-
Critical Care (London, England) Mar 2018Insertion of a central venous catheter (CVC) is common practice in critical care medicine. Complications arising from CVC placement are mostly due to a pneumothorax or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Insertion of a central venous catheter (CVC) is common practice in critical care medicine. Complications arising from CVC placement are mostly due to a pneumothorax or malposition. Correct position is currently confirmed by chest x-ray, while ultrasonography might be a more suitable option. We performed a meta-analysis of the available studies with the primary aim of synthesizing information regarding detection of CVC-related complications and misplacement using ultrasound (US).
METHODS
This is a systematic review and meta-analysis registered at PROSPERO (CRD42016050698). PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched. Articles which reported the diagnostic accuracy of US in detecting the position of CVCs and the mechanical complications associated with insertion were included. Primary outcomes were specificity and sensitivity of US. Secondary outcomes included prevalence of malposition and pneumothorax, feasibility of US examination, and time to perform and interpret both US and chest x-ray. A qualitative assessment was performed using the QUADAS-2 tool.
RESULTS
We included 25 studies with a total of 2548 patients and 2602 CVC placements. Analysis yielded a pooled specificity of 98.9 (95% confidence interval (CI): 97.8-99.5) and sensitivity of 68.2 (95% CI: 54.4-79.4). US examination was feasible in 96.8% of the cases. The prevalence of CVC malposition and pneumothorax was 6.8% and 1.1%, respectively. The mean time for US performance was 2.83 min (95% CI: 2.77-2.89 min) min, while chest x-ray performance took 34.7 min (95% CI: 32.6-36.7 min). US was feasible in 97%. Further analyses were performed by defining subgroups based on the different utilized US protocols and on intra-atrial and extra-atrial misplacement. Vascular US combined with transthoracic echocardiography was most accurate.
CONCLUSIONS
US is an accurate and feasible diagnostic modality to detect CVC malposition and iatrogenic pneumothorax. Advantages of US over chest x-ray are that it can be performed faster and does not subject patients to radiation. Vascular US combined with transthoracic echocardiography is advised. However, the results need to be interpreted with caution since included studies were often underpowered and had methodological limitations. A large multicenter study investigating optimal US protocol, among other things, is needed.
Topics: Catheterization, Central Venous; Central Venous Catheters; Humans; Iatrogenic Disease; Medical Errors; Pneumothorax; Point-of-Care Systems; Reproducibility of Results; Ultrasonography
PubMed: 29534732
DOI: 10.1186/s13054-018-1989-x -
Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons... Jan 2015Total hip arthroplasty is one of the most commonly performed orthopaedic procedures. Despite this, medical evidence to inform the choice of surgical approach is lacking.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Total hip arthroplasty is one of the most commonly performed orthopaedic procedures. Despite this, medical evidence to inform the choice of surgical approach is lacking. Currently in the UK, the two most frequently performed approaches to the hip are the posterior and the direct lateral.
METHODS
This systematic review was performed according to Cochrane guidelines following an extensive search for prospective controlled trials published in any language before January 2014. Of the 728 records identified from searches, 6 prospective studies (including 3 randomised controlled trials) involving 517 participants provided data towards this review.
FINDINGS
Compared with the lateral approach, the posterior approach conferred a significant reduction in the risk of Trendelenburg gait (odds ratio [OR]: 0.31, p=0.0002) and stem malposition (OR: 0.24, p=0.02), and a non-significant reduction in dislocation (OR: 0.37, p=0.16) and heterotopic ossification (OR: 0.41, p=0.13). Neither approach conferred a functional advantage. We draw attention to the paucity of evidence and the need for a further randomised trial.
Topics: Adult; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip; Hip Prosthesis; Humans; Postoperative Complications; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25519259
DOI: 10.1308/003588414X13946184904008 -
Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal... Jul 2019To assess complications after minimally invasive spinal surgeries including transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) by reviewing the most recent literature. (Review)
Review
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
To assess complications after minimally invasive spinal surgeries including transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) by reviewing the most recent literature.
RECENT FINDINGS
Current literature demonstrates that minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in spine has improved clinical outcomes and reduced complications when compared with open spinal procedures. Recent studies describing MI-TLIF primarily for degenerative disk disease, spondylolisthesis, and vertebral canal stenosis cite over 89 discrete complications, with the most common being radiculitis (ranging from 2.8 to 57.1%), screw malposition (0.3-12.7%), and incidental durotomy (0.3-8.6%). Minimally invasive spine surgery has a distinct set of complications in comparison with other spinal procedures. These complications vary based on the exact MIS procedure and indication. The most frequently documented MI-TLIF complications in current published literature were radiculitis, screw malposition, and incidental durotomy.
PubMed: 31302861
DOI: 10.1007/s12178-019-09574-2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2014Manual rotation is commonly performed to increase the chances of normal vaginal delivery and is perceived to be safe. Manual rotation has the potential to prevent... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Manual rotation is commonly performed to increase the chances of normal vaginal delivery and is perceived to be safe. Manual rotation has the potential to prevent operative delivery and caesarean section, and reduce obstetric and neonatal complications.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effect of prophylactic manual rotation for women with malposition in labour on mode of delivery, and maternal and neonatal outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 October 2014), the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (all searched 23 February 2014), previous reviews and, references of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised, quasi-randomised or cluster-randomised clinical trials comparing prophylactic manual rotation in labour for fetal malposition versus expectant management, augmentation of labour or operative delivery. We defined prophylactic manual rotation as rotation performed without immediate assisted delivery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility and quality, and extracted data.
MAIN RESULTS
We included only one small pilot study (involving 30 women). The study, which we considered to be at low risk of bias, was conducted in a tertiary referral hospital in Australia, and involved women with cephalic, singleton pregnancies. The primary outcome was operative delivery (instrumental delivery or caesarean section).In the manual rotation group, 13/15 women went on to have an instrumental delivery or caesarean section, whereas in the control group, 12/15 women had an operative delivery. The estimated risk ratio was 1.08 (95% confidence interval 0.79 to 1.49). There were no maternal or fetal mortalities in either groupThere were no clear differences for any of the secondary maternal or neonatal outcomes reported (e.g. perineal trauma, analgesia use duration of labour).In terms of adverse events, there were no reported cases of umbilical cord prolapse or cervical laceration and a single case of a non-reassuring or pathological cardiotocograph during the procedure.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Currently, there is insufficient evidence to determine the efficacy of prophylactic manual rotation early in the second stage of labour for prevention of operative delivery. One additional study is ongoing. Further appropriately designed trials are required to determine the efficacy of manual rotation.
Topics: Adult; Analgesia, Obstetrical; Cesarean Section; Extraction, Obstetrical; Female; Humans; Labor Presentation; Obstetric Labor Complications; Perineum; Pilot Projects; Pregnancy; Version, Fetal
PubMed: 25532081
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009298.pub2 -
Medicine Jul 2017Incidence of complications and reoperations between pedicle screw (PS) and hybrid instrumentations (HI) are still controversial in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS)... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Incidence of complications and reoperations between pedicle screw (PS) and hybrid instrumentations (HI) are still controversial in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) patients. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to compare overall complications, reoperations, and radiographic outcomes between the 2 constructs.
METHODS
Strictly followed the PRISMA 2009 guidelines, the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases were used to search for literatures up to April 2016, addressing PS versus HI in AIS patients. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was adopted to assess the quality of the studies. Data on complications, reoperations, Cobb angle of major curve, thoracic kyphosis, and proximal junctional measurement were extracted from the included studies. RevMan 5.3 and SPSS 21.0 were used for statistical analysis.
RESULTS
Twenty-four case-control studies with a total of 3042 AIS patients (1582 PS, 1460 HI) were included, consisting of 1 randomized controlled trial, 1 prospective study, and 22 retrospective studies. Decreased overall complications (95% CI 0.42-0.87, P = .007; I = 38%) and reoperations (95% CI 0.22-0.62, P = .0001; I = 0%) were found in PS group compared with HI group. As regard to reasons for reoperations, increased incidence of pseudarthrosis (P = .005), dislodged instrumentation (P = .005), and deep infection (P = .016) occurred in HI group. PS group achieved a better coronal correction (95% CI -7.06 to -4.54, P < .00001; I = 34%), but HI group was more powerful in restoring thoracic kyphosis (95% CI -7.88 to -3.70, P < .00001; I = 60%), and no significant differences were found in proximal junctional measurement (95% CI -0.88 to 1.54, P = .59; I = 0%) between the 2 constructs.
CONCLUSION
Compared with hybrid instrumentation, pedicle screw construct provides better coronal correction but less thoracic kyphosis restoring, with decreased incidence of overall complications and reoperations in AIS patients. As regard to the pedicle screw construct, the most common reasons for reoperation are malposition, deep infection, pseudarthrosis, and prominent implant.
Topics: Adolescent; Humans; Orthopedic Procedures; Pedicle Screws; Postoperative Complications; Reoperation; Scoliosis
PubMed: 28682881
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000007337 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2018The success rate of correct endotracheal tube (ETT) placement for junior medical staff is less than 50% and accidental oesophageal intubation is common. Rapid... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The success rate of correct endotracheal tube (ETT) placement for junior medical staff is less than 50% and accidental oesophageal intubation is common. Rapid confirmation of correct tube placement is important because tube malposition is associated with serious adverse outcomes including hypoxaemia, death, pneumothorax and right upper lobe collapse.ETT position can be confirmed using chest radiography, but this is often delayed; hence, a number of rapid point-of-care methods to confirm correct tube placement have been developed. Current neonatal resuscitation guidelines advise that correct ETT placement should be confirmed by the observation of clinical signs and the detection of exhaled carbon dioxide (CO). Even though these devices are frequently used in the delivery room to assess tube placement, they can display false-negative results. Recently, newer techniques to assess correct tube placement have emerged (e.g. respiratory function monitor), which have been claimed to be superior in the assessment of tube placement.
OBJECTIVES
To assess various techniques for the identification of correct ETT placement after oral or nasal intubation in newborn infants in either the delivery room or neonatal intensive care unit compared with chest radiography.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL,The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 4), MEDLINE (January 1996 to June 2014), EMBASE (January 1980 to Juen 2014) and CINAHL (January 1982 to June 2014). We searched clinical trials registers and the abstracts of the Society for Pediatric Research and the European Society for Pediatric Research from 2004 to 2014. We did not apply any language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We planned to include randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials and cluster trials that compared chest radiography with clinical signs, respiratory function monitors, exhaled CO detectors or ultrasound for the assessment of correct ETT placement either in the delivery room or the neonatal intensive care unit.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently evaluated the search results against the selection criteria. We did not perform data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessments because we identified no studies that met our inclusion criteria.
MAIN RESULTS
We did not identify any studies meeting the criteria for inclusion in this review.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence to determine the most effective technique for the assessment of correct ETT placement either in the delivery room or the neonatal intensive care unit. Randomised clinical trials comparing either of these techniques with chest radiography are warranted.
Topics: Humans; Infant, Newborn; Intubation, Intratracheal
PubMed: 29975802
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010221.pub3 -
Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) Nov 2022Asynclitism, the most feared malposition of the fetal head during labor, still represents to date an unresolved field of interest, remaining one of the most common... (Review)
Review
Asynclitism, the most feared malposition of the fetal head during labor, still represents to date an unresolved field of interest, remaining one of the most common causes of prolonged or obstructed labor, dystocia, assisted delivery, and cesarean section. Traditionally asynclitism is diagnosed by vaginal examination, which is, however, burdened by a high grade of bias. On the contrary, the recent scientific evidence highly suggests the use of intrapartum ultrasonography, which would be more accurate and reliable when compared to the vaginal examination for malposition assessment. The early detection and characterization of asynclitism by intrapartum ultrasound would become a valid tool for intrapartum evaluation. In this way, it will be possible for physicians to opt for the safest way of delivery according to an accurate definition of the fetal head position and station, avoiding unnecessary operative procedures and medication while improving fetal and maternal outcomes. This review re-evaluated the literature of the last 30 years on asynclitism, focusing on the progressive imposition of ultrasound as an intrapartum diagnostic tool. All the evidence emerging from the literature is presented and evaluated from our point of view, describing the most employed technique and considering the future implication of the progressive worldwide consolidation of asynclitism and ultrasound.
PubMed: 36553005
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12122998 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2014Securing the endotracheal tube is a common procedure in the neonatal intensive care unit. Adequate fixation of the tube is essential to ensure effective ventilation of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Securing the endotracheal tube is a common procedure in the neonatal intensive care unit. Adequate fixation of the tube is essential to ensure effective ventilation of the infant whilst minimising potential complications secondary to the intervention. Methods used to secure the endotracheal tube often vary between units and sometimes even between healthcare providers in the same nursery.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the different methods of securing the endotracheal tube in the ventilated neonate and their effects on the risk of accidental extubation and other potential complications that can result from an unstable endotracheal tube.
SEARCH METHODS
A literature search of MEDLINE (from 1966 to June 2013), CINAHL (from 1982 to June 2013) and CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library was conducted to identify relevant trials to be analysed.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of infants who were intubated for mechanical ventilation in a neonatal intensive care nursery where methods of stabilising the endotracheal tube were being compared.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data were collected from individual studies to determine the methods being compared, the methodology of the trial, and whether there were areas of bias that could significantly affect the results of the studies. In particular, studies were assessed for blinding of randomisation and allocation, blinding of the intervention, completeness of follow up, blinding of outcome assessments and selective reporting.
MAIN RESULTS
Five randomised controlled trials were identified and included for review. Accidental extubation was the most common outcome measured (five studies). None of the studies reported on the need for re-intubation or the rate of tube malposition, however one study did report on endotracheal tube slippage. A variety of other adverse effects were reported including mortality, incidence of perioral skin trauma and tube re-taping. All five studies were of poor methodological quality, small size, contained significant risks of bias and compared methods of securing the endotracheal tube that were too dissimilar for the data to be collated or included in a meta-analysis. We have not reported these further.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review highlighted the need for further well designed and completed studies to be conducted for this common neonatal procedure. Evidence is lacking to determine the most effective and safe method to stabilise the endotracheal tube in the ventilated neonate.
Topics: Equipment Safety; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Premature; Intensive Care, Neonatal; Intubation, Intratracheal; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiration, Artificial
PubMed: 25079665
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007805.pub2 -
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and... Jul 2020Systematic review and meta-analysis. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
AIM
The purpose of this study was to compare the safety and accuracy of the C2 pedicle versus C2 pars screws placement and free-hand technique versus navigation for upper cervical fusion patients.
METHODS
Databases searched included PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library to identify all papers published up to April 2020 that have evaluated C2 pedicle/pars screws placement accuracy. Two authors individually screened the literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The accuracy rates associated with C2 pedicle/pars were extracted. The pooled accuracy rate estimated was performed by the CMA software. A funnel plot based on accuracy rate estimate was used to evaluate publication bias.
RESULTS
From 1123 potentially relevant studies, 142 full-text publications were screened. We analyzed data from 79 studies involving 4431 patients with 6026 C2 pedicle or pars screw placement. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) to evaluate the quality of studies included in this review. Overall, funnel plot and Begg's test did not indicate obvious publication bias. The pooled analysis reveals that the accuracy rates were 93.8% for C2 pedicle screw free-hand, 93.7% for pars screw free-hand, 92.2% for navigated C2 pedicle screw, and 86.2% for navigated C2 pars screw (all, P value < 0.001). No statistically significant differences were observed between the accuracy of placement C2 pedicle versus C2 pars screws with the free-hand technique and the free-hand C2 pedicle group versus the navigated C2 pedicle group (all, P value > 0.05).
CONCLUSION
Overall, there was no difference in the safety and accuracy between the free-hand and navigated techniques. Further well-conducted studies with detailed stratification are needed to complement our findings.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Cervical Vertebrae; Child; Child, Preschool; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Pedicle Screws; Quality Assurance, Health Care; Safety; Spinal Fusion; Surgery, Computer-Assisted; Tomography, X-Ray Computed; Young Adult
PubMed: 32690035
DOI: 10.1186/s13018-020-01798-0 -
Shoulder & Elbow Jul 2019Positioning of the glenoid component is one of the most challenging steps in shoulder arthroplasty, and prosthesis longevity as well as functional outcomes is considered... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Positioning of the glenoid component is one of the most challenging steps in shoulder arthroplasty, and prosthesis longevity as well as functional outcomes is considered highly dependent on accurate positioning. This review considers the evidence supporting surgical navigation and patient-specific instruments for glenoid implant positioning in anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed for studies assessing glenoid implant positioning accuracy as measured by cross-sectional imaging on live subjects or cadaver models. Meta-analysis of controlled studies was performed to estimate the primary effects of navigation and patient-specific instruments on glenoid implant positioning error. Meta-analysis of absolute positioning outcomes was also performed for each group incorporating data from controlled and uncontrolled studies.
RESULTS
Nine studies, four controlled and five uncontrolled, with 258 total subjects were included in the analysis. Meta-analysis of controlled studies supported that both navigation and patient-specific instruments had a moderate statistically significant effect on improving glenoid implant positioning outcomes. Meta-analysis of absolute positioning outcomes demonstrates glenoid implant positioning with standard instrumentation results in a high rate of malposition.
DISCUSSION
Navigation and patient-specific instruments improve glenoid positioning outcomes. Whether the improvement in positioning outcomes achieved translate to better clinical outcomes is unknown.
PubMed: 31447941
DOI: 10.1177/1758573218806252