TP7.2.16 Systematic review and meta analysis of pre operative antibiotics and bowel preparation on ileus following colorectal resection

2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_7) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Kelly ◽  
Gerard McKnight ◽  
Alisdair J. Scott

Abstract Aims Pre-operative oral antibiotics (OAB) and mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) may reduce rates of post-operative infectious complications following colorectal surgery but their effects on post-operative ileus (POI) are not well-established. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to address this question. Methods Medline and Embase databases were searched to identify randomised controlled trials and cohort studies comparing pre-operative MBP or OAB to control in patients undergoing elective colorectal resection and reporting the rate of POI as an outcome. Risk ratios were pooled using a random-effects model to generate a summary risk ratio and 95% confidence interval. Results Five randomised trials and three cohort studies were included which reported the effect of pre-operative MBP on POI. Some 29056 patients received MBP compared to 13077 who did not. The rates of POI were 10.0% vs 12.0% respectively. Meta-analysis gave a risk ratio of 0.85 (0.80-0.91, p < 0.0001) for the development of POI with MBP versus control. Four randomised trials and four cohort studies were included which reported the effect of pre-operative OAB on POI. Some 9.5% of 19,903 patients receiving OAB developed POI compared to 11.8% of 23,884 control patients. The pooled risk ratio for the development of POI with OAB compared to control was 0.86 (0.81-0.91, p < 0.0001). However, when limiting analyses to randomised trials alone, neither MBP (RR 1.13, 0.67-1.90) nor OAB 1.01, 0.75-1.35) had a significant effect on the rate of POI. Conclusions Pre-operative MBP or OAB may reduce POI following colorectal resection but this has not been confirmed in randomised trials.

2018 ◽  
Vol 203 ◽  
pp. 288-293.e1
Author(s):  
Koen Zwart ◽  
Dirk-Jan Van Ginkel ◽  
Caroline C.C. Hulsker ◽  
Marieke J. Witvliet ◽  
Maud Y.A. Van Herwaarden-Lindeboom

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yiyu Yin ◽  
Yanpei Cao ◽  
Li Yuan

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> The best timing of peritoneal dialysis (PD) initiation after catheter implantation is still controversial. It is necessary to explore whether there exists a waiting period to minimize the risk of complications. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> A systematic review and meta-analysis were searched in multiple electronic databases published from inception to February 29, 2020, to identify cohort studies for evaluating the outcome and safety of unplanned-start PD (&#x3c;14 days after catheter insertion). Risks of bias across studies were evaluated using Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Fourteen cohort studies with a total of 2,401 patients were enrolled. We found that early-start PD was associated with higher prevalence of leaks (RR: 2.67, 95% CI, 1.55–4.61) and omental wrap (RR: 3.28, 95% CI, 1.14–9.39). Furthermore, patients of unplanned-start PD in APD group have higher risk of leaks, while those in CAPD group have a higher risk of leaks, omental wrap, and catheter malposition. In shorter break-in period (BI) group, the risk of suffering from catheter obstruction and malposition was higher for patients who started dialysis within 7 days after the surgery than for patients within 7–14 days. No significant differences were found in peritonitis (RR: 1.00; 95% CI, 0.78–1.27) and exit-site infections (RR: 1.12; 95% CI, 0.72–1.75). However, shorter BI was associated with higher risk of mortality and transition to hemodialysis (HD) while worsen early technical survival, with pooled RR of 2.14 (95% CI, 1.52–3.02), 1.42 (95% CI, 1.09–1.85) and 0.95 (95% CI, 0.92–0.99), respectively. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Evidence suggests that patients receiving unplanned-start PD may have higher risks of mechanical complications, transition to HD, and even mortality rate while worsening early technical survival, which may not be associated with infectious complications. Rigorous studies are required to be performed.


BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. e019368 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruno Rodrigues Rosa ◽  
Antonio José Ledo Alves da Cunha ◽  
Roberto de Andrade Medronho

BackgroundRandomised controlled trials have evaluated the recombinant tetravalent dengue vaccine (CYD-TDV). However, individual results may have little power to identify differences among the populations studied.ObjectiveTo evaluate efficacy, immunogenicity and safety of CYD-TDV in the prevention of dengue in children aged 2–17 years.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMEDLINE (from 1950 to 5 December 2018), EMBASE (from 1947 to 5 December 2018) and Cochrane (from 1993 to 5 December 2018).Eligibility criteria of studiesRandomised trials comparing efficacy, immunogenicity and safety of CYD-TDV with placebo or other vaccines for preventing dengue cases in children aged 2–17 years.Outcome measuresEfficacy, immunogenicity and safety of CYD-TDV.Study appraisal and methodsCalculations were made of relative risk (RR) and mean difference (MD) for dichotomous and continuous outcomes, respectively. All estimates were calculated considering a 95% CI estimate. A p<0.05 was considered statistically significant.ResultsNine studies involving 34 248 participants were included. The overall efficacy of CYD-TDV was 60% (RR 0.40 (0.30 to 0.54)). Serotype-specific efficacy of the vaccine was 51% for dengue virus type-1 (DENV-1) (RR 0.49 (0.39 to 0.63)); 34% for DENV-2 (RR 0.66 (0.50 to 0.86)); 75% for DENV-3 (RR 0.25 (0.18 to 0.35)) and 77% for DENV-4 (RR 0.23 (0.15 to 0.34)). Overall immunogenicity (MD) of CYD-TDV was 225.13 (190.34 to 259.93). Serotype-specific immunogenicity was: DENV-1: 176.59 (123.36 to 229.83); DENV-2: 294.21 (181.98 to 406.45); DENV-3: 258.78 (146.72 to 370.84) and DENV-4: 189.35 (141.11 to 237.59). The most common adverse events were headache and pain at the injection site.LimitationsThe main limitation of this study was unclear or incomplete data.Conclusions and implications of key findingsCYD-TDV is considered safe and able to partially protect children and adolescents against four serotypes of DENV for a 1-year period. Despite this, research should prioritise improvements in vaccine efficacy, thus proving higher long-term protection against all virus serotypes.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42016043628.


2018 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 163-171 ◽  
Author(s):  
Badri M. Shrestha ◽  
Donna Shrestha ◽  
Avneesh Kumar ◽  
Alice Shrestha ◽  
Simon A. Boyes ◽  
...  

BackgroundThe optimal methodology of establishing access for peritoneal dialysis (PD) remains controversial. Previously published randomized controlled trials and cohort studies do not demonstrate an advantage for 1 technique over another. Four published meta-analyses comparing outcomes of laparoscopic versus open PD catheter (PDC) insertion have given inconsistent conclusions and are flawed since they group basic and advanced laparoscopy together. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to examine whether advanced laparoscopic interventions consisting of rectus sheath tunneling and adjunctive procedures produce a better outcome than open insertion or basic laparoscopy used only to verify the catheter position.MethodsA literature search using Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Database was performed, and meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3.5 software (Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, London, UK). Outcomes evaluated incidence of catheter obstruction, migration, pericannular leak, hernia, infectious complications (peritonitis and exit-site infection) and catheter survival.ResultsOf the 467 records identified, 7 cohort studies, including 1,045 patients, were included in the meta-analysis. When advanced laparoscopy was compared with open insertion, a significant reduction was observed in the incidence of catheter obstruction (odds ratio [OR] 0.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.03 – 0.63; p = 0.01), catheter migration (OR 0.12, 95% CI 0.06 – 0.26; p = 0.00001), pericannular leak (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.11 – 0.64; p = 0.003), and pericannular and incisional hernias (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.09 – 0.94; p = 0.04), as well as better 1- and 2-year catheter survival (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.28 – 0.97; p = 0.04 and OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.28 – 0.92; p = 0.03, respectively). Compared with basic laparoscopy, catheter obstruction and migration were significantly lower in the advanced laparoscopic group, whereas catheter survival was similar in both groups. All outcomes, except catheter obstruction, were similar between the basic laparoscopy and open insertion. The infectious complications such as peritonitis and exit-site infections were similar between the 3 groups.ConclusionsAdvanced laparoscopy was associated with a significant superior outcome in comparison with open insertion and basic laparoscopy.


BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (8) ◽  
pp. e045031
Author(s):  
Zongqing Lu ◽  
Xingxing Zhu ◽  
Tianfeng Hua ◽  
Jin Zhang ◽  
Wenyan Xiao ◽  
...  

ObjectivesTo conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of abdominal paracentesis drainage (APD) in patients with acute pancreatitis (AP) when compared with conventional ‘step-up’ strategy based on percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD).DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (OVID), China National Knowledge Infrastructure and Wanfang Database were electronically searched to collect cohort studies and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from inception to 25 July 2020. Studies related to comparing APD with conventional ‘step-up’ strategy based on PCD were included.OutcomesThe primary outcome was all-cause mortality. The secondary outcomes were the rate of organ dysfunction, infectious complications, hospitalisation expenses and length of hospital stay.ResultsFive cohort studies and three RCTs were included in the analysis. Compared with the conventional ‘step-up’ method, pooled results suggested APD significantly decreased all-cause mortality during hospitalisation (cohort studies: OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.89 and p=0.02), length of hospital stay (cohort studies: standard mean difference (SMD) −0.31, 95% CI −0.53 to –0.10 and p=0.005; RCTs: SMD −0.45, 95% CI −0.64 to –0.26 and p<0.001) and hospitalisation expenses (cohort studies: SMD −2.49, 95% CI −4.46 to –0.51 and p<0.001; RCTs: SMD −0.67, 95% CI −0.89 to –0.44 and p<0.001). There was no evidence to prove that APD was associated with a higher incidence of infectious complications. However, the incidence of organ dysfunction between cohort studies and RCTs subgroup slightly differed (cohort studies: OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.28 and p=0.22; RCTs: OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.98 and p=0.04).ConclusionsThe findings suggest that early application of APD in patients with AP is associated with reduced all-cause mortality, expenses during hospitalisation and the length of stay compared with the ‘step-up’ strategy without significantly increasing the risk of infectious complications. These results must be interpreted with caution because of the limited number of included studies as well as a larger dependence on observational trials.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020168537.


BMJ ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. l352 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hannah A Wilson ◽  
Rob Middleton ◽  
Simon G F Abram ◽  
Stephanie Smith ◽  
Abtin Alvand ◽  
...  

AbstractObjectiveTo present a clear and comprehensive summary of the published data on unicompartmental knee replacement (UKA) or total knee replacement (TKA), comparing domains of outcome that have been shown to be important to patients and clinicians to allow informed decision making.DesignSystematic review using data from randomised controlled trials, nationwide databases or joint registries, and large cohort studies.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), and Clinical Trials.gov, searched between 1 January 1997 and 31 December 2018.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesStudies published in the past 20 years, comparing outcomes of primary UKA with TKA in adult patients. Studies were excluded if they involved fewer than 50 participants, or if translation into English was not available.Results60 eligible studies were separated into three methodological groups: seven publications from six randomised controlled trials, 17 national joint registries and national database studies, and 36 cohort studies. Results for each domain of outcome varied depending on the level of data, and findings were not always significant. Analysis of the three groups of studies showed significantly shorter hospital stays after UKA than after TKA (−1.20 days (95% confidence interval −1.67 to −0.73), −1.43 (−1.53 to −1.33), and −1.73 (−2.30 to −1.16), respectively). There was no significant difference in pain, based on patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), but significantly better functional PROM scores for UKA than for TKA in both non-trial groups (standard mean difference −0.58 (−0.88 to −0.27) and −0.29 (−0.46 to −0.11), respectively). Regarding major complications, trials and cohort studies had non-significant results, but mortality after TKA was significantly higher in registry and large database studies (risk ratio 0.27 (0.16 to 0.45)), as were venous thromboembolic events (0.39 (0.27 to 0.57)) and major cardiac events (0.22 (0.06 to 0.86)). Early reoperation for any reason was higher after TKA than after UKA, but revision rates at five years remained higher for UKA in all three study groups (risk ratio 5.95 (1.29 to 27.59), 2.50 (1.77 to 3.54), and 3.13 (1.89 to 5.17), respectively).ConclusionsTKA and UKA are both viable options for the treatment of isolated unicompartmental osteoarthritis. By directly comparing the two treatments, this study demonstrates better results for UKA in several outcome domains. However, the risk of revision surgery was lower for TKA. This information should be available to patients as part of the shared decision making process in choosing treatment options.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO number CRD42018089972.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document