-
Scandinavian Journal of Surgery : SJS :... Jun 2021Acute mesenteric venous thrombosis accounts for up to 20% of all patients with acute mesenteric ischemia in high-income countries. Acute mesenteric venous thrombosis is...
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Acute mesenteric venous thrombosis accounts for up to 20% of all patients with acute mesenteric ischemia in high-income countries. Acute mesenteric venous thrombosis is nowadays relatively more often diagnosed with intravenous contrast-enhanced computed tomography in the portal phase than at explorative laparotomy No high-quality comparative studies between anticoagulation alone, endovascular therapy, or surgery exists. The aim of the present systematic review was to offer a contemporary overview on management.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Eleven relevant published original studies with series of at least ten patients were retrieved from a Pub Med search between 2015 and 2020 using the Medical Subject Heading term "mesenteric venous thrombosis."
RESULTS
When MVT is diagnosed early, immediate anticoagulation with either unfractionated heparin or subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin should commence. Surgeons need to be aware of the importance to scrutinize the computed tomography images themselves for assessment of secondary intestinal abnormalities to mesenteric venous thrombosis and the risk of bowel resection and worse prognosis. Progression toward peritonitis is an indication for explorative laparotomy and assessment of bowel viability. Frank transmural small bowel necrosis should be resected and bowel anastomosis may be delayed for several days until second look. Meanwhile, intravenous full-dose unfractionated heparin should be given at the end of the first operation. Postoperative major intra-abdominal or gastrointestinal bleeding occurs rarely, but the heparin effect can instantaneously be reversed by . Patients who do not improve during conservative therapy with anticoagulation alone but without developing peritonitis may be subjected to endovascular therapy in expert centers. When the patient's intestinal function has recovered, with or without bowel resection, switch from parenteral unfractionated heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin therapy to oral anticoagulation can be performed. There is a trend that direct oral anticoagulants are increasingly used instead of vitamin K antagonists. Up to now, direct oral anticoagulants have been shown to be equally effective with the same rate of bleeding complications. Patients with no strong permanent trigger factor for mesenteric venous thrombosis such as intra-abdominal cancer should undergo blood screening for inherited and acquired thrombophilia.
CONCLUSION
Early diagnosis with emergency computed tomography with intravenous contrast-enhancement and imaging in the portal phase and anticoagulation therapy is necessary to be able to have a succesful non-operative succesful course.
Topics: Anticoagulants; Heparin; Humans; Mesenteric Ischemia; Mesenteric Veins; Venous Thrombosis
PubMed: 33118463
DOI: 10.1177/1457496920969084 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2017Surgeons who perform laparotomy have a number of decisions to make regarding abdominal closure. Material and size of potential suture types varies widely. In addition,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Surgeons who perform laparotomy have a number of decisions to make regarding abdominal closure. Material and size of potential suture types varies widely. In addition, surgeons can choose to close the incision in anatomic layers or mass ('en masse'), as well as using either a continuous or interrupted suturing technique, of which there are different styles of each. There is ongoing debate as to which suturing techniques and suture materials are best for achieving definitive wound closure while minimising the risk of short- and long-term complications.
OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this review were to identify the best available suture techniques and suture materials for closure of the fascia following laparotomy incisions, by assessing the following comparisons: absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures; mass versus layered closure; continuous versus interrupted closure techniques; monofilament versus multifilament sutures; and slow absorbable versus fast absorbable sutures. Our objective was not to determine the single best combination of suture material and techniques, but to compare the individual components of abdominal closure.
SEARCH METHODS
On 8 February 2017 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two trials registries, and Science Citation Index. There were no limitations based on language or date of publication. We searched the reference lists of all included studies to identify trials that our searches may have missed.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared suture materials or closure techniques, or both, for fascial closure of laparotomy incisions. We excluded trials that compared only types of skin closures, peritoneal closures or use of retention sutures.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We abstracted data and assessed the risk of bias for each trial. We calculated a summary risk ratio (RR) for the outcomes assessed in the review, all of which were dichotomous. We used random-effects modelling, based on the heterogeneity seen throughout the studies and analyses. We completed subgroup analysis planned a priori for each outcome, excluding studies where interventions being compared differed by more than one component, making it impossible to determine which variable impacted on the outcome, or the possibility of a synergistic effect. We completed sensitivity analysis, excluding trials with at least one trait with high risk of bias. We assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADEpro guidelines.
MAIN RESULTS
Fifty-five RCTs with a total of 19,174 participants met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. Included studies were heterogeneous in the type of sutures used, methods of closure and patient population. Many of the included studies reported multiple comparisons.For our primary outcome, the proportion of participants who developed incisional hernia at one year or more of follow-up, we did not find evidence that suture absorption (absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures, RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.32, moderate-quality evidence; or slow versus fast absorbable sutures, RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.06, moderate-quality evidence), closure method (mass versus layered, RR 1.92, 95% CI 0.58 to 6.35, very low-quality evidence) or closure technique (continuous versus interrupted, RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.35, moderate-quality evidence) resulted in a difference in the risk of incisional hernia. We did, however, find evidence to suggest that monofilament sutures reduced the risk of incisional hernia when compared with multifilament sutures (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.98, I = 30%, moderate-quality evidence).For our secondary outcomes, we found that none of the interventions reduced the risk of wound infection, whether based on suture absorption (absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures, RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.17, moderate-quality evidence; or slow versus fast absorbable sutures, RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.57, moderate-quality evidence), closure method (mass versus layered, RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.30, low-quality evidence) or closure technique (continuous versus interrupted, RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.34, moderate-quality evidence).Similarily, none of the interventions reduced the risk of wound dehiscence whether based on suture absorption (absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures, RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.10, moderate-quality evidence; or slow versus fast absorbable sutures, RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.61, moderate-quality evidence), closure method (mass versus layered, RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.52, moderate-quality evidence) or closure technique (continuous versus interrupted, RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.64, moderate-quality evidence).Absorbable sutures, compared with non-absorbable sutures (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.94, low-quality evidence) reduced the risk of sinus or fistula tract formation. None of the other comparisons showed a difference (slow versus fast absorbable sutures, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.05 to 16.05, very low-quality evidence; mass versus layered, RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.62, low-quality evidence; continuous versus interrupted, RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.64 to 3.61, very low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on this moderate-quality body of evidence, monofilament sutures may reduce the risk of incisional hernia. Absorbable sutures may also reduce the risk of sinus or fistula tract formation, but this finding is based on low-quality evidence.We had serious concerns about the design or reporting of several of the 55 included trials. The comparator arms in many trials differed by more than one component, making it impossible to attribute differences between groups to any one component. In addition, the patient population included in many of the studies was very heterogeneous. Trials included both emergency and elective cases, different types of disease pathology (e.g. colon surgery, hepatobiliary surgery, etc.) or different types of incisions (e.g. midline, paramedian, subcostal).Consequently, larger, high-quality trials to further address this clinical challenge are warranted. Future studies should ensure that proper randomisation and allocation techniques are performed, wound assessors are blinded, and that the duration of follow-up is adequate. It is important that only one type of intervention is compared between groups. In addition, a homogeneous patient population would allow for a more accurate assessment of the interventions.
Topics: Abdominal Wound Closure Techniques; Fistula; Humans; Incisional Hernia; Laparotomy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Wound Dehiscence; Surgical Wound Infection; Suture Techniques; Sutures
PubMed: 29099149
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005661.pub2 -
Annals of Oncology : Official Journal... Apr 2012Questions remain about the shape of the dose-response relationship between body mass index (BMI) and pancreatic cancer risk, possible confounding by smoking, and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Questions remain about the shape of the dose-response relationship between body mass index (BMI) and pancreatic cancer risk, possible confounding by smoking, and differences by gender or geographic location. Whether abdominal obesity increases risk is unclear.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies of the association between BMI, abdominal fatness and pancreatic cancer risk and searched PubMed and several other databases up to January 2011. Summary relative risks (RRs) were calculated using a random-effects model.
RESULTS
Twenty-three prospective studies of BMI and pancreatic cancer risk with 9504 cases were included. The summary RR for a 5-unit increment was 1.10 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07-1.14, I(2) = 19%] and results were similar when stratified by gender and geographic location. There was evidence of a non-linear association, P(non-linearity) = 0.005; however, among nonsmokers, there was increased risk even within the 'normal' BMI range. The summary RR for a 10-cm increase in waist circumference was 1.11 (95% CI 1.05-1.18, I(2) = 0%) and for a 0.1-unit increment in waist-to-hip ratio was 1.19 (95% CI 1.09-1.31, I(2) = 11%).
CONCLUSIONS
Both general and abdominal fatness increases pancreatic cancer risk. Among nonsmokers, risk increases even among persons within the normal BMI range.
Topics: Body Mass Index; Humans; Incidence; Obesity, Abdominal; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Prospective Studies; Regression Analysis; Risk Factors; Waist-Hip Ratio
PubMed: 21890910
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdr398 -
Bioscience Reports Jun 2017To systematically and quantitatively review the relation of abdominal obesity, as measured by waist circumference (WC) and waist to hip ratio (WHR), to total... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
To systematically and quantitatively review the relation of abdominal obesity, as measured by waist circumference (WC) and waist to hip ratio (WHR), to total gastroesophageal cancer, gastric cancer (GC), and esophageal cancer. PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched for studies assessing the association between abdominal obesity and gastroesophageal cancer (GC and/or esophageal cancer) up to August 2016. A random-effect model was used to calculate the summary relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Seven prospective cohort studies - one publication included two separate cohorts - from six publications were included in the final analysis. A total of 2130 gastroesophageal cancer cases diagnosed amongst 913182 participants. Higher WC and WHR were significantly associated with increased risk of total gastroesophageal cancer (WC: RR 1.68, 95% CI: 1.38, 2.04; WHR: RR 1.49, 95% CI: 1.19, 1.88), GC (WC: RR 1.48, 95% CI: 1.24, 1.78; WHR: 1.33, 95% CI: 1.04, 1.70), and esophageal cancer (WC: RR 2.06, 95% CI: 1.30, 3.24; WHR: RR 1.99, 95% CI: 1.05, 3.75).Findings from our subgroup analyses showed non-significant positive associations between gastric non-cardia adenocarcinoma (GNCA) and both measures of abdominal adiposity, while gastric cardia adenocarcinoma (GCA) was positively associated with WC but not with WHR. On analysis restricted to studies that adjusted for body mass index (BMI), WC was positively associated with GC and esophageal cancer, whereas WHR was positively associated with risk of GC only. Although limited, the findings from our meta-analysis suggest the potential role of abdominal obesity in the etiology of gastric and esophageal cancers.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Adult; Aged; Body Mass Index; Case-Control Studies; Esophageal Neoplasms; Esophagogastric Junction; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Obesity, Abdominal; Prospective Studies; Risk Factors; Stomach Neoplasms; Waist Circumference; Waist-Hip Ratio
PubMed: 28336766
DOI: 10.1042/BSR20160474 -
Scientific Reports May 2023Obesity has been associated with increased risk of adult asthma, however, not all studies have found a clear association between overweight and the incidence of asthma,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Obesity has been associated with increased risk of adult asthma, however, not all studies have found a clear association between overweight and the incidence of asthma, and data on other adiposity measures have been limited. Hence, we aimed to summarize evidence on association between adiposity and adult asthma. Relevant studies were retrieved through searches conducted in PubMed, and EMBASE up to March 2021. A total of sixteen studies (63,952 cases and 1,161,169 participants) were included in the quantitative synthesis. The summary RR was 1.32 (95% CI 1.21-1.44, I = 94.6%, p< 0.0001, n = 13) per 5 kg/m increase in BMI, 1.26 (95% CI 1.09-1.46, I = 88.6%, p < 0.0001, n = 5) per 10 cm increase in waist circumference and 1.33 (95% CI 1.22-1.44, I = 62.3%, p= 0.05, n = 4) per 10 kg increase in weight gain. Although the test for nonlinearity was significant for BMI (p < 0.00001), weight change (p = 0.002), and waist circumference (p = 0.02), there was a clear dose-response relationship between higher levels of adiposity and asthma risk. The magnitude of the associations and the consistency of the results across studies and adiposity measures provide strong evidence that overweight and obesity, waist circumference and weight gain increases asthma risk. These findings support policies to curb the global epidemic of overweight and obesity.
Topics: Humans; Adult; Body Mass Index; Overweight; Waist-Hip Ratio; Risk Factors; Obesity; Waist Circumference; Weight Gain; Cohort Studies; Adiposity; Asthma
PubMed: 37173338
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-31373-6 -
Nutrients Dec 2016Several meta-analyses of observational studies have been performed to examine the association between general obesity, as measured by body mass index (BMI), and lung... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Several meta-analyses of observational studies have been performed to examine the association between general obesity, as measured by body mass index (BMI), and lung cancer. These meta-analyses suggest an inverse relation between high BMI and this cancer. In contrast to general obesity, abdominal obesity appears to play a role in the development of lung cancer. However, the association between abdominal obesity (as measured by waist circumference (WC) (BMI adjusted) and waist to hip ratio (WHR)) and lung cancer is not fully understood due to sparse available evidence regarding this association. PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched for studies assessing the association between abdominal obesity and lung cancer up to October 2016. The summary relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated with a random-effects model. Six prospective cohort studies with 5827 lung cancer cases among 831,535 participants were included in our meta-analysis. Each 10 cm increase in WC and 0.1 unit increase in WHR were associated with 10% (RR 1.10; 95% CI 1.04, 1.17; ² = 27.7%, -heterogeneity = 0.198) and 5% (RR 1.05; 95% CI 1.00, 1.11; ² = 25.2%, -heterogeneity = 0.211) greater risks of lung cancer, respectively. According to smoking status, greater WHR was only positively associated with lung cancer among former smokers (RR 1.11; 95% CI 1.00, 1.23). In contrast, greater WC was associated with increased lung cancer risk among never smokers (RR 1.11; 95% CI 1.00, 1.23), former smokers (RR 1.12; 95% CI 1.03, 1.22) and current smokers (RR 1.16; 95% CI 1.08, 1.25). The summary RRs for highest versus lowest categories of WC and WHR were 1.32 (95% CI 1.13, 1.54; ² = 18.2%, -heterogeneity = 0.281) and 1.10 (95% CI 1.00, 1.23; ² = 24.2%, -heterogeneity = 0.211), respectively. In summary, abdominal obesity may play an important role in the development of lung cancer.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Body Mass Index; Confidence Intervals; Female; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Male; Middle Aged; Obesity, Abdominal; Observational Studies as Topic; Prospective Studies; Risk; Risk Factors; Smoking; Waist Circumference; Waist-Hip Ratio
PubMed: 27983672
DOI: 10.3390/nu8120810 -
Frontiers in Endocrinology 2022Increased abdominal visceral adipose tissue (VAT) implies an adverse cardio-metabolic profile. We examined the association of abdominal VAT parameters and all-cause...
INTRODUCTION
Increased abdominal visceral adipose tissue (VAT) implies an adverse cardio-metabolic profile. We examined the association of abdominal VAT parameters and all-cause mortality risk.
METHODS
We systematically searched four databases. We performed citations/articles screening, data abstraction, and quality assessment in duplicate and independently (CRD42020205021).
RESULTS
We included 12 cohorts, the majority used computed tomography to assess abdominal VAT area. Six cohorts with a mean age ≤ 65 years, examining all-cause mortality risk per increment in VAT area (cm) or volume (cm), showed a 11-98% relative risk increase with higher VAT parameters. However, the association lost significance after adjusting for glycemic indices, body mass index, or other fat parameters. In 4 cohorts with a mean age >65 years, the findings on mortality were inconsistent. Conversely, in two cohorts (mean age 73-77 years), a higher VAT density, was inversely proportional to VAT area, and implied a higher mortality risk.
CONCLUSION
A high abdominal VAT area seems to be associated with increased all-cause mortality in individuals ≤ 65 years, possibly mediated by metabolic complications, and not through an independent effect. This relationship is weaker and may reverse in older individuals, most likely secondary to confounding bias and reverse causality. An individual participant data meta-analysis is needed to confirm our findings, and to define an abdominal VAT area cutoff implying increased mortality risk.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=205021, identifier CRD42020205021.
Topics: Abdominal Fat; Aged; Body Mass Index; Humans; Intra-Abdominal Fat; Risk Factors; Tomography, X-Ray Computed
PubMed: 36082075
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2022.922931 -
European Journal of Epidemiology Mar 2017Different adiposity measures have been associated with increased risk of atrial fibrillation, however, results have previously only been summarized for BMI. We therefore... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Different adiposity measures have been associated with increased risk of atrial fibrillation, however, results have previously only been summarized for BMI. We therefore conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies to clarify the association between different adiposity measures and risk of atrial fibrillation. PubMed and Embase databases were searched up to October 24th 2016. Summary relative risks (RRs) were calculated using random effects models. Twenty-nine unique prospective studies (32 publications) were included. Twenty-five studies (83,006 cases, 2,405,381 participants) were included in the analysis of BMI and atrial fibrillation. The summary RR was 1.28 (95% confidence interval: 1.20-1.38, I = 97%) per 5 unit increment in BMI, 1.18 (95% CI: 1.12-1.25, I = 73%, n = 5) and 1.32 (95% CI: 1.16-1.51, I = 91%, n = 3) per 10 cm increase in waist and hip circumference, respectively, 1.09 (95% CI: 1.02-1.16, I = 44%, n = 4) per 0.1 unit increase in waist-to-hip ratio, 1.09 (95% CI: 1.02-1.16, I = 94%, n = 4) per 5 kg increase in fat mass, 1.10 (95% CI: 0.92-1.33, I = 90%, n = 3) per 10% increase in fat percentage, 1.10 (95% CI: 1.08-1.13, I = 74%, n = 10) per 5 kg increase in weight, and 1.08 (95% CI: 0.97-1.19, I = 86%, n = 2) per 5% increase in weight gain. The association between BMI and atrial fibrillation was nonlinear, p < 0.0001, with a stronger association at higher BMI levels, however, increased risk was observed even at a BMI of 22-24 compared to 20. In conclusion, general and abdominal adiposity and higher body fat mass increase the risk of atrial fibrillation.
Topics: Adiposity; Atrial Fibrillation; Body Mass Index; Humans; Obesity, Abdominal; Prospective Studies; Risk Factors; Waist Circumference; Waist-Hip Ratio
PubMed: 28194602
DOI: 10.1007/s10654-017-0232-4 -
International Journal of Surgery... Apr 2024The clinical data regarding the relationships between BMI and abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) are inconsistent, especially for the obese and overweight patients. The... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The clinical data regarding the relationships between BMI and abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) are inconsistent, especially for the obese and overweight patients. The aims of this study were to determine whether obesity is associated with the presence of AAA and to investigate the quantitative relationship between BMI and the risk of AAA presence and postoperative mortality.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases were used to search for pertinent studies updated to December 2023. The pooled relative risk (RR) with 95% CI was estimated by conventional meta-analysis based on random effects model. Dose-response meta-analyses using robust-error meta-regression (REMR) model were conducted to quantify the associations between BMI and AAA outcome variables. Subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis, and publication bias analysis were performed according to the characteristics of participants.
RESULTS
Eighteen studies were included in our study. The meta-analysis showed a higher prevalence of AAA with a RR of 1.07 in patients with obesity. The dose-response meta-analysis revealed a nonlinear relationship between BMI and the risk of AAA presence. A 'U' shape curve reflecting the correlation between BMI and the risk of postoperative mortality in AAA patients was also uncovered, suggesting the 'safest' BMI interval (28.55, 31.05) with the minimal RR.
CONCLUSIONS
Obesity is positively but nonlinearly correlated with the increased risk of AAA presence. BMI is related to AAA postoperative mortality in a 'U' shaped curve, with the lowest RR observed among patients suffering from overweight and obesity. These findings offer a preventive strategy for AAA morbidity and provide guidance for improving the prognosis in patients undergone AAA surgical repair.
Topics: Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal; Humans; Body Mass Index; Obesity; Risk Factors; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 38320094
DOI: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000001125 -
Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons... Feb 2020Gynaecological structures such as the ovaries, fallopian tubes, ligaments and uterus are rarely encountered inside a hernial sac. The prevalence of groin hernias...
INTRODUCTION
Gynaecological structures such as the ovaries, fallopian tubes, ligaments and uterus are rarely encountered inside a hernial sac. The prevalence of groin hernias containing parts of female genitalia remains unknown. The aim of this review was to summarise the existing evidence on inguinal hernias containing ovaries with or without the other female adnexa.
METHODS
A systematic search was conducted for literature published up to February 2018 using the MEDLINE, Scopus and Google Scholar™ databases along with the references of the full-text articles retrieved. Papers on observational studies and case reports concerning women who were diagnosed with an ovarian inguinal hernia (pre or intraoperatively) were considered eligible for inclusion in the review.
RESULTS
Fifteen papers (13 case reports, 2 case series) comprising seventeen patients (mean age 47.9 years) were evaluated. A left-sided hernia was noted in 13 cases (77%) whereas 4 patients had a right-sided hernia. Eight patients underwent preoperative imaging with computed tomography, ultrasonography or both. This was diagnostic in five cases. In 11 patients, hernia contents were repositioned, 2 had a salpingo-oophorectomy and 2 an oophorectomy. Eight patients underwent hernia repair with mesh placement while three had a herniorrhaphy.
CONCLUSIONS
Ovarian inguinal hernias should be considered among the differential diagnoses of a groin mass or swelling. In women of reproductive age, repair of the hernia with the intent to preserve fertility is of critical importance.
Topics: Female; Hernia, Inguinal; Herniorrhaphy; Humans; Inguinal Canal; Ovarian Diseases; Ovariectomy; Ovary; Prevalence; Salpingo-oophorectomy; Surgical Mesh; Tomography, X-Ray Computed; Ultrasonography
PubMed: 31696731
DOI: 10.1308/rcsann.2019.0137