-
Journal of Clinical Medicine Oct 2020This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare chest tube drainage and conservative management as the initial treatment of primary spontaneous pneumothorax... (Review)
Review
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare chest tube drainage and conservative management as the initial treatment of primary spontaneous pneumothorax (PSP). Studies including PSP patients who received tube drainage or conservative management as the initial treatment were searched in OVID-MEDLINE and Embase through 14 February 2020. The primary outcome was the relative risk (RR) of PSP recurrence, and secondary outcomes were RRs of PSP resolution and adverse events during treatment. A random-effect model using the Mantel-Haenszel method was used to pool RRs. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses were performed to investigate significant predictors of PSP recurrence. In total, 11,922 PSP cases from eight studies were analysed, of which 6344 were treated with tube drainage and 5578 were treated with conservative management. The pooled RR of PSP recurrence for conservative management against tube drainage was 0.98 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75-1.28; = 0.894). Subgroup and meta-regression analyses revealed that study design ( = 0.816), allocation of the PSP amount in each management group ( = 0.191), and assessment time for recurrence had no significant impact on PSP recurrence ( = 0.816). There was no publication bias ( = 0.475). The risk of adverse events of conservative management was significantly lower than that of tube drainage (pooled RR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.08-1.15; = 0.003). However, no difference was found between the two groups in terms of PSP resolution (pooled RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.9-1.15; = 0.814). As the initial treatment for PSP, conservative management is comparable to chest tube drainage in terms of PSP recurrence and resolution after treatment, with fewer adverse events during treatment.
PubMed: 33121119
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9113456 -
World Journal of Emergency Surgery :... Jan 2023A series of randomized controlled trials have investigated the efficacy and safety of different timings of interventions and methods of intervention. However, the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
A series of randomized controlled trials have investigated the efficacy and safety of different timings of interventions and methods of intervention. However, the optimal treatment strategy is not yet clear.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov and the Cochrane Library until November 30, 2022. A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis were performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Trials comparing different treatment strategies for necrotizing pancreatitis were included. This study was registered in the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42022364409) to ensure transparency.
RESULTS
We analyzed a total of 10 studies involving 570 patients and 8 treatment strategies. Although no statistically significant differences were identified comparing odds ratios, trends were confirmed by the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) scores. The interventions with a low rate of mortality were delayed surgery (DS), delayed surgical step-up approach (DSU) and delayed endoscopic step-up approach (DEU), while the interventions with a low rate of major complications were DSU, DEU and DS. According to the clustered ranking plot, DSU performed the best overall in reducing mortality and major complications, while DD performed the worst. Analysis of the secondary endpoints confirmed the superiority of DEU and DSU in terms of individual components of major complications (organ failure, pancreatic fistula, bleeding, and visceral organ or enterocutaneous fistula), exocrine insufficiency, endocrine insufficiency and length of stay. Overall, DSU was superior to other interventions.
CONCLUSION
DSU was the optimal treatment strategy for necrotizing pancreatitis. Drainage alone should be avoided in clinical practice. Any interventions should be postponed for at least 4 weeks if possible. The step-up approach was preferred.
Topics: Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Bayes Theorem; Pancreatitis, Acute Necrotizing; Drainage
PubMed: 36707836
DOI: 10.1186/s13017-023-00479-7 -
International Wound Journal Feb 2022Negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is often used for skin graft site dressing, and several studies have reported that its use improves skin graft failure in the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is often used for skin graft site dressing, and several studies have reported that its use improves skin graft failure in the forearm flap donor site. The present systematic review aimed to evaluate the efficacy of NPWT with skin graft for donor-site closure in radial forearm free flap (RFFF) reconstruction. A systematic search in PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases was conducted. The search terms used for PubMed were ([radial forearm]) AND ([donor]) AND ([negative pressure or vacuum]). This review was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews and performed in accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses statement. Three prospective randomised controlled trials and three retrospective comparative studies were included. Compared with conventional bolster dressing, the use of NPWT dressing did not lead to significant improvements in partial skin graft loss, tendon exposure, and other complications. NPWT improved hand functionality earlier; nonetheless, the cost of the device and dressings was a disadvantage. The use of NPWT for skin graft fixation in the RFFF donor site is not generally recommended.
Topics: Forearm; Free Tissue Flaps; Humans; Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy; Plastic Surgery Procedures; Retrospective Studies; Skin Transplantation
PubMed: 34101358
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.13632 -
In Vivo (Athens, Greece) 2020Malignant obstructive jaundice (MOJ) is a common condition caused by several primary and secondary cancers. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND/AIM
Malignant obstructive jaundice (MOJ) is a common condition caused by several primary and secondary cancers. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate technical success rate and safety of percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) versus endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD) in MOJ.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Relevant trials were identified by searching electronic databases and conference meetings. We included thirteen retrospective studies and four randomized controlled trials, with PTBD performed in 2353 patients and EBD in 8178 patients. Outcomes of interest included: technical success rate, overall complications, 30-day mortality rate and risk of bleeding, pancreatitis, cholangitis and tube dislocation.
RESULTS
The differences in technical success rate, total complications, 30-day mortality rate and tube dislocation were not statistically significant between the two groups. Patients receiving PTBD showed a lower risk of pancreatitis (OR=0.14, 95%CI=0.06-0.31) and cholangitis (OR=0.52, 95%CI=0.30-0.90) when compared to EBD while PTBD was associated with higher risk of bleeding (OR=1.78; 95%CI=1.32-2.39).
CONCLUSION
Our meta-analysis indicates the presence of some advantages and limits for both PTBD and EBD. We highlight the paucity of quality-of-life data, a vital element which should be carefully pondered in future studies and in choosing the optimal technique in patients with MOJ.
Topics: Bile Duct Neoplasms; Drainage; Endoscopy; Humans; Jaundice, Obstructive; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 32606139
DOI: 10.21873/invivo.11964 -
BMC Gastroenterology Jul 2023This study was performed to compare a metal stent (MS) and plastic stent (PS) in terms of efficacy and complications during neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) and the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparison of metal versus plastic stent for preoperative biliary drainage in patients with pancreatic cancer undergoing neoadjuvant therapy: a meta-analysis and systematic review.
BACKGROUND
This study was performed to compare a metal stent (MS) and plastic stent (PS) in terms of efficacy and complications during neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) and the perioperative period.
METHODS
We performed an electronic search of the following databases until 1 June 2022: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Studies comparing an MS versus PS for PBD in patients with pancreatic cancer undergoing NAT were included.
RESULTS
The meta-analysis showed that use of an MS was associated with lower rates of reintervention (p < 0.00001), delay of NAT (p = 0.007), recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO) (p = 0.003), and cholangitis (p = 0.03). There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of stent migration (p = 0.31), postoperative complications (p = 0.20), leakage (p = 0.90), and R0 resection (p = 0.50).
CONCLUSIONS
Use of an MS for PBD in patients with pancreatic cancer undergoing NAT followed by surgery was associated with lower rates of reintervention, delay of NAT, RBO, and cholangitis compared with use of a PS. However, the postoperative outcomes were comparable between the MS and PS. Further studies on this topic are recommended.
Topics: Humans; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Drainage; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Metals; Stents; Cholangitis; Cholestasis; Plastics
PubMed: 37438761
DOI: 10.1186/s12876-023-02874-5 -
Cancer Imaging : the Official... Oct 2017Malignant obstructive jaundice is a common problem in the clinic. Currently, the generally applied treatment methods are percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Malignant obstructive jaundice is a common problem in the clinic. Currently, the generally applied treatment methods are percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) and endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD). Nevertheless, there has not been a uniform conclusion published on either efficacy of the two types of drainage or the incidence rate of complications. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing endoscopic versus percutaneous biliary drainage in malignant obstructive jaundice, to determine whether there is any difference between percutaneous and endoscopic biliary drainage, with respect to efficacy and incidence rate of overall complications.
METHODS
The enrolled studies contain a total of three randomized controlled trials and eleven retrospective studies, which together encompass 2246 patients with PTBD and 8100 patients with EBD.
RESULTS
Our analysis indicates that there is no difference between PTBD and EBD with regard to therapeutic success rate (%), overall complication (%), intraperitoneal bile leak, 30-day mortality, sepsis, or duodenal perforation (%). Cholangitis and pancreatitis after PTBD were lower than after EBD, with odds ratios (OR) of 0.48 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.31 to 0.74) and 0.16 (95% CI, 0.05 to 0.52), respectively. Incidences of bleeding and tube dislocation for PTBD were higher than EBD, OR of 1.81 (95% CI, 1.35 to 2.44) and 3.41 (95% CI, 1.10 to 10.60).
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis indicates certain advantages for both PTBD and EBD. In the clinical practice, it is advised to choose specifically either PTBD or EBD, based on location of obstruction, purpose of drainage (as a preoperative procedure or a palliative treatment) and level of experience in biliary drainage at individual treatment centers.
Topics: Bile Duct Neoplasms; Drainage; Endoscopy, Digestive System; Humans; Jaundice, Obstructive; Publication Bias; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 29037223
DOI: 10.1186/s40644-017-0129-1 -
Medicine Aug 2018Numerous studies have investigated different operative procedures for treating chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH); however, the results are controversial. This... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Numerous studies have investigated different operative procedures for treating chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH); however, the results are controversial. This meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy of burr hole drainage without irrigation (BHD) and burr hole drainage with irrigation (BHDI) for CSDH.
METHODS
We searched the following electronic databases to identify all studies from their inception to September 2017: Cochrane Library, Science Direct, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Google Scholar, the China Biomedical Database (CBM), and the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI). Randomized clinical trials (RCTs), prospective cohort studies, retrospective observational cohort studies, and case-control studies investigating BHD and BHDI for the treatment of CSDH were included. The Cochrane Collaboration's RevMan 5.3 software was used for meta-analysis.
RESULTS
In total, 7 retrospective cohort studies and 2 RCTs involving 993 participants were included. Comprehensive analysis results of 9 studies indicated that the recurrence of the BHDI was similar to that in BHD (odds ratio [OR] = 1.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] = .61-2.63, P = .53). Moreover, analysis for comparing recurrence in the 2 RCTs was not significantly different (OR = 1.14, 95% CI = .16-8.24, P = .95).In addition, meta-analysis of pneumocephalus (OR = 5.91, 95% CI = .61-56.86, P = .12) and mortality (OR = 0.94, 95% CI 0.14-6.16, P = .95) was not significantly different.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this meta-analysis demonstrated that procedures with or without irrigation in the treatment of CSDH might have similar effect regarding recurrence and complications; therefore, irrigation might not be necessary. However, well-conducted RCTs and high-quality observational studies are still required to corroborate this issue.
Topics: Adult; Drainage; Female; Hematoma, Subdural, Chronic; Humans; Male; Observational Studies as Topic; Retrospective Studies; Therapeutic Irrigation; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30113471
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000011827 -
BMJ Open Aug 2021To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of abdominal paracentesis drainage (APD) in patients with acute pancreatitis (AP) when... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of abdominal paracentesis drainage (APD) in patients with acute pancreatitis (AP) when compared with conventional 'step-up' strategy based on percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD).
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (OVID), China National Knowledge Infrastructure and Wanfang Database were electronically searched to collect cohort studies and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from inception to 25 July 2020. Studies related to comparing APD with conventional 'step-up' strategy based on PCD were included.
OUTCOMES
The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. The secondary outcomes were the rate of organ dysfunction, infectious complications, hospitalisation expenses and length of hospital stay.
RESULTS
Five cohort studies and three RCTs were included in the analysis. Compared with the conventional 'step-up' method, pooled results suggested APD significantly decreased all-cause mortality during hospitalisation (cohort studies: OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.89 and p=0.02), length of hospital stay (cohort studies: standard mean difference (SMD) -0.31, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.10 and p=0.005; RCTs: SMD -0.45, 95% CI -0.64 to -0.26 and p<0.001) and hospitalisation expenses (cohort studies: SMD -2.49, 95% CI -4.46 to -0.51 and p<0.001; RCTs: SMD -0.67, 95% CI -0.89 to -0.44 and p<0.001). There was no evidence to prove that APD was associated with a higher incidence of infectious complications. However, the incidence of organ dysfunction between cohort studies and RCTs subgroup slightly differed (cohort studies: OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.28 and p=0.22; RCTs: OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.98 and p=0.04).
CONCLUSIONS
The findings suggest that early application of APD in patients with AP is associated with reduced all-cause mortality, expenses during hospitalisation and the length of stay compared with the 'step-up' strategy without significantly increasing the risk of infectious complications. These results must be interpreted with caution because of the limited number of included studies as well as a larger dependence on observational trials.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42020168537.
Topics: Drainage; Hospitalization; Humans; Length of Stay; Pancreatitis; Paracentesis
PubMed: 34373293
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045031 -
Endoscopic Ultrasound 2019Lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) are increasingly being used in the drainage of pancreatic walled-off necrosis (WON). Best choice of stent is subject to argument, and... (Review)
Review
Lumen apposing metal stents in drainage of pancreatic walled-off necrosis, are they any better than plastic stents? A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies published since the revised Atlanta classification of pancreatic fluid collections.
Lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) are increasingly being used in the drainage of pancreatic walled-off necrosis (WON). Best choice of stent is subject to argument, and studies are varied in the reported outcomes between LAMS and plastic stents (PS) to this end. We conducted a comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases and conference proceedings including PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases (earliest inception through July 2018) to identify studies that reported on the use of LAMS and PS in WON drainage. Studies published since the release of the revised Atlanta classification for pancreatic fluid collections (2014 to current) were included in the analysis. The outcomes were to estimate and compare the pooled rates of clinical success, and adverse-events. A total of 9 studies (737 patients) for LAMS and 6 studies (527 patients) for PS were included in the analysis. The pooled rate of clinical-success with LAMS was 88.5% (95% CI 82.5-92.6, I = 71.7) and with PS was 88.1% (95% CI 80.5-93.0, I = 78.1) and the difference was not statistically significant, P = 0.93. No difference was noted in the pooled rates of all adverse-events, LAMS: 11.2% (6.8-17.9, I = 82.0); vs PS: 15.9% (8.4-27.8, I = 78.8); P = 0.38. Based on our meta-analysis, LAMS and PS demonstrate equal clinical outcomes and equal adverse-events in the drainage of pancreatic WON.
PubMed: 31006706
DOI: 10.4103/eus.eus_7_19 -
Asian Journal of Surgery Aug 2022Endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage (EUSD) and percutaneous drainage (PD) have reportedly been used for postoperative pancreatic fluid collection (PFC). However, there... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage (EUSD) and percutaneous drainage (PD) have reportedly been used for postoperative pancreatic fluid collection (PFC). However, there is limited evidence regarding safety and efficacy in a comparison of EUSD and PD for postoperative PFC. We conducted a search of the databases PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov, to August 2020. Studies comparing EUSD and PD for postoperative PFC were included. The outcomes included technical success, clinical success, adverse events, and recurrence of PFC.We included a total of 6 studies involving 247 patients in the current study. There was no significant difference between EUSD and PD in terms of technical success (odds ratio [OR] = 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.29-3.12; p = 0.94) and clinical success (OR = 1.36; 95% CI: 0.68-2.72; p = 0.39). PFC recurrence and adverse events were similar between the two groups (OR = 1.82; 95% CI: 0.75-4.37; p = 0.18 and OR = 0.78; 95% CI: 0.31-1.92; p = 0.58, respectively).This meta-analysis confirmed that EUSD has comparable safety and efficacy to PD for postoperative PFC. Additional high-quality studies are required in the future.
Topics: Digestive System Surgical Procedures; Drainage; Endosonography; Humans; Pancreatic Diseases; Pancreatic Juice
PubMed: 34642049
DOI: 10.1016/j.asjsur.2021.09.033