-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2007Closed suction drainage systems are frequently used to drain fluids, particularly blood, from surgical wounds. The aim of these systems is to reduce the occurrence of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Closed suction drainage systems are frequently used to drain fluids, particularly blood, from surgical wounds. The aim of these systems is to reduce the occurrence of wound haematomas and infection.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness of closed suction drainage systems for orthopaedic surgery.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (March 2006), and contacted the Cochrane Wounds Group. We also searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2006, Issue 1), and MEDLINE (1966 to March 2006). Articles of all languages were considered.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised or quasi-randomised trials comparing the use of closed suction drainage systems with no drainage systems for all types of elective and emergency orthopaedic surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed trial quality, using a nine item scale, and extracted data. Where appropriate, results of comparable studies were pooled.
MAIN RESULTS
Thirty-six studies involving 5464 participants with 5697 surgical wounds were identified. The types of surgery involved were hip and knee replacement, shoulder surgery, hip fracture surgery, spinal surgery, cruciate ligament reconstruction, open meniscectomy and fracture fixation surgery. Pooling of results indicated no statistically significant difference in the incidence of wound infection, haematoma, dehiscence or re-operations between those allocated to drains and the un-drained wounds. Blood transfusion was required more frequently in those who received drains. The need for reinforcement of wound dressings and the occurrence of bruising were more common in the group without drains.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence from randomised trials to support the routine use of closed suction drainage in orthopaedic surgery. Further randomised trials with larger patient numbers are required for different operations before definite conclusions can be made for all types of orthopaedic operations.
Topics: Hematoma; Humans; Orthopedic Procedures; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Suction; Surgical Wound Dehiscence; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 17636687
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001825.pub2 -
BJS Open Feb 2019The use of peritoneal lavage to prevent postoperative intra-abdominal abscess (IAA) after appendicectomy has been debated widely. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The use of peritoneal lavage to prevent postoperative intra-abdominal abscess (IAA) after appendicectomy has been debated widely.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis of suction alone lavage for appendicitis was performed to determine the relative benefit of lavage. Primary outcomes were postoperative IAA and wound infection (WI). Inclusion criteria were human studies reporting a comparison of appendicectomy with or without peritoneal lavage.
RESULTS
Eight studies met the inclusion criteria, the majority of which were retrospective. Only three were RCTs. Four studies included analysis only of the paediatric population. The rate of IAA was 1·0-19·5 per cent in patients receiving suction alone and 1·5-18·6 per cent in those having lavage. WI rates were 1·0-29·2 per cent for suction alone and 0·8-20·5 per cent for lavage. The pooled risk difference for IAA was 0·01 (95 per cent c.i. -0·03 to 0·06; = 0·50) and that for WI was 0·00 (-0·05 to 0·05; = 0·98). Analyses of both outcomes indicated a medium degree of heterogeneity between effect estimates with values of 71 per cent ( = 0·001) and 70 per cent ( = 0·010) for IAA and WI respectively.
CONCLUSION
There is no evidence of benefit of lavage over suction for postoperative infective complications, and no individual study demonstrated a significant benefit in patients receiving lavage.
Topics: Abdominal Abscess; Acute Disease; Appendectomy; Appendicitis; Humans; Intraoperative Care; Peritoneal Lavage; Postoperative Complications; Suction; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 30734012
DOI: 10.1002/bjs5.50118 -
Endoscopy International Open Aug 2023Despite the widespread use of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition, the choice of optimal suction technique remains a subject of debate. Multiple...
Despite the widespread use of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition, the choice of optimal suction technique remains a subject of debate. Multiple studies have shown conflicting results with respect to the four suction techniques: Dry suction (DS), no suction (NS), stylet slow-pull (SSP) and wet suction (WS). Thus, the present network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to compare the diagnostic yields of above suction techniques during EUS-guided tissue acquisition. A comprehensive literature search from 2010 to March 2022 was done for randomized trials comparing the aspirated sample and diagnostic outcome with various suction techniques. Both pairwise and network meta-analyses were performed to analyze the outcomes: sample adequacy, moderate to high cellularity, gross bloodiness and diagnostic accuracy. A total of 16 studies (n=2048 patients) were included in the final NMA. WS was associated with a lower odd of gross bloodiness compared to DS (odds ratio 0.50, 95% confidence interval 0.24-0.97). There was no significant difference between the various suction methods with respect to sample adequacy, moderate to high cellularity and diagnostic accuracy. On meta-regression, to adjust for the effect of needle type, WS was comparable to DS in terms of bloodiness when adjusted for fine-needle aspiration needle. Surface under the cumulative ranking analysis ranked WS as the best modality for all the outcomes. The present NMA did not show superiority of any specific suction technique for EUS-guided tissue sampling with regard to sample quality or diagnostic accuracy, with low confidence in estimates.
PubMed: 37564335
DOI: 10.1055/a-2085-3674 -
PloS One 2023The benefits of routine gastric suctioning or lavage in neonates remain uncertain, despite the common practice worldwide. To investigate the potential advantages and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The benefits of routine gastric suctioning or lavage in neonates remain uncertain, despite the common practice worldwide. To investigate the potential advantages and harms, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the effects of these procedures in healthy or meconium-stained neonates at birth. We systematically searched PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Ovid, and the Cochrane Library databases from inception to February 9, 2023. We included only RCTs assessing the outcomes of gastric suction or lavage in neonates at birth. We calculated risk ratio (RR) and weighted mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a random-effects model. The primary outcomes were gastrointestinal symptoms including vomiting, retching, feeding intolerance, and secondary aspiration. The secondary outcomes included time to initiation of breastfeeding and potential adverse procedure-related events. Twelve RCTs with a total of 4,122 neonates were analyzed. All the studies compared neonates who received gastric suction or lavage with those who received usual care. Gastrointestinal symptoms were significantly reduced in neonates receiving gastric suction or gastric lavage compared with the control group (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.63-0.89). Gastric lavage was beneficial for infants with meconium-stained amniotic fluid (RR 0.71; 95% CI, 0.60-0.84), while gastric suction had no significant benefit in reducing gastrointestinal symptoms in infants without meconium-stained amniotic fluid (RR 0.91; 95% CI, 0.61-1.37). Our findings suggest that gastric suction or lavage may reduce gastrointestinal symptoms in neonates; however, these procedures may only benefit infants born with meconium-stained amniotic fluid. Vigorous newborns without meconium-stained amniotic fluid may not benefit from these procedures. Furthermore, gastric suction may lead to adverse outcomes such as apnea and bradycardia. Registration: This study was registered in the PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews in health and social care (CRD42023247780).
Topics: Infant, Newborn; Infant; Humans; Meconium; Therapeutic Irrigation; Suction; Stomach; Gastric Lavage; Vomiting; Amniotic Fluid
PubMed: 37440527
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0288398 -
Journal of Personalized Medicine Mar 2022The chest tube drainage system (CTDS) of choice for the pleural cavity after pulmonary resection remains controversial. This systematic review and network meta-analysis...
OBJECTIVE
The chest tube drainage system (CTDS) of choice for the pleural cavity after pulmonary resection remains controversial. This systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to assess the length of hospital stay, chest tube placement duration, and prolonged air leak among different types of CTDS.
METHODS
This systemic review and NMA included 21 randomized controlled trials (3399 patients) in PubMed and Embase until 1 June 2021. We performed a frequentist random effect in our NMA, and a P-score was adopted to determine the best treatment. We assessed the clinical efficacy of different CTDSs (digital/suction/non-suction) using the length of hospital stay, chest tube placement duration, and presence of prolonged air leak.
RESULTS
Based on the NMA, digital CTDS was the most beneficial intervention for the length of hospital stay, being 1.4 days less than that of suction CTDS (mean difference (MD): -1.40; 95% confidence interval (CI): -2.20 to -0.60). Digital CTDS also had significantly reduced chest tube placement duration, being 0.68 days less than that of suction CTDSs (MD: -0.68; 95% CI: -1.32 to -0.04). Neither digital nor non-suction CTDS significantly reduced the risk of prolonged air leak.
CONCLUSIONS
Digital CTDS is associated with better outcomes than suction and non-suction CTDS for patients undergoing pulmonary resections, specifically 0.68 days shorter chest tube duration and 1.4 days shorter hospital stay than suction CTDS.
PubMed: 35455628
DOI: 10.3390/jpm12040512 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2017For management of pneumothorax that occurs without underlying lung disease, also referred to as primary spontaneous pneumothorax, simple aspiration is technically easier... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
For management of pneumothorax that occurs without underlying lung disease, also referred to as primary spontaneous pneumothorax, simple aspiration is technically easier to perform than intercostal tube drainage. In this systematic review, we seek to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of simple aspiration versus intercostal tube drainage for management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax. This review was first published in 2007 and was updated in 2017.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of simple aspiration versus intercostal tube drainage for management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 1) in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (1966 to January 2017); and Embase (1980 to January 2017). We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry for ongoing trials (January 2017). We checked the reference lists of included trials and contacted trial authors. We imposed no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adults 18 years of age and older with primary spontaneous pneumothorax that compared simple aspiration versus intercostal tube drainage.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, assessed trial quality, and extracted data. We combined studies using the random-effects model.
MAIN RESULTS
Of 2332 publications obtained through the search strategy, seven studies met the inclusion criteria; one study was ongoing and six studies of 435 participants were eligible for inclusion in the updated review. Data show a significant difference in immediate success rates of procedures favouring tube drainage over simple aspiration for management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax (risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 0.89; 435 participants, 6 studies; moderate-quality evidence). Duration of hospitalization however was significantly less for patients treated by simple aspiration (mean difference (MD) -1.66, 95% CI -2.28 to -1.04; 387 participants, 5 studies; moderate-quality evidence). A narrative synthesis of evidence revealed that simple aspiration led to fewer adverse events (245 participants, 3 studies; low-quality evidence), but data suggest no differences between groups in terms of one-year success rate (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.18; 318 participants, 4 studies; moderate-quality evidence), hospitalization rate (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.47; 245 participants, 3 studies; very low-quality evidence), and patient satisfaction (median between-group difference of 0.5 on a scale from 1 to 10; 48 participants, 1 study; low-quality evidence). No studies provided data on cost-effectiveness.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Available trials showed low to moderate-quality evidence that intercostal tube drainage produced higher rates of immediate success, while simple aspiration resulted in a shorter duration of hospitalization. Although adverse events were reported more commonly for patients treated with tube drainage, the low quality of the evidence warrants caution in interpreting these findings. Similarly, although this review observed no differences between groups when early failure rate, one-year success rate, or hospital admission rate was evaluated, this too needs to be put into the perspective of the quality of evidence, specifically, for evidence of very low and low quality for hospitalization rate and patient satisfaction, respectively. Future adequately powered research is needed to strengthen the evidence presented in this review.
Topics: Chest Tubes; Drainage; Humans; Length of Stay; Patient Satisfaction; Pneumothorax; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Suction
PubMed: 28881006
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004479.pub3 -
Resuscitation Plus Dec 2022Upper airway suctioning at birth was considered standard procedure and is still commonly practiced. Negative effects could exceed benefits of suction. (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
Upper airway suctioning at birth was considered standard procedure and is still commonly practiced. Negative effects could exceed benefits of suction.
QUESTION
In infants born through clear amniotic fluid (P) does suctioning of the mouth and nose (I) vs no suctioning (C) improve outcomes (O).
DATA SOURCES
Information specialist conducted literature search (12th September 2021, re-run 17th June 2022) using Medline, Embase, Cochrane Databases, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and CINAHL. RCTs, non-RCTs and observational studies with a defined selection strategy were included. Unpublished studies, reviews, editorials, animal and manikin studies were excluded.
DATA EXTRACTION
Two authors independently extracted data, risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane ROB2 and ROBINS-I tools. Certainty of evidence was assed using the GRADE framework. Review Manager was used to analyse data and GRADEPro to develop summary of evidence tables. Meta-analyses were performed if ≥2 RCTs were available.
OUTCOMES
Primary: assisted ventilation. Secondary: advanced resuscitation, oxygen supplementation, adverse effects of suctioning, unanticipated NICU admission.
RESULTS
Nine RCTs (n = 1096) and 2 observational studies (n = 418) were identified. Two RCTs (n = 280) with data concerns were excluded post-hoc. Meta-analysis of 3 RCTs, (n = 702) showed no difference in primary outcome. Two RCTs (n = 200) and 2 prospective observational studies (n = 418) found lower oxygen saturations in first 10 minutes of life with suctioning. Two RCTs (n = 200) showed suctioned newborns took longer to achieve target saturations.
LIMITATIONS
Certainty of evidence was low or very low for all outcomes. Most studies selected healthy newborns limiting generalisability and insufficient data was available for planned subgroup analyses.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite low certainty evidence, this review suggests no clinical benefit from suctioning clear amniotic fluid from infants following birth, with some evidence suggesting a resulting desaturation. These finding support current guideline recommendations that this practice is not used as a routine step in birth.
FUNDING
The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation provided access to software platforms, an information specialist and teleconferencing.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION
This systematic review was registered with the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/) (identifier: CRD42021286258).
PubMed: 36157918
DOI: 10.1016/j.resplu.2022.100298 -
Translational Andrology and Urology Jan 2022With advances in medicine, there have been more and more ways to treat renal calculi in recent years. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is a safe and effective...
BACKGROUND
With advances in medicine, there have been more and more ways to treat renal calculi in recent years. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is a safe and effective treatment. The purpose of this paper is to study the efficacy and safety of PCNL combined with negative pressure suction in the treatment of renal calculi by meta-analysis.
METHODS
The PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Chinese Journal Full-Text Database, VIP, Wanfang Science and Technology Journal Full-Text Database, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Search databases were searched for articles related to the efficacy and safety of PCNL combined with negative pressure suction in the treatment of renal calculi from the establishment of the databases to October 2021. Endnote X9 software was first used to check and eliminate the articles, and the quality of the included articles were evaluated according to the risk of bias tool of Cochrane Collaboration. Stata 15.1 software was used to record the data. A meta-analysis was performed on the stone clearance rate, operation time, postoperative complications, postoperative fever, septic shock, intrapelvic pressure, and blood loss of PCNL combined with negative pressure suction in the treatment of renal calculi. The reliability of the results was assessed by a sensitivity analysis. Egger's linear test was used to test the publication bias of the articles.
RESULTS
A total of 10 articles were included in the meta-analysis, and the total sample size of the study was 820. The meta-analysis showed that when PCNL combined with negative pressure suction was used to treat renal calculi, the stone clearance rate and the occurrence of septic shock of the test group did not differ significantly from that of the control group; the incidence rate of postoperative complications、the operation time, the intraoperative bleeding and the postoperative fever of the test group was significantly better than that of the control group.
DISCUSSION
Compared to the group without negative pressure, PCNL reduces the operation time, postoperative complications, postoperative fever, septic shock, and intraoperative blood loss without increasing the risk of septic shock.
PubMed: 35242643
DOI: 10.21037/tau-21-1067 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2014This is an updated version of an original Cochrane review published in The Cochrane Library, 2011, Issue 1.Vulval intraepithelial neoplasia (VIN) is a pre-malignant... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of an original Cochrane review published in The Cochrane Library, 2011, Issue 1.Vulval intraepithelial neoplasia (VIN) is a pre-malignant condition of the vulval skin. This uncommon chronic skin condition of the vulva is associated with a high risk of recurrence and the potential to progress to vulval cancer. The condition is complicated by its multicentric and multifocal nature. The incidence of this condition appears to be rising, particularly in the younger age group. There is a lack of consensus on the optimal surgical treatment method. However, the rationale for the surgical treatment of VIN has been to treat the symptoms and exclude any underlying malignancy, with the continued aim of preserving the vulval anatomy and function. Repeated treatments affect local cosmesis and cause psychosexual morbidity, thus impacting he individual's quality of life.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of surgical interventions in women with high-grade VIN.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) Issue 11,2013 and MEDLINE and EMBASE up to December 2013. We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings and reference lists of included studies, and contacted experts in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared surgical interventions in adult women diagnosed with high-grade VIN.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently abstracted data and assessed risk of bias.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified one RCT, including 30 women, that met our inclusion criteria; this trial reported data on carbon dioxide (CO2) laser surgery versus cavitational ultrasonic surgical aspiration (CUSA). There were no statistically significant differences in the risks of disease recurrence after one year of follow-up, pain, scarring, dysuria or burning, adhesions, infection, abnormal discharge or eschar between women who underwent CO2 laser surgery and those who received CUSA. The trial lacked statistical power due to the small number of women in each group and the low number of observed events, but was at low risk of bias.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The included trial lacked statistical power due to the small number of women in each group and the low number of observed events. The absence of reliable evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of the two surgical techniques for the management of VIN therefore precludes any definitive guidance or recommendations for clinical practice.
Topics: Adult; Carcinoma in Situ; Female; Humans; Lasers, Gas; Precancerous Conditions; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Suction; Ultrasonic Therapy; Vulvar Neoplasms
PubMed: 24596022
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007928.pub3