scholarly journals Editorial Comment: A systematic review of best practices for the perioperative management of abdominal sacrocolpopexy

2021 ◽  
Vol 47 (6) ◽  
pp. 1270-1271
Author(s):  
Cássio L. Z. Riccetto
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
Editorial Comment ◽  
Perioperative Management ◽  
Abdominal Sacrocolpopexy

A systematic review of best practices for the perioperative management of abdominal sacrocolpopexy

2020 ◽  
Vol 39 (5) ◽  
pp. 1264-1275
Author(s):  
Amy Nemirovsky ◽  
Amber S. Herbert ◽  
Emily F. Gorman ◽  
Rena D. Malik
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
Perioperative Management ◽  
Abdominal Sacrocolpopexy

scholarly journals COVID‐19 complicating perioperative management of LVAD implantation: A case report and systematic review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deborah de Sá Pereira Belfort ◽  
Bruno Biselli ◽  
Mônica Samuel Ávila ◽  
Maria Tereza Sampaio de Sousa Lira ◽  
Filomena Regina Barbosa Gomes Galas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Case Report ◽  
Perioperative Management

Perioperative Management of Cleft Lip Repair: A Meta-Analysis and Clinical Practice Guideline

2021 ◽  
pp. 105566562098490
Author(s):  
Matthew Ranzer ◽  
Edward Daniele ◽  
Chad A. Purnell
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cleft Lip ◽  
Wound Closure ◽  
Perioperative Management ◽  
Outpatient Surgery ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Bottle Feeding ◽  
Perioperative Antibiotics ◽  
Cleft Lip Repair ◽  
Postoperative Feeding

Objective: Few studies have focused on perioperative management of cleft lip repair. We sought to evaluate the available data on this topic to create evidence-based clinical guidelines. Design: Systematic review, meta-analysis. Methods: A PubMed search was performed focusing on perioperative management of cleft lip repair. Studies were included if they included comparative data. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed according to preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Main Outcome Measures: Systematic review of literature regarding wound closure, postoperative arm restraints, perioperative antibiotics, outpatient or ambulatory surgery, or feeding restrictions postoperatively. Results: Twenty-three articles met inclusion criteria after initial screening of 3103 articles. This included 8 articles on wound closure, 2 on postoperative restraints, one on perioperative antibiotics, 6 on outpatient surgery, and 6 on postoperative feeding. Meta-analysis could be performed on dehiscence rates with postoperative feeding regimen and readmission rates after outpatient versus inpatient lip repair. There were few studies with low risk of bias. Outpatient cleft lip repair does not increase readmission (odds ratio [OR]: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.28-3.07). Allowing postoperative breastfeeding or bottle-feeding does not increase dehiscence (OR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.19-1.95). There was no evidence of publication bias. Conclusion: Within the limitations of available data, there is no evidence of a clearly superior closure material. The evidence does not support use of postoperative arm restraints. The evidence does not support the use of preoperative nasal swabs for antibiotic guidance. With careful patient selection, outpatient cleft lip repair appears safe. The evidence supports immediate breastfeeding or bottle-feeding after cleft lip repair.

scholarly journals The Effectiveness of De-Escalation Techniques as Compared to Physical Restraint/Seclusion on Inpatient Psychiatric Units: A Quantitative Systematic Review

CNS Spectrums ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 175-176
Author(s):  
Shavar Chase
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
Physical Restraint ◽  
Psychological Injury ◽  
Inherent Risk ◽  
Physical Injuries ◽  
Psychological Injuries ◽  
Overwhelming Evidence ◽  
Psychiatric Units ◽  
Quantitative Systematic Review

AbstractBackgroundRestraint and seclusion were considered a form of treatment but consistently has led to physical and mental injuries to staff and patients. De-escalation has been viewed as a safer option. Understanding which intervention yields decreased injuries, aggression and violence will guide policy and inform practice.ObjectivesTo identify which intervention leads to decreased physical and psychological injury to patients and staff.MethodsThe frequency of physical injuries to patients and staff from aggressive patients; frequency of psychological injuries to patients and staff from violent, aggressive incidents; frequency of violence, agitation and aggression; competence of staff at managing aggression and violence were evaluated.ResultsFourteen studies were included in this review. There are many forms of de-escalation. Studies where techniques were taught to staff, the intervention was effective in decreasing injury in approximately half the studies. De-escalation techniques taught to patients decreased injury in 100% of the studies included in this review.ConclusionConsensus on which intervention works best could not be reached, nor is there overwhelming evidence for a particular type of de-escalation better suited for decreasing aggression and violence. Caution should be exercised when choosing a de-escalation technique for implementation in institutions due to lack of regulating agencies that inform practice and standards. In addition, the literature lacks best practices for de-escalation techniques backed by evidence. Restraint and seclusion should be used as a last resort due to inherent risk associated with the intervention.

Consensus Perioperative Management Best Practices for Patients on Transdermal Fentanyl Patches Undergoing Surgery

2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (7) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan David Kaye ◽  
Bethany L. Menard ◽  
Ken P. Ehrhardt ◽  
Sonja A. Gennuso ◽  
Eva C. Okereke ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Best Practices ◽  
Perioperative Management ◽  
Transdermal Fentanyl
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document