submucosa. Active mucosal inflammatory disease was defined as neutrophilic inflammation in the lamina propria and any crypt or intact surface epithelium, erosion, ulcer and fistula. Chronic mucosal inflammatory disease was defined as crypt architectural distortion and loss, pyloric gland metaplasia, Paneth cell hyperplasia, basal lymphoplasmacytosis, plasmacytosis and fibrosis, or prominent lymphoid aggregates at the mucosa/submucosa interface. None of the scoring systems used to assess CD strictures were considered appropriate for clinical trials.
CONCLUSION
Standardised assessment of gross pathology and histopathology of CD small bowel strictures will improve clinical trial efficiency and aid drug development.
Topics: Consensus; Constriction, Pathologic; Crohn Disease; Humans; Intestinal Obstruction; Intestine, Large; Severity of Illness Index; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 33952604
DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2021-324374 -
Journal of the American Heart... Apr 2021Background Prior studies have suggested aortic peak wall stress (PWS) and peak wall rupture index (PWRI) can estimate the rupture risk of an abdominal aortic aneurysm... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Background Prior studies have suggested aortic peak wall stress (PWS) and peak wall rupture index (PWRI) can estimate the rupture risk of an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), but whether these measurements have independent predictive ability over assessing AAA diameter alone is unclear. The aim of this systematic review was to compare PWS and PWRI in participants with ruptured and asymptomatic intact AAAs of similar diameter. Methods and Results Web of Science, Scopus, Medline, and The Cochrane Library were systematically searched to identify studies assessing PWS and PWRI in ruptured and asymptomatic intact AAAs of similar diameter. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed using inverse variance-weighted methods. Leave-one-out sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of findings. Risk of bias was assessed using a modification of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and standard quality assessment criteria for evaluating primary research papers. Seven case-control studies involving 309 participants were included. Meta-analyses suggested that PWRI (standardized mean difference, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.14-0.70; =0.004) but not PWS (standardized mean difference, 0.13; 95% CI, -0.18 to 0.44; =0.418) was greater in ruptured than intact AAAs. Sensitivity analyses suggested that the findings were not dependent on the inclusion of any single study. The included studies were assessed to have a medium to high risk of bias. Conclusions Based on limited evidence, this study suggested that PWRI, but not PWS, is greater in ruptured than asymptomatic intact AAAs of similar maximum aortic diameter.
Topics: Aorta, Abdominal; Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal; Aortic Rupture; Aortography; Asymptomatic Diseases; Biomechanical Phenomena; Humans
PubMed: 33855866
DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.120.019772 -
BJS Open Mar 2021Ventra hernias are increasing in prevalence and many recur despite attempted repair. To date, much of the literature is underpowered and divergent. As a result there is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Ventra hernias are increasing in prevalence and many recur despite attempted repair. To date, much of the literature is underpowered and divergent. As a result there is limited high quality evidence to inform surgeons succinctly which perioperative variables influence postoperative recurrence. This systematic review aimed to identify predictors of ventral hernia recurrence.
METHODS
PubMed was searched for studies reporting prognostic data of ventral hernia recurrence between 1 January 1995 and 1 January 2018. Extracted data described hernia type (primary/incisional), definitions of recurrence, methods used to detect recurrence, duration of follow-up, and co-morbidity. Data were extracted for all potential predictors, estimates and thresholds described. Random-effects meta-analysis was used. Bias was assessed with a modified PROBAST (Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool).
RESULTS
Screening of 18 214 abstracts yielded 274 individual studies for inclusion. Hernia recurrence was defined in 66 studies (24.1 per cent), using 41 different unstandardized definitions. Three patient variables (female sex, age 65 years or less, and BMI greater than 25, 30, 35 or 40 kg/m2), five patient co-morbidities (smoking, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, ASA grade III-IV, steroid use), two hernia-related variables (incisional/primary, recurrent/primary), six intraoperative variables (biological mesh, bridged repair, open versus laparoscopic surgery, suture versus mesh repair, onlay/retrorectus, intraperitoneal/retrorectus), and six postoperative variables (any complication, surgical-site occurrence, wound infection, seroma, haematoma, wound dehiscence) were identified as significant prognostic factors for hernia recurrence.
CONCLUSION
This study summarized the current evidence base for predicting ventral hernia recurrence. Results should inform best practice and future research.
Topics: Hernia, Ventral; Herniorrhaphy; Humans; Laparoscopy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Surgical Mesh; Suture Techniques; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33839749
DOI: 10.1093/bjsopen/zraa071 -
BJS Open Mar 2021The incidence of incisional hernia is up to 20 per cent after abdominal surgery. The management of patients with incisional hernia can be complex with an array of...
BACKGROUND
The incidence of incisional hernia is up to 20 per cent after abdominal surgery. The management of patients with incisional hernia can be complex with an array of techniques and meshes available. Ensuring consistency in reporting outcomes across studies on incisional hernia is important and will enable appropriate interpretation, comparison and data synthesis across a range of clinical and operative treatment strategies.
METHODS
Literature searches were performed in MEDLINE and EMBASE (from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2019) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. All studies documenting clinical and patient-reported outcomes for incisional hernia were included.
RESULTS
In total, 1340 studies were screened, of which 92 were included, reporting outcomes on 12 292 patients undergoing incisional hernia repair. Eight broad-based outcome domains were identified, including patient and clinical demographics, hernia-related symptoms, hernia morphology, recurrent incisional hernia, operative variables, postoperative variables, follow-up and patient-reported outcomes. Clinical outcomes such as hernia recurrence rates were reported in 80 studies (87 per cent). A total of nine different definitions for detecting hernia recurrence were identified. Patient-reported outcomes were reported in 31 studies (34 per cent), with 18 different assessment measures used.
CONCLUSIONS
This review demonstrates the significant heterogeneity in outcome reporting in incisional hernia studies, with significant variation in outcome assessment and definitions. This is coupled with significant under-reporting of patient-reported outcomes.
Topics: Herniorrhaphy; Humans; Incisional Hernia; Patient Reported Outcome Measures; Postoperative Complications; Recurrence; Surgical Mesh
PubMed: 33839746
DOI: 10.1093/bjsopen/zrab006