-
Frontiers in Oncology 2023The number of overweight patients with gastric cancer (GC) is increasing, and no previous study has compared laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) and robotic gastrectomy (RG)...
INTRODUCTION
The number of overweight patients with gastric cancer (GC) is increasing, and no previous study has compared laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) and robotic gastrectomy (RG) in obese patients with GC. To investigate the perioperative and oncologic outcomes of RG and LG in obese GC patients, we performed a meta-analysis of propensity matched scores and retrospective studies to compare the perioperative parameters, oncologic findings, and short-term postoperative outcomes between the two groups.
METHODS
This study was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. A search was performed on PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register to identify eligible propensity matched scores and retrospective studies conducted and published before December 2022. Data on perioperative and oncological outcomes were included in the meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Overall, we identified 1 propensity score match study and 5 randomized control trials of RG and LG, enrolling a total of 718 patients (197 and 521 patients received RG and LG, respectively). No significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of complications, bleeding, or lymph node dissection. Of note, RG had a longer procedure time (P = 0.03), earlier oral intake (P = 0.0010), shorter hospital stay (P = 0.0002), and shorter time to defecation (P < 0.00001).
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis concluded that patients in the RG group had shorter hospital stays, earlier postoperative feeding, and earlier postoperative ventilation; however, no differences were found in blood loss, number of lymph nodes removed, or overall complications. RG is an effective, safe, and promising treatment for obese patients with GC, compensating for the shortcomings of laparoscopy and allowing for less trauma and faster recovery.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42022298967.
PubMed: 37274257
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1158804 -
International Journal of Hygiene and... Aug 2017Sanitation aims to sequester human feces and prevent exposure to fecal pathogens. More than 2.4 billion people worldwide lack access to improved sanitation facilities... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Sanitation aims to sequester human feces and prevent exposure to fecal pathogens. More than 2.4 billion people worldwide lack access to improved sanitation facilities and almost one billion practice open defecation. We undertook systematic reviews and meta-analyses to compile the most recent evidence on the impact of sanitation on diarrhea, soil-transmitted helminth (STH) infections, trachoma, schistosomiasis, and nutritional status assessed using anthropometry.
METHODS AND FINDINGS
We updated previously published reviews by following their search strategy and eligibility criteria. We searched from the previous review's end date to December 31, 2015. We conducted meta-analyses to estimate pooled measures of effect using random-effects models and conducted subgroup analyses to assess impact of different levels of sanitation services and to explore sources of heterogeneity. We assessed risk of bias and quality of the evidence from intervention studies using the Liverpool Quality Appraisal Tool (LQAT) and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, respectively. A total of 171 studies met the review's inclusion criteria, including 64 studies not included in the previous reviews. Overall, the evidence suggests that sanitation is protective against diarrhea, active trachoma, some STH infections, schistosomiasis, and height-for-age, with no protective effect for other anthropometric outcomes. The evidence was generally of poor quality, heterogeneity was high, and GRADE scores ranged from very low to high.
CONCLUSIONS
This review confirms positive impacts of sanitation on aspects of health. Evidence gaps remain and point to the need for research that rigorously describes sanitation implementation and type of sanitation interventions.
Topics: Diarrhea; Helminthiasis; Humans; Nutritional Status; Sanitation; Trachoma
PubMed: 28602619
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijheh.2017.05.007 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2015Constipation is a common symptom experienced during pregnancy. It has a range of consequences from reduced quality of life and perception of physical health to... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Constipation is a common symptom experienced during pregnancy. It has a range of consequences from reduced quality of life and perception of physical health to haemorrhoids. An understanding of the effectiveness and safety of treatments for constipation in pregnancy is important for the clinician managing pregnant women.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of interventions (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) for treating constipation in pregnancy.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 April 2015), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (30 April 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered all published, unpublished and ongoing randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs and quasi-RCTs, evaluating interventions (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) for constipation in pregnancy. Cross-over studies were not eligible for inclusion in this review. Trials published in abstract form only (without full text publication) were not eligible for inclusion.We compared one intervention (pharmacological or non-pharmacological) against another intervention, placebo or no treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy.
MAIN RESULTS
Four studies were included, but only two studies with a total of 180 women contributed data to this review. It was not clear whether they were RCTs or quasi-RCTs because the sequence generation was unclear. We classified the overall risk of bias of three studies as moderate and one study as high risk of bias. No meta-analyses were carried out due to insufficient data.There were no cluster-RCTs identified for inclusion. Comparisons were available for stimulant laxatives versus bulk-forming laxatives, and fibre supplementation versus no intervention. There were no data available for any other comparisons.During the review process we found that studies reported changes in symptoms in different ways. To capture all data available, we added a new primary outcome (improvement in constipation) - this new outcome was not prespecified in our published protocol. Stimulant laxatives versus bulk-forming laxativesNo data were identified for any of this review's prespecified primary outcomes: pain on defecation, frequency of stools and consistency of stools.Compared to bulk-forming laxatives, pregnant women who received stimulant laxatives had significantly more improvement in constipation (risk ratio (RR) 1.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21 to 2.09; 140 women, one study, moderate quality of evidence), but also significantly more abdominal discomfort (RR 2.33, 95% CI 1.15 to 4.73; 140 women, one study, low quality of evidence), and borderline difference in diarrhoea (RR 4.50, 95% CI 1.01 to 20.09; 140 women, one study, moderate quality of evidence). In addition, there was no significant difference in women's satisfaction (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.46; 140 women, one study, moderate quality of evidence).No usable data were identified for any of this review's secondary outcomes: quality of life; dehydration; electrolyte imbalance; acute allergic reaction; or asthma. Fibre supplementation versus no interventionPregnant women who received fibre supplementation had significantly higher frequency of stools compared to no intervention (mean difference (MD) 2.24 times per week, 95% CI 0.96 to 3.52; 40 women, one study, moderate quality of evidence). Fibre supplementation was associated with improved stool consistency as defined by trialists (hard stool decreased by 11% to 14%, normal stool increased by 5% to 10%, and loose stool increased by 0% to 6%).No usable data were reported for either the primary outcomes of pain on defecation and improvement in constipation or any of this review's secondary outcomes as listed above. Quality Five outcomes were assessed with the GRADE software: improvement in constipation, frequency of stools, abdominal discomfort, diarrhoea and women's satisfaction. These were assessed to be of moderate quality except for abdominal discomfort which was assessed to be of low quality. The results should therefore be interpreted with caution. There were no data available for evaluation of pain on defecation or consistency of stools.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence to comprehensively assess the effectiveness and safety of interventions (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) for treating constipation in pregnancy, due to limited data (few studies with small sample size and no meta-analyses). Compared with bulk-forming laxatives, stimulant laxatives appear to be more effective in improvement of constipation (moderate quality evidence), but are accompanied by an increase in diarrhoea (moderate quality evidence) and abdominal discomfort (low quality evidence) and no difference in women's satisfaction (moderate quality evidence). Additionally, fibre supplementation may increase frequency of stools compared with no intervention (moderate quality evidence), although these results were of moderate risk of bias.There were no data for a comparison of other types of interventions, such as osmotic laxatives, stool softeners, lubricant laxatives and enemas and suppositories.More RCTs evaluating interventions for treating constipation in pregnancy are needed. These should cover different settings and evaluate the effectiveness of various interventions (including fibre, osmotic, and stimulant laxatives) on improvement in constipation, pain on defecation, frequency of stools and consistency of stools.
Topics: Adult; Constipation; Dietary Fiber; Female; Humans; Laxatives; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26342714
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011448.pub2 -
Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology &... 2022This systematic review aimed to summarize evidence to determine the effectiveness of kiwifruit or kiwifruit extracts in the treatment of constipation. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
This systematic review aimed to summarize evidence to determine the effectiveness of kiwifruit or kiwifruit extracts in the treatment of constipation.
METHODS
Electronic databases were searched from inception to May 2022 without any age or language limitations. Eligible studies enrolled participants with constipation who were randomized to receive kiwifruit or kiwifruit extracts vs. any nonkiwifruit control. Standardized mean difference (SMD) and mean difference (MD) with confidence intervals (CI) were determined for the following outcomes: frequency of spontaneous bowel movements (SBM), abdominal pain and straining, as well as stool type as determined by the Bristol Stool Scale (BSS). The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach was used to rate the certainty of evidence. Our review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021239397).
RESULTS
Seven RCTs, including 399 participants (82% female; mean age: 42 years (SD 14.6)), were included. Compared with placebo ( = 95), kiwifruit extracts might increase the weekly frequency of SBM (MD: 1.36; 95% CI: -0.44, 3.16) with low certainty of evidence; moreover, it had an uncertain effect on BSS (SMD: 1.54; 95% CI: -1.33, 4.41) with very low certainty of evidence. Additionally, compared with placebo ( = 119), kiwifruit or its extracts reduced abdominal pain (SMD: -1.44, 95% CI -2.83, -1.66) with moderate certainty of the evidence and improved frequency of straining (SMD: -0.29; 95% CI: -1.03, 0.47). Compared with psyllium, kiwifruit may increase the weekly frequency of SBM (MD: 1.01; 95% CI: -0.02, 2.04) with moderate certainty evidence, and may increase the value on the BSS (indicating softer stools) (MD: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.01, 1.25)with low certainty of evidence. Compared to placebo, kiwifruit-encapsulated extracts may result in an increase in minor adverse events (relative risk: 4.58; 95% CI: 0.79, 26.4).
CONCLUSIONS
Among individuals with constipation, there is an overall low certainty of evidence indicating that kiwifruit may increase SBM when compared to placebo or psyllium. Although overall results are promising, establishing the role of kiwifruit in constipation requires large, methodologically rigorous trials. : PROSPERO registration number CRD42021239397.
Topics: Abdominal Pain; Adult; Constipation; Defecation; Female; Humans; Male; Plant Extracts; Psyllium; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36247043
DOI: 10.1155/2022/7596920 -
Children (Basel, Switzerland) Aug 2023Hirschsprung disease (HD) is characterized by absent neuronal innervation of the distal colonic bowel wall and is surgically treated by removing the affected bowel... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Hirschsprung disease (HD) is characterized by absent neuronal innervation of the distal colonic bowel wall and is surgically treated by removing the affected bowel segment via pull-through surgery (PT). Incomplete removal of the affected segment is called transition zone anastomosis (TZA). The current systematic review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the prevalence and clinical impact of TZA.
METHODS
Pubmed, Embase, Cinahl, and Web of Sciences were searched (last search: October 2020), and studies describing histopathological examination for TZA in patients with HD were included. Data were synthesized into aggregated Event Rates (ER) of TZA using random-effects meta-analysis. The clinical impact was defined in terms of obstructive defecation problems, enterocolitis, soiling, incontinence, and the need for additional surgical procedures. The quality of studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.
KEY RESULTS
This systematic review included 34 studies, representing 2207 patients. After excluding series composed of only patients undergoing redo PT, the prevalence was 9% (ER = 0.09, 95% CI = 0.05-0.14, < 0.001, I = 86%). TZA occurred more often after operation techniques other than Duhamel (X = 19.21, = <0.001). Patients with TZA often had obstructive defecation problems (62%), enterocolitis (38%), soiling (28%), and fecal incontinence (24%) in follow-up periods ranging from 6 months to 13 years. Patients with TZA more often had persistent obstructive symptoms (X = 7.26, = 0.007).
CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES
TZA is associated with obstructive defecation problems and redo PT and is thus necessary to prevent.
PubMed: 37761437
DOI: 10.3390/children10091475 -
Complementary Therapies in Medicine May 2023Postoperative gastrointestinal dysfunction (PGD) is a common complication in patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery. Several studies have evaluated the effect of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Postoperative gastrointestinal dysfunction (PGD) is a common complication in patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery. Several studies have evaluated the effect of transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation (TEAS) on PGD, so we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to better understand these studies methodologic limitations and summarize clinical effects.
METHODS
Articles (published from January 2010 to April 2022) were searched from the following databases: Wanfang Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science and Embase. Two authors conducted literature selection, data extraction and statistical analysis independently. This meta-analysis used RevMan 5.4 software to implement statistical analysis and applied Cochrane bias risk tool to assess methodologic weaknesses of included articles. We assessed the effect of TEAS on time to first flatus, first defecation and bowel sound recovery through meta-analyses using a random-effects model.
RESULTS
The meta-analysis included 10 articles including 1497 patients. This study showed that TEAS could effectively promote postoperative gastrointestinal function recovery by analyzing the time to first flatus (MD-14.81 h, 95% CI -15.88 to -13.75 h), time to first defecation (MD-14.68 h, 95% CI -20.59 to -8.76 h), time to bowel sound recovery (MD-5.79 h, 95% CI -10.87 to -0.71 h), length of hospital stay (MD-1.48d, 95% CI -1.86 to -1.11d), and the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.29-0.58). In addition, we assessed the quality of the articles and found small sample sizes and lower methodological quality in some articles.
CONCLUSION
Our meta-analysis revealed that TEAS could be a nonpharmacological treatment for PGD in patients after gastrointestinal surgery. However, positive findings should be treated carefully and future studies with high quality and large samples are needed to support this results.
Topics: Humans; Digestive System Surgical Procedures; Acupuncture Points; Flatulence; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Postoperative Period; Gastrointestinal Diseases
PubMed: 36842636
DOI: 10.1016/j.ctim.2023.102938 -
European Journal of Pediatrics Sep 2017We updated our 2010 systematic review on the efficacy of probiotics in the treatment of constipation in children. The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases;... (Review)
Review
UNLABELLED
We updated our 2010 systematic review on the efficacy of probiotics in the treatment of constipation in children. The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases; clinical trial registries; and reference lists of included studies were searched to February 2017 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) performed in children, with no language restriction. The primary outcome measure was treatment success, as defined by the investigators. We included seven RCTs with a total of 515 participants. Included trials were heterogeneous with respect to study population, probiotic strains, dosages, study duration, and follow-up. Pooled results of two RCTs showed no significant difference between the Lactobacillus rhamnosus casei Lcr35 and placebo groups with respect to treatment success. Other probiotics were studied in single trials only. There was no significant difference between the probiotic and control groups with respect to treatment success. While some probiotic strains showed some effects on defecation frequency, none of the probiotics had beneficial effects on frequency of fecal incontinence or frequency of abdominal pain. Adverse events were rare and not serious.
CONCLUSION
Limited evidence does not support the use of any of currently evaluated probiotics in the treatment of functional constipation in children. What is Known: • Conventional treatment for functional constipation in children does not always provide satisfying improvement. • Probiotics have been suggested as potential treatment modalities for this condition. What is New: • Probiotics are ineffective for the management of functional constipation in children in terms of treatment success, frequency of fecal incontinence, and frequency of abdominal pain.
Topics: Abdominal Pain; Case-Control Studies; Child; Constipation; Fecal Incontinence; Humans; Lactobacillus; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28762070
DOI: 10.1007/s00431-017-2972-2 -
Frontiers in Psychiatry 2021Clinical evidence suggests that acupuncture is effective for relieving abdominal pain and distension in acute pancreatitis (AP). However, there is a lack of systematic...
Clinical evidence suggests that acupuncture is effective for relieving abdominal pain and distension in acute pancreatitis (AP). However, there is a lack of systematic reviews and meta-analyses that provide high-quality evidence of the efficacy and safety of acupuncture in this context. To assess the efficacy and safety of acupuncture for relieving abdominal pain and distension in AP. We searched the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, and China Biomedical Literature databases. Randomized controlled trials of acupuncture plus routine treatment (RT) vs. RT alone or RT plus sham/placebo acupuncture were included. Primary outcomes included total effectiveness rate, VAS scores for abdominal pain and distension, and time until relief of abdominal pain and distension. Secondary outcomes included time until recovery of bowel sound, time until first defecation, length of hospital stay, and APACHE II score. Nineteen eligible original studies ( = 1,503) were included. The results showed that acupuncture in combination with RT had a significant advantage in terms of increasing the total effectiveness rate [risk ratio: 1.15; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.06-1.24; = 0.001]. Acupuncture also reduced the VAS score for abdominal pain [weighted mean difference (WMD): -1.45; 95% CI: -1.71 to -1.19; < 0.0001] and the VAS score for abdominal distension (WMD: -0.71; 95% CI: -1.04 to -0.37; < 0.0001) in patients with AP. Other results also showed the efficacy of acupuncture. One study reported adverse events after acupuncture. Acupuncture in combination with RT has a better effect than RT alone for relieving abdominal pain and distension in AP. More rigorous studies are needed to confirm this result. PROSPERO CRD42019147503 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=147503).
PubMed: 34925110
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.786401 -
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics Jul 2006Anal fissure is one of the most common anorectal conditions encountered in clinical practice. Most patients experience anal pain with defecation and minor bright red... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Anal fissure is one of the most common anorectal conditions encountered in clinical practice. Most patients experience anal pain with defecation and minor bright red rectal bleeding, allowing a focused history to direct the evaluation.
METHODS
A systematic medical literature search of NIH, Pubmed, and MEDLINE using the search terms anal fissure, sphincterotomy, anal surgery and anal fissure medical therapy. English language was not a restriction. Cited references were used to find additional studies.
RESULTS
No single treatment is the best choice for all patients. Because pharmacological therapy is not associated with permanent alterations in continence, a trial of either a topical sphincter relaxant or botulin toxin injection, along with adequate fluid and fibre intake, is a reasonable option. However, because pharmacological therapy has lower healing and higher relapse rates, surgery can be offered in the first instance to patients without incontinence risk factors who have severe, unrelenting pain and are willing to accept a small risk of incontinence, for the highest likelihood of prompt healing and the lowest risk of recurrence.
CONCLUSIONS
Both non-operative and operative approaches currently exist for the management of anal fissure. Improved non-surgical therapies may continue to lessen the role of sphincter-dividing surgery in future.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Administration, Topical; Botulinum Toxins, Type A; Diet; Dilatation; Fissure in Ano; Gastrointestinal Agents; Humans; Injections, Intralesional
PubMed: 16842451
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2006.02990.x -
Medicine Sep 2018To evaluate the effect of probiotic supplementation on functional constipation in children. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
To evaluate the effect of probiotic supplementation on functional constipation in children.
METHODS
We performed electronic searches in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library without language restriction to identify relevant studies from the time of inception of these databases to March 2018. The relative risk or weighted mean difference was calculated to evaluate the treatment effect of probiotics using random-effects model.
RESULTS
We included 4 trials reporting data on 382 children with functional constipation. Overall, there were no significant differences in treatment success (P = .697), spontaneous bowel movements per week (P = .571), fecal soiling episodes per week (P = .642), straining at defecation (P = .408), use of lactulose (P = .238), use of laxatives (P = .190), fecal incontinence (P = .139), pain during defecation (P = .410), flatulence (P = .109), and adverse events (P = .979) between probiotics and placebo. Further, the use of probiotics was associated with lower frequency of glycerin enema use (weighted mean difference -2.40, P = .004) and abdominal pain (weighted mean difference -4.80, P < .001).
CONCLUSION
The findings of this study suggested that the use of probiotics was associated with significant improvement in glycerin enema use and abdominal pain but did not affect the treatment success and other function indices.
Topics: Abdominal Pain; Child; Constipation; Defecation; Fecal Incontinence; Humans; Laxatives; Probiotics; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30278490
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000012174