Comparative evaluation of landmark technique and ultrasound guided caudal epidural injection in pediatric population: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dhruv Jain ◽  
Sana Yasmin Hussain ◽  
Arshad Ayub
Author(s):  
Emma M. H. Slot ◽  
Kirsten M. van Baarsen ◽  
Eelco W. Hoving ◽  
Nicolaas P. A. Zuithoff ◽  
Tristan P. C van Doormaal

Abstract Background Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leakage is a common complication after neurosurgical intervention. It is associated with substantial morbidity and increased healthcare costs. The current systematic review and meta-analysis aim to quantify the incidence of cerebrospinal fluid leakage in the pediatric population and identify its risk factors. Methods The authors followed the PRISMA guidelines. The Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane database were searched for studies reporting CSF leakage after intradural cranial surgery in patients up to 18 years old. Meta-analysis of incidences was performed using a generalized linear mixed model. Results Twenty-six articles were included in this systematic review. Data were retrieved of 2929 patients who underwent a total of 3034 intradural cranial surgeries. Surprisingly, only four of the included articles reported their definition of CSF leakage. The overall CSF leakage rate was 4.4% (95% CI 2.6 to 7.3%). The odds of CSF leakage were significantly greater for craniectomy as opposed to craniotomy (OR 4.7, 95% CI 1.7 to 13.4) and infratentorial as opposed to supratentorial surgery (OR 5.9, 95% CI 1.7 to 20.6). The odds of CSF leakage were significantly lower for duraplasty use versus no duraplasty (OR 0.41 95% CI 0.2 to 0.9). Conclusion The overall CSF leakage rate after intradural cranial surgery in the pediatric population is 4.4%. Risk factors are craniectomy and infratentorial surgery. Duraplasty use is negatively associated with CSF leak. We suggest defining a CSF leak as “leakage of CSF through the skin,” as an unambiguous definition is fundamental for future research.


Author(s):  
Ana Cecília de Sena Oliveira ◽  
Bruno da Silva Athanasio ◽  
Flávia Cristina de Carvalho Mrad ◽  
Monica Maria de Almeida Vasconcelos ◽  
Maicon Rodrigues Albuquerque ◽  
...  

Circulation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 142 (Suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sameer Saleem ◽  
Shuaibahmed Arab ◽  
Waqas Ullah ◽  
Sundas Younas ◽  
Bashar Al hemyari ◽  
...  

Introduction: Previous meta-analyses have reported reduced cardiovascular mortality and myocardial infarction in intravascular ultrasound-guided (IVUS) stent implantation in comparison to angiography-only approach. However, these studies have unanimously excluded patients with unprotected left-main coronary artery (LMCA) disease, questioning its widespread applicability. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the prognostic significance of IVUS-guided LMCA intervention. Methods: Studies comparing clinical outcomes between IVUS-guided and angiography-only percutaneous LMCA intervention were identified through PubMed, Cochrane and EMBASE databases until June, 2020. Data was analyzed using a random effect model to calculate the relative odds of all-cause death, cardiac death, left-main revascularization, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis and stroke. Results: A total of 13 studies comprising 7680 patients were included. The odds of all-cause death (OR 0.6, 95%CI 0.47-0.78; p<0.0001), cardiac death (OR 0.37, 95%CI 0.26-0.54; p<0.00001), left-main revascularization (OR 0.63, 95%CI 0.45-0.89; p=0.009) and myocardial infarction (OR 0.77 [95%CI 0.60-0.98; p=0.04]) were significantly lower in patients who underwent IVUS-guided LMCA stent implantation compared to angiography-only approach. There was no significant difference observed in the relative odds of stent thrombosis (OR 0.57, 95%CI 0.31-1.05; p=0.07) and stroke (OR 1.7, 95%CI 0.56-5.14; p=0.35) between the two arms at least 1-year of the index procedure. A subgroup analysis based on study design and sensitivity analysis based on the characteristics of the included studies mirrored the pooled results. Conclusion: IVUS-guided LMCA intervention is associated with overall improved cardiovascular outcomes than angiography-only approach. Large scale randomized controlled trials are needed to validate our findings.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document