-
International Journal of Surgery... Jun 2015Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) has become a popular alternative to open cholecystectomy (OC) in the treatment of acute cholecystitis (AC). Laparoscopic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) has become a popular alternative to open cholecystectomy (OC) in the treatment of acute cholecystitis (AC). Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is now considered the gold standard of therapy for symptomatic cholelithiasis and chronic cholecystitis. However no definitive data on its use in AC has been published. CIAO and CIAOW studies demonstrated 48.7% of AC were still operated with the open technique. The aim of the present meta-analysis is to compare OC and LC in AC.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A systematic-review with meta-analysis and meta-regression of trials comparing open vs. laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with AC was performed. Electronic searches were performed using Medline, Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CCTR), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and CINAHL.
RESULTS
Ten trials have been included with a total of 1248 patients: 677 in the LC and 697 into the OC groups. The post-operative morbidity rate was half with LC (OR = 0.46). The post-operative wound infection and pneumonia rates were reduced by LC (OR 0.54 and 0.51 respectively). The post-operative mortality rate was reduced by LC (OR = 0.2). The mean postoperative hospital stay was significantly shortened in the LC group (MD = -4.74 days). There were no significant differences in the bile leakage rate, intraoperative blood loss and operative times.
CONCLUSIONS
In acute cholecystitis, post-operative morbidity, mortality and hospital stay were reduced by laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Moreover pneumonia and wound infection rate were reduced by LC. Severe hemorrhage and bile leakage rates were not influenced by the technique. Cholecystectomy in acute cholecystitis should be attempted laparoscopically first.
Topics: Blood Loss, Surgical; Cholecystectomy; Cholecystitis, Acute; Humans; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Operative Time; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 25958296
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2015.04.083 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2018Post-extraction bleeding (PEB) is a recognised, frequently encountered complication in dental practice, which is defined as bleeding that continues beyond 8 to 12 hours... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Post-extraction bleeding (PEB) is a recognised, frequently encountered complication in dental practice, which is defined as bleeding that continues beyond 8 to 12 hours after dental extraction. The incidence of post-extraction bleeding varies from 0% to 26%. If post-extraction bleeding is not managed, complications can range from soft tissue haematomas to severe blood loss. Local causes of bleeding include soft tissue and bone bleeding. Systemic causes include platelet problems, coagulation disorders or excessive fibrinolysis, and inherited or acquired problems (medication induced). There is a wide array of techniques suggested for the treatment of post-extraction bleeding, which include interventions aimed at both local and systemic causes. This is an update of a review published in June 2016.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of interventions for treating different types of post-extraction bleeding.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 24 January 2018), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2017, Issue 12), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 24 January 2018), Embase Ovid (1 May 2015 to 24 January 2018) and CINAHL EBSCO (1937 to 24 January 2018). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. We searched the reference lists of relevant systematic reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated any intervention for treating PEB, with male or female participants of any age, regardless of type of teeth (anterior or posterior, mandibular or maxillary). Trials could compare one type of intervention with another, with placebo, or with no treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three pairs of review authors independently screened search records. We obtained full papers for potentially relevant trials. If data had been extracted, we would have followed the methods described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions for the statistical analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
We did not find any randomised controlled trial suitable for inclusion in this review.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We were unable to identify any reports of randomised controlled trials that evaluated the effects of different interventions for the treatment of post-extraction bleeding. In view of the lack of reliable evidence on this topic, clinicians must use their clinical experience to determine the most appropriate means of treating this condition, depending on patient-related factors. There is a need for well designed and appropriately conducted clinical trials on this topic, which conform to the CONSORT statement (www.consort-statement.org/).
Topics: Female; Humans; Male; Oral Hemorrhage; Postoperative Hemorrhage; Tooth Extraction
PubMed: 29502332
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011930.pub3 -
The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care... Nov 2022Timely management is critical for treating symptomatic common bile duct (CBD) stones; however, a single optimal management strategy has yet to be defined in the acute... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Timely management is critical for treating symptomatic common bile duct (CBD) stones; however, a single optimal management strategy has yet to be defined in the acute care setting. Consequently, this systematic review and network meta-analysis, comparing one-stage (CBD exploration or intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography [ERCP] with simultaneous cholecystectomy) and two-stage (precholecystectomy or postcholecystectomy ERCP) procedures, was undertaken with the main outcomes of interest being postprocedural complications and hospital length of stay (LOS).
METHODS
PubMed, SCOPUS, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were methodically queried for articles from 2010 to 2021. The search terms were a combination of medical subject headings terms and the subsequent terms: gallstone; common bile duct (stone); choledocholithiasis; cholecystitis; endoscopic retrograde cholangiography/ERCP; common bile duct exploration; intraoperative, preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiography; stone extraction; and one-stage and two-stage procedure. Studies that compared two procedures or more were included, whereas studies not recording complications (bile leak, hemorrhage, pancreatitis, perforation, intra-abdominal infections, and other infections) or LOS were excluded. A network meta-analysis was conducted to compare the four different approaches for managing CBD stones.
RESULTS
A total of 16 studies (8,644 participants) addressing the LOS and 41 studies (19,756 participants) addressing postprocedural complications were included in the analysis. The one-stage approaches were associated with a decrease in LOS compared with the two-stage approaches. Common bile duct exploration demonstrated a lower overall risk of complications compared with preoperative ERCP, but there were no differences in the overall risk of complications in the remaining comparisons. However, differences in specific postprocedural complications were detected between the four different approaches managing CBD stones.
CONCLUSION
This network meta-analysis suggests that both laparoscopic CBD exploration and intraoperative ERCP have equally good outcomes and provide a preferable single-anesthesia patient pathway with a shorter overall length of hospital stay compared with the two-stage approaches.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Systematic Review/Meta Analysis; Level III.
Topics: Humans; Gallstones; Sphincterotomy, Endoscopic; Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic; Network Meta-Analysis; Choledocholithiasis; Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde; Common Bile Duct
PubMed: 35939370
DOI: 10.1097/TA.0000000000003755 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Mar 2022To systematically compare the effect of direct oral anticoagulants and low molecular weight heparin for thromboprophylaxis on the benefits and harms to patients... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Benefits and harms of direct oral anticoagulation and low molecular weight heparin for thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically compare the effect of direct oral anticoagulants and low molecular weight heparin for thromboprophylaxis on the benefits and harms to patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery.
DESIGN
Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), up to August 2021.
REVIEW METHODS
Randomised controlled trials in adults undergoing non-cardiac surgery were selected, comparing low molecular weight heparin (prophylactic (low) or higher dose) with direct oral anticoagulants or with no active treatment. Main outcomes were symptomatic venous thromboembolism, symptomatic pulmonary embolism, and major bleeding. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used for network meta-analyses. Abstracts and full texts were screened independently in duplicate. Data were abstracted on study participants, interventions, and outcomes, and risk of bias was assessed independently in duplicate. Frequentist network meta-analysis with multivariate random effects models provided odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals, and GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation) assessments indicated the certainty of the evidence.
RESULTS
68 randomised controlled trials were included (51 orthopaedic, 10 general, four gynaecological, two thoracic, and one urological surgery), involving 45 445 patients. Low dose (odds ratio 0.33, 95% confidence interval 0.16 to 0.67) and high dose (0.19, 0.07 to 0.54) low molecular weight heparin, and direct oral anticoagulants (0.17, 0.07 to 0.41) reduced symptomatic venous thromboembolism compared with no active treatment, with absolute risk differences of 1-100 per 1000 patients, depending on baseline risks (certainty of evidence, moderate to high). None of the active agents reduced symptomatic pulmonary embolism (certainty of evidence, low to moderate). Direct oral anticoagulants and low molecular weight heparin were associated with a 2-3-fold increase in the odds of major bleeding compared with no active treatment (certainty of evidence, moderate to high), with absolute risk differences as high as 50 per 1000 in patients at high risk. Compared with low dose low molecular weight heparin, high dose low molecular weight heparin did not reduce symptomatic venous thromboembolism (0.57, 0.26 to 1.27) but increased major bleeding (1.87, 1.06 to 3.31); direct oral anticoagulants reduced symptomatic venous thromboembolism (0.53, 0.32 to 0.89) and did not increase major bleeding (1.23, 0.89 to 1.69).
CONCLUSIONS
Direct oral anticoagulants and low molecular weight heparin reduced venous thromboembolism compared with no active treatment but probably increased major bleeding to a similar extent. Direct oral anticoagulants probably prevent symptomatic venous thromboembolism to a greater extent than prophylactic low molecular weight heparin.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42018106181.
Topics: Anticoagulants; Hemorrhage; Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Postoperative Complications; Pulmonary Embolism; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Procedures, Operative; Treatment Outcome; Venous Thromboembolism
PubMed: 35264372
DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2021-066785 -
Journal of the American College of... May 2021It is increasingly recognized that non-opioid analgesia is an important analgesia in the perioperative period. Specifically, NSAIDs (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
It is increasingly recognized that non-opioid analgesia is an important analgesia in the perioperative period. Specifically, NSAIDs (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) have been touted as an adjunct, or even replacement, for opioids. However, uptake of NSAIDs has been slow due to concern for side effects, including bleeding. We sought to understand the risk of bleeding caused by NSAIDs in the perioperative period.
STUDY DESIGN
A physician-librarian team performed a search of electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE), using search terms covering the targeted intervention (use of NSAIDs) and outcomes of interest (surgical complications, bleeding), limited to English language articles of any date. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the data.
RESULTS
A total of 2,521 articles were screened, and 229 were selected on the basis of title and abstract for detailed assessment. Including reference searching, 74 manuscripts met inclusion criteria spanning years 1987-2019. These studies included 151,031 patients. Studies included 12 types of NSAIDs, the most common being ketorolac, diclofenac, and ibuprofen, over a wide-range of procedures, from otorhinolaryngology (ENT), breast, abdomen, plastics, and more. More than half were randomized control trials. The meta-analyses for hematoma, return to the operating room for bleeding, and blood transfusions showed no difference in risk in any of 3 categories studied between the NSAID vs non-NSAID groups (p = 0.49, p = 0.79, and p = 0.49, respectively). Quality scoring found a wide range of quality, with scores ranging from lowest quality of 12 to highest quality of 25, out of a total of 27 (average = 16).
CONCLUSIONS
NSAIDs are unlikely to be the cause of postoperative bleeding complications. This literature covers a large number of patients and remains consistent across types of NSAIDs and operations.
Topics: Analgesia; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Blood Loss, Surgical; Blood Transfusion; Diclofenac; Humans; Ibuprofen; Ketorolac; Pain, Postoperative; Pain, Procedural; Perioperative Period; Postoperative Hemorrhage; Surgical Procedures, Operative; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33515678
DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2021.01.005 -
World Journal of Surgical Oncology Feb 2019Because conventional prostate biopsy has some limitations, optimal variations of prostate biopsy strategies have emerged to improve the diagnosis rate of prostate... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Because conventional prostate biopsy has some limitations, optimal variations of prostate biopsy strategies have emerged to improve the diagnosis rate of prostate cancer. We conducted the systematic review to compare the diagnosis rate and complications of transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy. We searched for online publications published through June 27, 2018, in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure databases. The relative risk and 95% confidence interval were utilized to appraise the diagnosis and complication rate. The condensed relative risk of 11 included studies indicated that transperineal prostate biopsy has the same diagnosis accuracy of transrectal prostate biopsy; however, a significantly lower risk of fever and rectal bleeding was reported for transperineal prostate biopsy. No clue of publication bias could be identified.
SHORT CONCLUSION
To conclude, this review indicated that transperineal and transrectal prostate biopsy have the same diagnosis accuracy, but the transperineal approach has a lower risk of fever and rectal bleeding. More studies are warranted to confirm these findings and discover a more effective diagnosis method for prostate cancer.
Topics: Biopsy, Large-Core Needle; Fever; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Humans; Male; Perineum; Postoperative Complications; Prognosis; Prostate; Prostatic Neoplasms; Rectum; Ultrasonography, Interventional
PubMed: 30760274
DOI: 10.1186/s12957-019-1573-0 -
American Journal of Obstetrics and... Jul 2013To evaluate the efficacy and safety of prophylactic misoprostol use at cesarean delivery for reducing intraoperative and postoperative hemorrhage. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of prophylactic misoprostol use at cesarean delivery for reducing intraoperative and postoperative hemorrhage.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review and metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials.
RESULTS
Seventeen studies (3174 women) were included of which 7 evaluated misoprostol vs oxytocin and 8 evaluated misoprostol plus oxytocin vs oxytocin alone. Overall, there were no significant differences in intraoperative and postoperative hemorrhage between sublingual or oral misoprostol and oxytocin. Rectal misoprostol, compared with oxytocin, was associated with a significant reduction in intraoperative and postoperative hemorrhage. The combined use of sublingual misoprostol and oxytocin, compared with the use of oxytocin alone, was associated with a significant reduction in the mean decrease in hematocrit (mean difference, -2.1%; 95% confidence interval, -3.4 to -0.8) and use of additional uterotonic agents (relative risk, 0.33; 95% confidence interval, 0.18-0.62). Compared with oxytocin alone, buccal misoprostol plus oxytocin reduced the use of additional uterotonic agents; rectal misoprostol plus oxytocin decreased intraoperative and postoperative blood loss, mean fall in hematocrit, and use of additional uterotonic agents; and intrauterine misoprostol plus oxytocin reduced the mean fall in hemoglobin and hematocrit. Women receiving misoprostol, alone or combined with oxytocin, had a higher risk of shivering and pyrexia.
CONCLUSION
Misoprostol combined with oxytocin appears to be more effective than oxytocin alone in reducing intraoperative and postoperative hemorrhage during cesarean section. There were no significant differences in intraoperative and postoperative hemorrhage when misoprostol was compared to oxytocin. However, these findings were based on a few trials with methodological limitations.
Topics: Cesarean Section; Female; Humans; Intraoperative Complications; Misoprostol; Oxytocics; Oxytocin; Postpartum Hemorrhage; Pregnancy; Uterine Hemorrhage
PubMed: 23507545
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2013.03.015 -
Cancers Mar 2023To date, gross total resection (GTR) of the contrast-enhancing area of glioblastoma (GB) is the benchmark treatment regarding surgical therapy. However, GB infiltrates... (Review)
Review
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Supramarginal Resection versus Gross Total Resection in Glioblastoma: Can We Enhance Progression-Free Survival Time and Preserve Postoperative Safety?
To date, gross total resection (GTR) of the contrast-enhancing area of glioblastoma (GB) is the benchmark treatment regarding surgical therapy. However, GB infiltrates beyond those margins, and most tumors recur in close proximity to the initial resection margin. It is unclear whether a supramarginal resection (SMR) enhances progression-free survival (PFS) time without increasing the incidence of postoperative surgical complications. The aim of the present meta-analysis was to investigate SMR with regard to PFS and postoperative surgical complications. We searched for eligible studies comparing SMR techniques with conventional GTR in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Medline databases. From 3158 initially identified records, 11 articles met the criteria and were included in our meta-analysis. Our results illustrate significantly prolonged PFS time in SMR compared with GTR (HR: 11.16; 95% CI: 3.07-40.52, = 0.0002). The median PFS of the SMR arm was 8.44 months (95% CI: 5.18-11.70, < 0.00001) longer than the GTR arm. The rate of postoperative surgical complications (meningitis, intracranial hemorrhage, and CSF leaks) did not differ between the SMR group and the GTR group. SMR resulted in longer median progression-free survival without a negative postoperative surgical risk profile. Multicentric prospective randomized trials with a standardized definition of SMR and analysis of neurologic functioning and health-related quality of life are justified and needed to improve the level of evidence.
PubMed: 36980659
DOI: 10.3390/cancers15061772 -
Surgery May 2023The aim of this meta-analysis and systematic review was to evaluate the association between intraoperative bile cultures and postoperative complications of patients... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The aim of this meta-analysis and systematic review was to evaluate the association between intraoperative bile cultures and postoperative complications of patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy.
METHODS
A detailed literature search was performed from January 2015 to July 2022 in PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and EMBASE for related research publications. The data were extracted, screened, and graded independently. An analysis of pooled data was performed, and a risk ratio with corresponding confidence intervals was calculated and summarized.
RESULTS
A total of 8 articles were included with 1,778 pancreaticoduodenectomy patients who had an intraoperative bile culture performed. A systematic review demonstrated that some of the most common organisms isolated in a positive intraoperative bile culture were Enterococcus species, Klebsiella species, and E. coli. Four studies also showed that specific microorganisms were associated with specific postoperative complications (surgical site infection and intra-abdominal abscess). The postoperative complications that were evaluated for an association with a positive intraoperative bile culture were surgical site infections (risk ratio = 2.33, 95% confidence interval [1.47-3.69], P < .01), delayed gastric emptying (risk ratio = 1.23, 95% confidence interval [0.63-2.38], P = n.s.), 90-day mortality (risk ratio = 0.68, 95% confidence interval [0.01-52.76], P = n.s.), postoperative pancreatic hemorrhage (risk ratio = 1.70, 95% confidence interval [0.33-8.74], P = n.s.), intra-abdominal abscess (risk ratio = 1.70, 95% confidence interval [0.38-7.56], P = n.s.), and postoperative pancreatic fistula (risk ratio = 0.97, 95% confidence interval [0.72-1.32], P = n.s.).
CONCLUSION
The cumulative data suggest that a positive intraoperative bile culture has no association with predicting the postoperative complications of delayed gastric emptying, 90-day mortality, postoperative pancreatic hemorrhage, intra-abdominal abscess, or postoperative pancreatic fistula. However, the data also suggest that a positive intraoperative bile culture was associated with a patient developing a surgical site infection.
Topics: Humans; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Surgical Wound Infection; Pancreatic Fistula; Bile; Gastroparesis; Escherichia coli; Pancreatic Diseases; Postoperative Hemorrhage; Abdominal Abscess; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 36707272
DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2022.12.012 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Sep 2015Aspirin administration before cardiac surgery represents a balance between preventing perioperative thrombotic events and promoting surgical bleeding. Clear evidence to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Aspirin administration before cardiac surgery represents a balance between preventing perioperative thrombotic events and promoting surgical bleeding. Clear evidence to guide the preoperative use of aspirin in patients undergoing cardiac surgery is lacking.This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of preoperative aspirin, in patients undergoing coronary artery surgery.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials involving patients undergoing coronary artery surgery assigned to preoperative aspirin therapy or no aspirin/placebo. The MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched up to March 2014 without language restrictions. Two reviewers performed independent quality review and data extraction. Efficacy outcomes of myocardial infarction (MI) and mortality, and safety outcomes of blood loss, red cell transfusion, and surgical re-exploration were compared.
RESULTS
In 13 trials (n=2399), preoperative aspirin therapy reduced the risk of MI (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.33-0.96; P=0.03), without a reduction in mortality (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.42-3.22; P=0.77). Preoperative aspirin increased postoperative chest tube drainage (mean difference 168 ml; 95% CI, 39-297 ml; P=0.01), red cell transfusion (mean difference 141 ml; 95% CI, 55-226; P=0.001) and need for surgical re-exploration (OR, 1.85, 95% CI, 1.15-2.96; P=0.01). Studies were of low methodological quality, with significant heterogeneity identified.
CONCLUSIONS
In patients undergoing coronary artery surgery, preoperative aspirin reduces perioperative MI, but at a cost of increased bleeding, blood transfusion, and surgical re-exploration.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Aspirin; Blood Loss, Surgical; Blood Transfusion; Cardiac Surgical Procedures; Coronary Vessels; Humans; Myocardial Infarction; Postoperative Hemorrhage; Preoperative Care
PubMed: 26082471
DOI: 10.1093/bja/aev164