Are head bandages really required after middle-ear surgery? A systematic review

2015 ◽  
Vol 129 (8) ◽  
pp. 740-743 ◽  
Author(s):  
I Khan ◽  
S Mohamad ◽  
S Ansari ◽  
A Iyer
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Middle Ear ◽  
Cochlear Implantation ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Middle Ear Surgery ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Retrospective Case ◽  
Ear Surgery ◽  
Randomised Controlled

AbstractObjective:A systematic review was performed to evaluate the role and effectiveness of head bandages after routine elective middle-ear surgery.Methods:Studies that compared the effectiveness of head bandage use after elective middle-ear surgery (e.g. myringoplasty, mastoidectomy and cochlear implantation) were identified using the following databases: Ovid Medline and Embase, the Ebsco collections, the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Google Scholar. An initial search identified 71 articles. All titles and abstracts were reviewed. Thirteen relevant articles were inspected in more detail; of these, only five met the inclusion criteria. These included three randomised, controlled trials, one retrospective case series and one literature review.Results:The three randomised, controlled trials (level of evidence 1b) showed no statistically significant differences in post-operative outcomes (in terms of complications) associated with head bandage use in middle-ear surgery. This finding was supported by the retrospective case series involving patients undergoing cochlear implantation.Conclusion:Current available evidence shows no advantage of head bandage use after middle-ear surgery. Head bandages may not be required after routine, uncomplicated middle-ear surgery.

Should the duration of head bandaging be reduced after pinnaplasty? A systematic review

2014 ◽  
Vol 128 (11) ◽  
pp. 948-951 ◽  
Author(s):  
A E L McMurran ◽  
I Khan ◽  
S Mohamad ◽  
M Shakeel ◽  
H Kubba
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
National Library ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Cochrane Library

AbstractBackground:It is common practice to use head bandages for 7–10 days following pinnaplasty. However, head bandages are often troublesome for patients and can lead to serious complications.Method:A systematic review was performed to evaluate the use of head bandages after pinnaplasty. A search of Medline, Embase (Ovid) and CINAHL (EBSCO collections), the Cochrane Library, Pubmed (US National Library of Medicine) and Google Scholar identified 34 related articles. Of these, 14 were deemed relevant and 2 randomised controlled trials, 1 cohort study, 3 case series and 1 literature review met the inclusion criteria.Results:The two randomised controlled trials show no statistically significant difference in complications when a head bandage was used for the standard 7–10 days, for 24 hours or not at all. The three case series show that using a head bandage for 24 hours or not at all are safe alternatives. The review article recommended that when head bandages are applied after pinnaplasty it should be for the shortest duration possible.Conclusion:Based on the available evidence, not using a head bandage at all or using one for a maximum of 24 hours following pinnaplasty is recommended.

scholarly journals Perioperative liberal versus restrictive fluid strategies and postoperative outcomes: a systematic review and metanalysis on randomised-controlled trials in major abdominal elective surgery

Critical Care ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Messina ◽  
Chiara Robba ◽  
Lorenzo Calabrò ◽  
Daniel Zambelli ◽  
Francesca Iannuzzi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Postoperative Complications ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Elective Surgery ◽  
Fluid Management ◽  
Risk Difference ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Perioperative Fluid Management ◽  
Liberal Approach ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Background Postoperative complications impact on early and long-term patients’ outcome. Appropriate perioperative fluid management is pivotal in this context; however, the most effective perioperative fluid management is still unclear. The enhanced recovery after surgery pathways recommend a perioperative zero-balance, whereas recent findings suggest a more liberal approach could be beneficial. We conducted this trial to address the impact of restrictive vs. liberal fluid approaches on overall postoperative complications and mortality. Methods Systematic review and meta-analysis, including randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We performed a systematic literature search using MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Ovid) and the Cochrane Controlled Clinical trials register databases, published from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2019. We included RCTs enrolling adult patients undergoing elective abdominal surgery and comparing the use of restrictive/liberal approaches enrolling at least 15 patients in each subgroup. Studies involving cardiac, non-elective surgery, paediatric or obstetric surgeries were excluded. Results After full-text examination, the metanalysis finally included 18 studies and 5567 patients randomised to restrictive (2786 patients; 50.0%) or liberal approaches (2780 patients; 50.0%). We found no difference in the occurrence of severe postoperative complications between restrictive and liberal subgroups [risk difference (95% CI) = 0.009 (− 0.02; 0.04); p value = 0.62; I2 (95% CI) = 38.6% (0–66.9%)]. This result was confirmed also in the subgroup of five studies having a low overall risk of bias. The liberal approach was associated with lower overall renal major events, as compared to the restrictive [risk difference (95% CI) = 0.06 (0.02–0.09); p value  = 0.001]. We found no difference in either early (p value  = 0.33) or late (p value  = 0.22) postoperative mortality between restrictive and liberal subgroups Conclusions In major abdominal elective surgery perioperative, the choice between liberal or restrictive approach did not affect overall major postoperative complications or mortality. In a subgroup analysis, a liberal as compared to a restrictive perioperative fluid policy was associated with lower overall complication renal major events, as compared to the restrictive. Trial Registration CRD42020218059; Registration: February 2020, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=218059.

Do sleep interventions change sleep duration in children aged 0-5 years? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

2021 ◽  
pp. 101498
Author(s):  
LouiseJ. Fangupo ◽  
Jillian J. Haszard ◽  
Andrew N. Reynolds ◽  
Albany W. Lucas ◽  
Deborah R. McIntosh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Sleep Duration ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomised Controlled

scholarly journals Comparative efficacy and safety of interventions for treating head lice: a protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. e001129
Author(s):  
Bill Stevenson ◽  
Wubshet Tesfaye ◽  
Julia Christenson ◽  
Cynthia Mathew ◽  
Solomon Abrha ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Head Lice ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

BackgroundHead lice infestation is a major public health problem around the globe. Its treatment is challenging due to product failures resulting from rapidly emerging resistance to existing treatments, incorrect treatment applications and misdiagnosis. Various head lice treatments with different mechanism of action have been developed and explored over the years, with limited report on systematic assessments of their efficacy and safety. This work aims to present a robust evidence summarising the interventions used in head lice.MethodThis is a systematic review and network meta-analysis which will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement for network meta-analyses. Selected databases, including PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials will be systematically searched for randomised controlled trials exploring head lice treatments. Searches will be limited to trials published in English from database inception till 2021. Grey literature will be identified through Open Grey, AHRQ, Grey Literature Report, Grey Matters, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry and International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number registry. Additional studies will be sought from reference lists of included studies. Study screening, selection, data extraction and assessment of methodological quality will be undertaken by two independent reviewers, with disagreements resolved via a third reviewer. The primary outcome measure is the relative risk of cure at 7 and 14 days postinitial treatment. Secondary outcome measures may include adverse drug events, ovicidal activity, treatment compliance and acceptability, and reinfestation. Information from direct and indirect evidence will be used to generate the effect sizes (relative risk) to compare the efficacy and safety of individual head lice treatments against a common comparator (placebo and/or permethrin). Risk of bias assessment will be undertaken by two independent reviewers using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the certainty of evidence assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations guideline for network meta-analysis. All quantitative analyses will be conducted using STATA V.16.DiscussionThe evidence generated from this systematic review and meta-analysis is intended for use in evidence-driven treatment of head lice infestations and will be instrumental in informing health professionals, public health practitioners and policy-makers.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017073375.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document