-
Orthopaedics & Traumatology, Surgery &... Jun 2023Planned overlapping surgery can improve efficiency, reduce costs and help manage long waiting lists; yet, this practice has been questioned due to patient safety... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Planned overlapping surgery can improve efficiency, reduce costs and help manage long waiting lists; yet, this practice has been questioned due to patient safety concerns. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to answer the question: (1) are there any differences in the risk of postoperative adverse outcomes; and (2) are there any differences in length of stay or length of surgery, in elective total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) performed either as non-overlapping surgery (NOS) or overlapping surgery (OS).
PATIENTS AND METHODS
A systematic search of literature in the databases of MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase and Cochrane from dates of inception was performed. All studies published in English were included. Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies-of Interventions (ROBINS-I) and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework were utilised. Relative risk (RR) was used for dichotomous outcomes, while mean difference (MD) was used for continuous variables, with 95% confidence intervals. Alpha was set at 0.05.
RESULTS
A total of nine studies with 120,625 patients were included for analyses. There were no statistically significant differences for overall rates of postoperative complications, dislocations, fractures, infections, readmissions or revision surgery nor with length of stay or length of surgery (p>0.05). Patient characteristics between groups were similar (p>0.05).
DISCUSSION
There were no differences in postoperative adverse outcomes for elective orthopaedic THA and TKA performed as NOS when compared to OS. Operating schedules for OS in elective lower limb arthroplasty appear to be safe, given appropriate patient selection processes and may be a useful method to improve hospital efficiency. Informed consent and preoperative patient education should remain paramount.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
IV.
Topics: Humans; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee; Postoperative Complications; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip; Reoperation; Preoperative Care; Length of Stay
PubMed: 35472455
DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2022.103299 -
BJS Open May 2023The use of intravenous antibiotics at anaesthetic induction in colorectal surgery is the standard of care. However, the role of mechanical bowel preparation, enemas, and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The use of intravenous antibiotics at anaesthetic induction in colorectal surgery is the standard of care. However, the role of mechanical bowel preparation, enemas, and oral antibiotics in surgical site infection, anastomotic leak, and other perioperative outcomes remains controversial. The aim of this study was to determine the optimal preoperative bowel preparation strategy in elective colorectal surgery.
METHODS
A systematic review and network meta-analysis of RCTs was performed with searches from PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to December 2022. Primary outcomes included surgical site infection and anastomotic leak. Secondary outcomes included 30-day mortality rate, ileus, length of stay, return to theatre, other infections, and side effects of antibiotic therapy or bowel preparation.
RESULTS
Sixty RCTs involving 16 314 patients were included in the final analysis: 3465 (21.2 per cent) had intravenous antibiotics alone, 5268 (32.3 per cent) had intravenous antibiotics + mechanical bowel preparation, 1710 (10.5 per cent) had intravenous antibiotics + oral antibiotics, 4183 (25.6 per cent) had intravenous antibiotics + oral antibiotics + mechanical bowel preparation, 262 (1.6 per cent) had intravenous antibiotics + enemas, and 1426 (8.7 per cent) had oral antibiotics + mechanical bowel preparation. With intravenous antibiotics as a baseline comparator, network meta-analysis demonstrated a significant reduction in total surgical site infection risk with intravenous antibiotics + oral antibiotics (OR 0.47 (95 per cent c.i. 0.32 to 0.68)) and intravenous antibiotics + oral antibiotics + mechanical bowel preparation (OR 0.55 (95 per cent c.i. 0.40 to 0.76)), whereas oral antibiotics + mechanical bowel preparation resulted in a higher surgical site infection rate compared with intravenous antibiotics alone (OR 1.84 (95 per cent c.i. 1.20 to 2.81)). Anastomotic leak rates were lower with intravenous antibiotics + oral antibiotics (OR 0.63 (95 per cent c.i. 0.44 to 0.90)) and intravenous antibiotics + oral antibiotics + mechanical bowel preparation (OR 0.62 (95 per cent c.i. 0.41 to 0.94)) compared with intravenous antibiotics alone. There was no significant difference in outcomes with mechanical bowel preparation in the absence of intravenous antibiotics and oral antibiotics in the main analysis.
CONCLUSION
A bowel preparation strategy with intravenous antibiotics + oral antibiotics, with or without mechanical bowel preparation, should represent the standard of care for patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery.
Topics: Humans; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Surgical Wound Infection; Anastomotic Leak; Colorectal Surgery; Network Meta-Analysis; Preoperative Care
PubMed: 37257059
DOI: 10.1093/bjsopen/zrad040 -
Experimental and Clinical... Jun 2022Lung transplant is an excellent therapeutic option for patients with advanced/end-stage pulmonary disease. The purpose of this review was to define whether preoperative... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Lung transplant is an excellent therapeutic option for patients with advanced/end-stage pulmonary disease. The purpose of this review was to define whether preoperative rehabilitation influences quality of life in patients who are candidates for lung transplant.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This was a scoping review conducted by searching 4 primary databases from inception until January 2022. Three keywords, "lung transplantation," "preoperative rehabilitation," and "quality of life," were matched using the Boolean operator AND. In each database, the following fields were searched: PubMed (all fields), Scopus (title, abstract, keywords), Cochrane Library (title, abstract, keywords), and Web of Science (topic). Filters were applied for age (adult only) and language (English only). No filters were applied for gender, publication date, and subject. The search process was completed in January 2022.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
We retrieved 57 citations from these databases. After removal of duplicates, 41 documents were screened for eligibility. Two articles were included in the final analysis: 1 was a systematic review, and 1 was an observational prospective study. The rehabilitative interventions were mainly focused on motor and breathing exercises and were integrated by education programs. Preoperative rehabilitation was effective atimproving quality of life and mood status and reducing dyspnea in patients waiting for lung transplant. In addition, the 6-minute walking distance increased after patients participated in preoperative rehabilitation. Preoperative rehabilitation was composed of different types of exercise with variable duration (3-20 weeks) and frequency (3-6 times per week). Patients on the active wait list for lung transplant should be encouraged to attend preoperative rehabilitation in order to preserve and improve their quality of life.
Topics: Adult; Exercise Therapy; Humans; Lung Transplantation; Preoperative Exercise; Prospective Studies; Quality of Life; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35791828
DOI: 10.6002/ect.2022.0039 -
BMJ Open Dec 2017To evaluate the clinical efficacy and effectiveness of using 3D printing to develop medical devices across all medical fields. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the clinical efficacy and effectiveness of using 3D printing to develop medical devices across all medical fields.
DESIGN
Systematic review compliant with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Web of Science, OVID, IEEE Xplore and Google Scholar.
METHODS
A double-blinded review method was used to select all abstracts up to January 2017 that reported on clinical trials of a three-dimensional (3D)-printed medical device. The studies were ranked according to their level of evidence, divided into medical fields based on the International Classification of Diseases chapter divisions and categorised into whether they were used for preoperative planning, aiding surgery or therapy. The Downs and Black Quality Index critical appraisal tool was used to assess the quality of reporting, external validity, risk of bias, risk of confounding and power of each study.
RESULTS
Of the 3084 abstracts screened, 350 studies met the inclusion criteria. Oral and maxillofacial surgery contained 58.3% of studies, and 23.7% covered the musculoskeletal system. Only 21 studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and all fitted within these two fields. The majority of RCTs were 3D-printed anatomical models for preoperative planning and guides for aiding surgery. The main benefits of these devices were decreased surgical operation times and increased surgical accuracy.
CONCLUSIONS
All medical fields that assessed 3D-printed devices concluded that they were clinically effective. The fields that most rigorously assessed 3D-printed devices were oral and maxillofacial surgery and the musculoskeletal system, both of which concluded that the 3D-printed devices outperformed their conventional comparators. However, the efficacy and effectiveness of 3D-printed devices remain undetermined for the majority of medical fields. 3D-printed devices can play an important role in healthcare, but more rigorous and long-term assessments are needed to determine if 3D-printed devices are clinically relevant before they become part of standard clinical practice.
Topics: Humans; Models, Anatomic; Printing, Three-Dimensional; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29273650
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016891 -
BJA Open Jun 2024Group preoperative education is becoming standard care for patients preparing for surgery, alongside optimisation of exercise, diet, and wellbeing. Although patient... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Group preoperative education is becoming standard care for patients preparing for surgery, alongside optimisation of exercise, diet, and wellbeing. Although patient education is essential, the effectiveness of group education programmes or 'surgery schools' as a means of delivery is unclear. This review examines whether attending group preoperative education improves patient outcomes.
METHODS
We systematically reviewed studies of group perioperative education before major elective surgery. Observational or intervention studies with a baseline group or control arm were included. All outcomes reported were collected and, where possible, effect estimates were summarised using random effects meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Twenty-seven studies reported on 48 different outcomes after group education. Overall, there was a 0.7 (95% confidence interval 0.27-1.13) day reduction in mean length of stay. The odds ratio for postoperative complications after abdominal surgery was 0.56 (95% confidence interval 0.36-0.85; nine studies). Patient-centred outcomes were grouped into themes. Most studies reported a benefit from group education, but only postoperative physical impairment, pain, knowledge, activation, preoperative anxiety, and some elements of quality of life were statistically significant.
CONCLUSION
This review presents a summary of published evidence available for group preoperative education. While these data lend support for such programmes, there is a need for adequately powered prospective studies to evaluate the effectiveness of preoperative education on clinical outcomes and to evaluate whether behaviour change is sustained. Furthermore, the content, timing and mode of delivery, and evaluation measures of preoperative education require standardisation.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL
PROSPERO (166297).
PubMed: 38832071
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjao.2024.100286 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2015Surgery has been the treatment of choice for patients with localized esophageal cancer. Several studies have investigated whether preoperative chemotherapy followed by... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Surgery has been the treatment of choice for patients with localized esophageal cancer. Several studies have investigated whether preoperative chemotherapy followed by surgery leads to improvement in cure rates, but individual reports have provided conflicting results. An explicit systematic update of the role of preoperative chemotherapy in the treatment of patients with resectable thoracic esophageal cancer is, therefore, warranted.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this review is to determine the role of preoperative chemotherapy in the treatment of patients with resectable thoracic esophageal carcinoma.
SEARCH METHODS
We identified trials by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1966 to 2013), EMBASE (1988 to 2013), and CANCERLIT (1993 to 2013). We did not confine our search to English language publications. We updated searches in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE in October 2013.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All trials of patients with potentially resectable carcinoma of the esophagus (of any histologic type) who were randomly assigned to chemotherapy or no chemotherapy before surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
The primary outcome was survival, which was assessed with the use of hazard ratios. This is an amendment to the original review, which used risk ratios to assess survival at yearly intervals. Hazard ratios (HRs) have now been introduced to summarize the complete survival experience in a single analysis. Risk ratios (RRs) were used to compare rates of resection, tumor recurrences, and treatment morbidity and mortality.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified a total of 13 randomized trials involving 2362 participants. Ten trials (2122 participants) reported sufficient detail on survival to be included in a meta-analysis for the primary outcome. Preoperative chemotherapy improves overall survival (HR 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 0.96) and is associated with a significantly higher rate of complete (R0) resection (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.19).No evidence suggests that the overall rate of resection (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.01), tumor recurrence (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.22) or nonfatal complications (RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.06) was different for preoperative chemotherapy compared with surgery alone. Trials reported risks of toxicity with chemotherapy that ranged from 11% to 90%.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In summary, preoperative chemotherapy plus surgery offers a survival advantage compared with surgery alone for patients with resectable thoracic esophageal cancer, but the evidence is of moderate quality. Some evidence of toxicity and preoperative mortality have been associated with chemotherapy.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Cisplatin; Combined Modality Therapy; Esophageal Neoplasms; Fluorouracil; Humans; Life Expectancy; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Preoperative Care; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25988291
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001556.pub3 -
Nutrients May 2020Malnutrition is associated with poor surgical outcomes, and therefore optimizing nutritional status preoperatively is very important. The purpose of this paper is to...
Malnutrition is associated with poor surgical outcomes, and therefore optimizing nutritional status preoperatively is very important. The purpose of this paper is to review the literature related to preoperative parenteral nutrition (PN) and to provide current evidence based guidance. A systemic online search of PubMed, Medline, and Cochrane Databases from January 1990 to February 2020 was done. Sixteen studies were included in this narrative review, including four meta-analyses and twelve clinical trials. The majority of studies have demonstrated benefits of preoperative PN on postoperative outcomes, including reduced postoperative complications (8/10 studies) and postoperative length of stay (3/4 studies). Preoperative PN is indicated in malnourished surgical patients who cannot achieve adequate nutrient intake by oral or enteral nutrition. It can be seen that most studies showing benefits of preoperative PN often included patients with upper gastrointestinal cancer and inflammatory bowel disease (10/12 studies), which gastrointestinal problems are commonly seen and enteral nutrition may be not feasible. When preoperative PN is indicated, adequate energy and protein should be provided, and patients should receive at least seven days of PN prior to surgery. The goal of preoperative PN is not weight regain, but rather repletion of energy, protein, micronutrients, and glycogen stores. Complications associated with preoperative PN are rarely seen in previous studies. In order to prevent and mitigate the potential complications such as refeeding syndrome, optimal monitoring and early management of micronutrient deficiencies is required.
Topics: Evidence-Based Medicine; Gastrointestinal Neoplasms; Humans; Inflammatory Bowel Diseases; Insurance Benefits; Length of Stay; Malnutrition; Nutrition Assessment; Nutritional Status; Parenteral Nutrition; Postoperative Complications; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Preoperative Care; Prognosis
PubMed: 32384662
DOI: 10.3390/nu12051320 -
Infection Control and Hospital... Dec 2010To compare use of chlorhexidine with use of iodine for preoperative skin antisepsis with respect to effectiveness in preventing surgical site infections (SSIs) and cost. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To compare use of chlorhexidine with use of iodine for preoperative skin antisepsis with respect to effectiveness in preventing surgical site infections (SSIs) and cost.
METHODS
We searched the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality website, the Cochrane Library, Medline, and EMBASE up to January 2010 for eligible studies. Included studies were systematic reviews, meta-analyses, or randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing preoperative skin antisepsis with chlorhexidine and with iodine and assessing for the outcomes of SSI or positive skin culture result after application. One reviewer extracted data and assessed individual study quality, quality of evidence for each outcome, and publication bias. Meta-analyses were performed using a fixed-effects model. Using results from the meta-analysis and cost data from the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, we developed a decision analytic cost-benefit model to compare the economic value, from the hospital perspective, of antisepsis with iodine versus antisepsis with 2 preparations of chlorhexidine (ie, 4% chlorhexidine bottle and single-use applicators of a 2% chlorhexidine gluconate [CHG] and 70% isopropyl alcohol [IPA] solution), and also performed sensitivity analyses.
RESULTS
Nine RCTs with a total of 3,614 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Meta-analysis revealed that chlorhexidine antisepsis was associated with significantly fewer SSIs (adjusted risk ratio, 0.64 [95% confidence interval, [0.51-0.80]) and positive skin culture results (adjusted risk ratio, 0.44 [95% confidence interval, 0.35-0.56]) than was iodine antisepsis. In the cost-benefit model baseline scenario, switching from iodine to chlorhexidine resulted in a net cost savings of $16-$26 per surgical case and $349,904-$568,594 per year for the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania. Sensitivity analyses showed that net cost savings persisted under most circumstances.
CONCLUSIONS
Preoperative skin antisepsis with chlorhexidine is more effective than preoperative skin antisepsis with iodine for preventing SSI and results in cost savings.
Topics: 2-Propanol; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Chlorhexidine; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Humans; Iodine; Odds Ratio; Pennsylvania; Pharmaceutical Solutions; Preoperative Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 20969449
DOI: 10.1086/657134 -
Integrative Cancer Therapies 2024The surgical intervention serves as the paramount and prevalent remedy for individuals afflicted with colorectal malignancies, with the significance of perioperative... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The surgical intervention serves as the paramount and prevalent remedy for individuals afflicted with colorectal malignancies, with the significance of perioperative stewardship and convalescence being indisputable. Prehabilitation coupled with preoperative lifestyle modulation has demonstrated efficacy in patients subjected to certain classifications of abdominal procedures. However, the evidence pertaining to its impact on those battling colorectal cancer remains equivocal.
METHODS
A meta-analysis, grounded in pairwise contrast, of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was orchestrated, coupled with a systematic review, to probe the efficacy of preoperative lifestyle modulation and prehabilitation on patients' postoperative functionality and recuperation. An exhaustive exploration of 8 electronic databases and trial registries was undertaken to encompass all pertinent RCTs disseminated in English or Chinese from January 2012 through December 2022. Employing a random-effects model, we evaluated parameters such as the 6-minute walk test (6 MWT), complications, quality of life (QoL), aggregate and postoperative duration of hospitalization (tLHS and postLHS), and healthcare expenditure (HExp) for postoperative patients.
RESULTS
A total of 28 RCTs were incorporated into the systematic review and meta-analysis. Relative to conventional preoperative care, rehabilitation or preoperative lifestyle management was found to enhance postoperative 6MWT () and diminish the complication rate (). Nonetheless, no significant discrepancies were observed in QoL (), tLHS (), and postLHS () between the groups. HExp could not be evaluated due to a lack of sufficient data for synthesis. Most pooled outcomes exhibited significant heterogeneity, urging a cautious interpretation. Subgroup analysis revealed that nutritional interventions could mitigate the incidence of complications, and preoperative exercise could improve tLHS and postLHS. A combined approach of physical, nutritional, and psychological intervention or prehabilitation proved superior to any single intervention in enhancing postoperative capabilities.
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis delineated the efficacy of preoperative interventions on postoperative capabilities in patients with colorectal cancer, thereby offering evidence for clinical practice. It was concluded that preoperative interventions are unequivocally beneficial for postoperative functional recovery and the reduction of complication rates in patients with colorectal cancer. Nonetheless, the acquisition of more high-level evidence is still necessitated to further ascertain the effectiveness of this strategy for other patient groups and to establish its best practices. The heterogeneity in the pooled outcomes underlines the need for future studies to be more uniform in their design and reporting, which would facilitate more robust and reliable meta-analyses.
Topics: Humans; Preoperative Exercise; Life Style; Quality of Life; Asian People; Colorectal Neoplasms
PubMed: 38439687
DOI: 10.1177/15347354241235590 -
Transplantation Reviews (Orlando, Fla.) Apr 2024Frailty, malnutrition and sarcopenia lead to a significant increase in morbidity and mortality before and after liver transplantation (LT). Prehabilitation attempts to... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Frailty, malnutrition and sarcopenia lead to a significant increase in morbidity and mortality before and after liver transplantation (LT). Prehabilitation attempts to optimize physical fitness of individuals before major surgeries. To date, little is known about its impact on patients awaiting LT.
AIMS
The aim of our scoping review was to describe whether prehabilitation in patients awaiting LT is feasible and safe, and whether it leads to a change in clinical parameters before or after transplantation.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review of the literature from 1946 to November 2023 to identify prospective studies and randomized controlled trials of adult LT candidates who participated in an exercise training program.
RESULTS
Out of 3262 citations initially identified, six studies were included. Studies were heterogeneous in design, patient selection, intervention, duration, and outcomes assessed. All studies were self-described as pilot or feasibility studies and had a sample size ranging from 13 to 33. Two studies were randomized controlled trials. Two study restricted to patients with cirrhosis who were eligible for liver transplantation or on the transplant list. Exercise programs lasted between 6 and 12 weeks. In terms of feasibility, proportion of eligible patients that were recruited was between 54 and 100%. Program completion ranged between 38 and 90%. Interventions appeared safe with 9 (9.2%) adverse events noted. In the intervention group, improvements were generally noted in peak oxygen consumption and workload, 6-min walking distance, and muscle strength. One study suggested a decrease in post-transplant hospital length of stay.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, it appears that prehabilitation with exercise training is feasible, and safe in patients awaiting LT. Higher quality and larger studies are needed to confirm its impact on pre- and post-transplantation-related outcomes.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Liver Transplantation; Preoperative Exercise; Prospective Studies; Exercise; Exercise Therapy; Quality of Life; Preoperative Care; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 38367398
DOI: 10.1016/j.trre.2024.100835