-
Renal Failure Dec 2021The influence of prior failed kidney transplants on outcomes of peritoneal dialysis (PD) is unclear. Thus, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
The influence of prior failed kidney transplants on outcomes of peritoneal dialysis (PD) is unclear. Thus, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the outcomes of patients initiating PD after a failed kidney transplant with those initiating PD without a prior history of kidney transplantation.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, and Google Scholar databases from inception until 25 November 2020. Our meta-analysis considered the absolute number of events of mortality, technical failures, and patients with peritonitis, and we also pooled multi-variable adjusted hazard ratios (HR).
RESULTS
We included 12 retrospective studies. For absolute number of events, our analysis indicated no statistically significant difference in technique failure [RR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.80-1.61; I=52%; = 0.48], number of patients with peritonitis [RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.97-1.32; I=5%; = 0.11] and mortality [RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.67-1.50; I=63%; = 0.99] between the study groups. The pooled analysis of adjusted HRs indicated no statistically significant difference in the risk of technique failure [HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.88-1.78; I=79%; = 0.22], peritonitis [HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.72-1.50; I=76%; = 0.85] and mortality [HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.77-2.00; I=66%; = 0.38] between the study groups.
CONCLUSION
Patients with kidney transplant failure initiating PD do not have an increased risk of mortality, technique failure, or peritonitis as compared to transplant-naïve patients initiating PD. Further studies are needed to evaluate the impact of prior and ongoing immunosuppression on PD outcomes.
Topics: Humans; Kidney Failure, Chronic; Kidney Transplantation; Observational Studies as Topic; Peritoneal Dialysis; Peritonitis; Survival Rate; Treatment Failure
PubMed: 33896379
DOI: 10.1080/0886022X.2021.1914659 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2021Peritoneal fibrosis is characterized by abnormal production of extracellular matrix proteins leading to progressive thickening of the submesothelial compact zone of the...
Peritoneal fibrosis is characterized by abnormal production of extracellular matrix proteins leading to progressive thickening of the submesothelial compact zone of the peritoneal membrane. This process may be caused by a number of insults including pathological conditions linked to clinical practice, such as peritoneal dialysis, abdominal surgery, hemoperitoneum, and infectious peritonitis. All these events may cause acute/chronic inflammation and injury to the peritoneal membrane, which undergoes progressive fibrosis, angiogenesis, and vasculopathy. Among the cellular processes implicated in these peritoneal alterations is the generation of myofibroblasts from mesothelial cells and other cellular sources that are central in the induction of fibrosis and in the subsequent functional deterioration of the peritoneal membrane. Myofibroblast generation and activity is actually integrated in a complex network of extracellular signals generated by the various cellular types, including leukocytes, stably residing or recirculating along the peritoneal membrane. Here, the main extracellular factors and the cellular players are described with emphasis on the cross-talk between immune system and cells of the peritoneal stroma. The understanding of cellular and molecular mechanisms underlying fibrosis of the peritoneal membrane has both a basic and a translational relevance, since it may be useful for setup of therapies aimed at counteracting the deterioration as well as restoring the homeostasis of the peritoneal membrane.
Topics: Animals; Biomarkers; Cell Communication; Cytokines; Disease Susceptibility; Epithelial Cells; Humans; Immunity, Innate; Inflammation Mediators; Leukocytes; Peritoneal Dialysis; Peritoneal Fibrosis; Peritoneum; Peritonitis; Stromal Cells; T-Lymphocyte Subsets
PubMed: 33854496
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.607204 -
Peritoneal Dialysis International :... Jan 2022Peritoneal dialysis (PD)-related peritonitis is one of the top priorities for care and research among PD stakeholders. This study summarizes PD peritonitis rates from...
Peritoneal dialysis (PD)-related peritonitis is one of the top priorities for care and research among PD stakeholders. This study summarizes PD peritonitis rates from available population-based national or regional registries around the world, examining trends over time. This is a systematic review of PD peritonitis rates in patients treated with PD for kidney failure, from census-based national or provincial/statewide/provider registries or databases. MEDLINE (via PubMed) was searched from inception to August 2020, and inquiries made to national registry personnel using the International Comparisons section of the 2018 United States Renal Data System Annual Data Report as a contact list. Quantitative synthesis was done using weighted random-effects Poisson regression. Of 81 countries that reported utilization of PD, 19 did not have a traditional dialysis registry (governed by either professional societies or government entities), and only 33 monitored PD peritonitis rates correctly and accessibly. There is wide variation in PD peritonitis rates between countries, although the global average has been decreasing over time, from 0.600 episodes/patient-year in 1992 to 0.303 in 2019. Other sources of variability include the continent in which the country is nested and the size of its PD population. PD peritonitis, despite its importance for PD stakeholders, is under-monitored. While the global rate is decreasing over time, the presence and extent of this improvement varies from country to country. There is an opportunity for better monitoring, research into underachieving and overachieving nations and development of international clinical support networks.
Topics: Female; Humans; Kidney Failure, Chronic; Male; Peritoneal Dialysis; Peritonitis; Registries; Renal Dialysis
PubMed: 33827339
DOI: 10.1177/0896860821996096 -
BMC Surgery Mar 2021The best treatment for perforated colonic diverticulitis with generalized peritonitis is still under debate. Concurrent strategies are resection with primary anastomosis...
BACKGROUND
The best treatment for perforated colonic diverticulitis with generalized peritonitis is still under debate. Concurrent strategies are resection with primary anastomosis (PRA) with or without diverting ileostomy (DI), Hartmann's procedure (HP), laparoscopic lavage (LL) and damage control surgery (DCS). This review intends to systematically analyze the current literature on DCS.
METHODS
DCS consists of two stages. Emergency surgery: limited resection of the diseased colon, oral and aboral closure, lavage, vacuum-assisted abdominal closure. Second look surgery after 24-48 h: definite reconstruction with colorectal anastomosis (-/ + DI) or HP after adequate resuscitation. The review was conducted in accordance to the PRISMA-P Statement. PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane central register of controlled trials (CENTRAL) and EMBASE were searched using the following term: (Damage control surgery) AND (Diverticulitis OR Diverticulum OR Peritonitis).
RESULTS
Eight retrospective studies including 256 patients met the inclusion criteria. No randomized trial was available. 67% of the included patients had purulent, 30% feculent peritonitis. In 3% Hinchey stage II diverticulitis was found. In 49% the Mannheim peritonitis index (MPI) was greater than 26. Colorectal anastomosis was constructed during the course of the second surgery in 73%. In 15% of the latter DI was applied. The remaining 27% received HP. Postoperative mortality was 9%, morbidity 31% respectively. The anastomotic leak rate was 13%. 55% of patients were discharged without a stoma.
CONCLUSION
DCS is a safe technique for the treatment of acute perforated diverticulitis with generalized peritonitis, allowing a high rate of colorectal anastomosis and stoma-free hospital discharge in more than half of the patients.
Topics: Anastomosis, Surgical; Diverticulitis, Colonic; Humans; Peritonitis; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33726727
DOI: 10.1186/s12893-021-01130-5 -
Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and... 2021Chronic pain is a common and distressing symptom reported by patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Clinical practice and research in this area do not appear to be...
BACKGROUND
Chronic pain is a common and distressing symptom reported by patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Clinical practice and research in this area do not appear to be advancing sufficiently to address the issue of chronic pain management in patients with CKD.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the prevalence and severity of chronic pain in patients with CKD.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
SETTING
Interventional and observational studies presenting data from 2000 or later. Exclusion criteria included acute kidney injury or studies that limited the study population to a specific cause, symptom, and/or comorbidity.
PATIENTS
Adults with glomerular filtration rate (GFR) category 3 to 5 CKD including dialysis patients and those managed conservatively without dialysis.
MEASUREMENTS
Data extracted included title, first author, design, country, year of data collection, publication year, mean age, stage of CKD, prevalence of pain, and severity of pain.
METHODS
Databases searched included MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library, last searched on February 3, 2020. Two reviewers independently screened all titles and abstracts, assessed potentially relevant articles, and extracted data. We estimated pooled prevalence of overall chronic pain, musculoskeletal pain, bone/joint pain, muscle pain/soreness, and neuropathic pain and the statistic was computed to measure heterogeneity. Random effects models were used to account for variations in study design and sample populations and a double arcsine transformation was used in the model calculations to account for potential overweighting of studies reporting either very high or very low prevalence measurements. Pain severity scores were calibrated to a score out of 10, to compare across studies. Weighted mean severity scores and 95% confidence intervals were reported.
RESULTS
Sixty-eight studies representing 16 558 patients from 26 countries were included. The mean prevalence of chronic pain in hemodialysis patients was 60.5%, and the mean prevalence of moderate or severe pain was 43.6%. Although limited, pain prevalence data for peritoneal dialysis patients (35.9%), those managed conservatively without dialysis (59.8%), those following withdrawal of dialysis (39.2%), and patients with earlier GFR category of CKD (61.2%) suggest similarly high prevalence rates.
LIMITATIONS
Studies lacked a consistent approach to defining the chronicity and nature of pain. There was also variability in the measures used to determine pain severity, limiting the ability to compare findings across populations. Furthermore, most studies reported mean severity scores for the entire cohort, rather than reporting the prevalence (numerator and denominator) for each of the pain severity categories (mild, moderate, and severe). Mean severity scores for a population do not allow for "responder analyses" nor allow for an understanding of clinically relevant pain.
CONCLUSIONS
Chronic pain is common and often severe across diverse CKD populations providing a strong imperative to establish chronic pain management as a clinical and research priority. Future research needs to move toward a better understanding of the determinants of chronic pain and to evaluating the effectiveness of pain management strategies with particular attention to the patient outcomes such as overall symptom burden, physical function, and quality of life. The current variability in the outcome measures used to assess pain limits the ability to pool data or make comparisons among studies, which will hinder future evaluations of the efficacy and effectiveness of treatments. Recommendations for measuring and reporting pain in future CKD studies are provided.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO Registration number CRD42020166965.
PubMed: 33680484
DOI: 10.1177/2054358121993995 -
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Jun 2021There are still concerns over the safety of laparoscopic surgery in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients due to the potential risk of viral transmission through... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
There are still concerns over the safety of laparoscopic surgery in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients due to the potential risk of viral transmission through surgical smoke/laparoscopic pneumoperitoneum.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review of currently available literature to determine the presence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2) in abdominal tissues or fluids and in surgical smoke.
RESULTS
A total of 19 studies (15 case reports and 4 case series) comprising 29 COVID-19 patients were included. The viral RNA was positively identified in 11 patients (37.9%). The samples that tested positive include the peritoneal fluid, bile, ascitic fluid, peritoneal dialysate, duodenal wall, and appendix. Similar samples, together with the omentum and abdominal subcutaneous fat, tested negative in the other patients. Only one study investigated SARS-COV-2 RNA in surgical smoke generated during laparoscopy, reporting negative findings.
CONCLUSIONS
There are conflicting results regarding the presence of SARS-COV-2 in abdominal tissues and fluids. No currently available evidence supports the hypothesis that SARS-COV-2 can be aerosolized and transmitted through surgical smoke. Larger studies are urgently needed to corroborate these findings.
Topics: Abdomen; Ascitic Fluid; COVID-19; Humans; Laparoscopy; RNA, Viral; SARS-CoV-2; Smoke
PubMed: 33675407
DOI: 10.1007/s00423-021-02142-8 -
Journal of Pediatric Surgery Sep 2021Laparoscopic surgery is increasingly used to repair paediatric inguinal hernias and can be divided into intra- or extra-corporeal closing techniques. No statement... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Laparoscopic surgery is increasingly used to repair paediatric inguinal hernias and can be divided into intra- or extra-corporeal closing techniques. No statement regarding the superiority of one of the two techniques can be made. This study aims to provide evidence supporting the superiority of intra- or extra-corporeal suturing technique.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library databases. Randomised controlled trials and prospective studies comparing different laparoscopic techniques were eligible for inclusion. Data were pooled using a random-effects model, comparing single-port extra-peritoneal closure to intra-peritoneal purse string suture closing. Primary outcome was recurrence rate. Secondary outcomes were duration of surgery (min), peri‑ and post-operative complications (i.e. injury of spermatic vessels or spermatic cord, tuba lesions, bleeding and apnoea, haematoma/scrotal oedema, hydrocele, wound infection, iatrogenic ascent of the testis and testicular atrophy), contralateral patent processus vaginalis (CPPV) rate, post-operative pain, length of hospital stay and cosmetic appearance of the wound.
RESULTS
Fifteen studies (n = 3680 patients, age range 0.5-12 years, follow-up range 3-10 months) were included is this systematic review. Intra-corporeal hernia repair was performed in 738 children and extra-corporeal repair was performed in 2942 children. A pooled data analysis could only be performed for the single port extra-corporeal closing technique and the three port intra-corporeal closing technique. We found that recurrence rate was lower in the single-port extra-corporeal closing technique compared to the intra-corporeal purse suture closing technique (0.6% vs 5.5%, 95% CI 0.107 (0.024-0.477); p < 0.001). Operation time was shorter for extra-corporeal unilateral and bilateral inguinal hernia repair compared with intra-corporeal approach, but no pooled data analysis could be performed. Due to the presence of substantial heterogeneity, it was not possible to assess other outcome measures.
CONCLUSION
Single-port extra-corporeal closure seems to result in less recurrent hernias and a shorter operative time compared to intra-corporeal purse suture closing technique. No difference regarding peri‑ and post-operative complications could be found and no statements regarding the length of hospital admission, post-operative pain and cosmetics could be made due to substantial heterogeneity.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Level II.
Topics: Child; Data Analysis; Hernia, Inguinal; Herniorrhaphy; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Laparoscopy; Male; Prospective Studies; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33674123
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2021.01.049 -
Life (Basel, Switzerland) Feb 2021Emergency midline laparotomy is the cornerstone of survival in patients with peritonitis. While bundling of care elements has been shown to optimize outcomes, this has...
BACKGROUND
Emergency midline laparotomy is the cornerstone of survival in patients with peritonitis. While bundling of care elements has been shown to optimize outcomes, this has focused on elective rather than emergency abdominal surgery. The aim of this study was to undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis of factors affecting the development of surgical site infection (SSI) in patients undergoing midline emergency laparotomy.
METHODS
An ethically approved, PROSPERO registered (ID: CRD42020193246) meta-analysis and systematic review, searching PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Library electronic databases from January 2015 to June 2020 and adhering to PRISMA guidelines was undertaken. Search headings included "emergency surgery", "laparotomy", "surgical site infection", "midline incision" and "wound bundle". Suitable publications were graded using Methodological Index for Non-Randomised Studies (MINORS); papers scoring ≥16/24 were included for data analysis. The primary outcome in this study was SSI rates following the use of wound bundles. Secondary outcomes consisted of the effect of the individual interventions included in the bundles and the SSI rates for superficial and deep infections. Five studies focusing on closure techniques were grouped to assess their effect on SSI.
RESULTS
This study identified 1875 articles. A total of 58 were potentially suitable, and 11 were included after applying MINORS score. The final cohort included 2,856 patients from eight countries. Three papers came from the USA, two papers from Japan and the remainder from Denmark, England, Iran, Netherlands, Spain and Turkey. There was a 32% non-significant SSI reduction after the implementation of wound bundles (RR = 0.68; CI, 0.39-1.17; p = 0.16). In bundles used for technical closure the reduction in SSI of 15% was non-significant (RR = 0.85; CI, 0.57-1.26; p = 0.41). Analysis of an effective wound bundle was limited due to insufficient data.
CONCLUSIONS
This study identified a significant deficit in the world literature relating to emergency laparotomy and wound outcome optimisation. Given the global burden of emergency general surgery urgent action is needed to assess bundle's ability to potentially improve outcome after emergency laparotomy.
PubMed: 33670186
DOI: 10.3390/life11020138 -
International Journal of Colorectal... Aug 2021The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of right hemicolectomy with CME performed with laparoscopic and open surgery. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of right hemicolectomy with CME performed with laparoscopic and open surgery.
METHODS
PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data, Google Scholar and the ClinicalTrials.gov register were searched. Primary outcome was the overall number of harvested lymph nodes. Secondary outcomes were short and long-term course variables. A meta-analysis was performed to calculate risk ratios.
RESULTS
Twenty-one studies were identified with 5038 patients enrolled. The difference in number of harvested lymph nodes was not statistically significant (MD 0.68, - 0.41-1.76, P = 0.22). The only RCT shows a significant advantage in favour of laparoscopy (MD 3.30, 95% CI - 0.20-6.40, P = 0.04). The analysis of CCTs showed an advantage in favour of the laparoscopic group, but the result was not statically significantly (MD - 0.55, 95% CI - 0.57-1.67, P = 0.33). The overall incidence of local recurrence was not different between the groups, while systemic recurrence at 5 years was lower in laparoscopic group. Laparoscopy showed better short-term outcomes including overall complications, lower estimated blood loss, lower wound infections and shorter hospital stay, despite a longer operative time. The rate of anastomotic and chyle leak was similar in the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite the several limitations of this study, we found that the median number of lymph node harvested in the laparoscopic group is not different compared to open surgery. Laparoscopy was associated with a lower incidence of systemic recurrence.
Topics: China; Colectomy; Colonic Neoplasms; Humans; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Lymph Node Excision; Mesocolon; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Operative Time; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33644837
DOI: 10.1007/s00384-021-03891-0 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2021Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) who require urgent initiation of dialysis but without having a permanent dialysis access have traditionally commenced... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
BACKGROUND
Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) who require urgent initiation of dialysis but without having a permanent dialysis access have traditionally commenced haemodialysis (HD) using a central venous catheter (CVC). However, several studies have reported that urgent initiation of peritoneal dialysis (PD) is a viable alternative option for such patients.
OBJECTIVES
This review aimed to examine the benefits and harms of urgent-start PD compared to HD initiated using a CVC in adults and children with CKD requiring long-term kidney replacement therapy.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 25 May 2020 for randomised controlled trials through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. For non-randomised controlled trials, MEDLINE (OVID) (1946 to 11 February 2020) and EMBASE (OVID) (1980 to 11 February 2020) were searched.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs and non-RCTs comparing urgent-start PD to HD initiated using a CVC.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors extracted data and assessed the quality of studies independently. Additional information was obtained from the primary investigators. The estimates of effect were analysed using random-effects model and results were presented as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The GRADE framework was used to make judgments regarding certainty of the evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
Overall, seven observational studies (991 participants) were included: three prospective cohort studies and four retrospective cohort studies. All the outcomes except one (bacteraemia) were graded as very low certainty of evidence given that all included studies were observational studies and few events resulting in imprecision, and inconsistent findings. Urgent-start PD may reduce the incidence of catheter-related bacteraemia compared with HD initiated with a CVC (2 studies, 301 participants: RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.41; I = 0%; low certainty evidence), which translated into 131 fewer bacteraemia episodes per 1000 (95% CI 89 to 145 fewer). Urgent-start PD has uncertain effects on peritonitis risk (2 studies, 301 participants: RR 1.78, 95% CI 0.23 to 13.62; I = 0%; very low certainty evidence), exit-site/tunnel infection (1 study, 419 participants: RR 3.99, 95% CI 1.2 to 12.05; very low certainty evidence), exit-site bleeding (1 study, 178 participants: RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.33; very low certainty evidence), catheter malfunction (2 studies; 597 participants: RR 0.26, 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.91; I = 66%; very low certainty evidence), catheter re-adjustment (2 studies, 225 participants: RR: 0.13; 95% CI 0.00 to 18.61; I = 92%; very low certainty evidence), technique survival (1 study, 123 participants: RR: 1.18, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.61; very low certainty evidence), or patient survival (5 studies, 820 participants; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.07; I = 0%; very low certainty evidence) compared with HD initiated using a CVC. Two studies using different methods of measurements for hospitalisation reported that hospitalisation was similar although one study reported higher hospitalisation rates in HD initiated using a catheter compared with urgent-start PD.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Compared with HD initiated using a CVC, urgent-start PD may reduce the risk of bacteraemia and had uncertain effects on other complications of dialysis and technique and patient survival. In summary, there are very few studies directly comparing the outcomes of urgent-start PD and HD initiated using a CVC for patients with CKD who need to commence dialysis urgently. This evidence gap needs to be addressed in future studies.
Topics: Bacteremia; Bias; Catheter-Related Infections; Central Venous Catheters; Emergency Treatment; Hospitalization; Humans; Observational Studies as Topic; Peritoneal Dialysis; Peritonitis; Renal Dialysis; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic; Time-to-Treatment
PubMed: 33501650
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012899.pub2