The Optimal Primary Treatment for Pediatric Perianal Abscess and Anal Fistula: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis

BackgroundPerianal abscesses and anal fistulas are common. The principle of intention-to-treat has not been considered in previous systemic reviews. Thus, the comparison between primary and post-recurrence management was confused, and the recommendation of primary treatment is obscure. The current study aims to identify the optimal initial treatment for pediatric patients.MethodsUsing PRISMA guidelines, studies were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar without any language or study design restriction. The inclusion criteria include original articles or articles with original data, studies of management for a perianal abscess with or without anal fistula, and patient age of <18 years. Patients with local malignancy, Crohn's disease, or other underlying predisposing conditions were excluded. Studies without analyzing recurrence, case series of <5, and irrelevant articles were excluded in the screening stage. Of the 124 screened articles, 14 articles had no full texts or detailed information. Articles written in a language other than English or Mandarin were translated by Google Translation first and confirmed with native speakers. After the eligibility process, studies that compared identified primary managements were then included in the qualitative synthesis.ResultsThirty-one studies involving 2507 pediatric patients met the inclusion criteria. The study design consisted of two prospective case series of 47 patients and retrospective cohort studies. No randomized control trials were identified. Meta-analyses for recurrence after initial management were performed with a random-effects model. Conservative treatment and drainage revealed no difference (Odds ratio [OR], 1.222; 95% Confidential interval [CI]: 0.615–2.427, p = 0.567). Conservative management had a higher risk of recurrence than surgery without statistical significance (OR 0.278, 95% CI: 0.109–0.707, p = 0.007). Compared with incision/drainage, surgery can prevent recurrence remarkably (OR 4.360, 95% CI: 1.761–10.792, p = 0.001). Subgroup analysis of different approaches within conservative treatment and operation was not performed for lacking information.ConclusionStrong recommendations cannot be made due to the lack of prospective or randomized controlled studies. However, the current study based on real primary management supports initial surgical intervention for pediatric patients with perianal abscesses and anal fistula to prevent recurrence.Level of evidenceType of study: Systemic review; Evidence level: Level II.     

European consensus on patient contact shielding

Patient contact shielding has been in use for many years in radiology departments in order to reduce the effects and risks of ionising radiation on certain organs. New technologies in projection imaging and CT scanning such as digital receptors and automatic exposure control (AEC) systems have reduced doses and improved image consistency. These changes and a greater understanding of both the benefits and the risks from the use of shielding have led to a review of shielding use in radiology. A number of professional bodies have already issued guidance in this regard. This paper represents the current consensus view of the main bodies involved in radiation safety and imaging in Europe: European Federation of Organisations for Medical Physics, European Federation of Radiographer Societies, European Society of Radiology, European Society of Paediatric Radiology, EuroSafe Imaging, European Radiation Dosimetry Group (EURADOS), and European Academy of DentoMaxilloFacial Radiology (EADMFR). It is based on the expert recommendations of the Gonad and Patient Shielding (GAPS) Group formed with the purpose of developing consensus in this area. The recommendations are intended to be clear and easy to use. They are intended as guidance, and they are developed using a multidisciplinary team approach. It is recognised that regulations, custom and practice vary widely on the use of patient shielding in Europe and it is hoped that these recommendations will inform a change management program that will benefit patients and staff.     

The role of extra-hepatic bile duct resection in the surgical management of gallbladder carcinoma. A first meta-analysis

ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the clinicopathological and prognostic value of extra-hepatic bile duct resection (EHBDR) in the surgical management of patients with gallbladder carcinoma (GBC), especially in non-jaundiced patients.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched up to March 1^st 2021 for comparative studies between bile duct resected and non-resected groups. RevMan5.3 and Stata 13.0 software were used for the statistical analyses.ResultsEHBDR did not correlate with a better overall survival (OS) (P = 0.17) or disease-free survival (P = 0.27). No survival benefit was also observed in patients with T2N1 (P = 0.4), T3N0 (P = 0.14) disease and node-positive patients (P = 0.75), rather, EHBDR was even harmful for patients with T2N0 (P = 0.01) and node-negative disease (P = 0.02). Significantly higher incidences of recurrent disease (P = 0.0007), postoperative complications (P < 0.00001) and positive margins (P = 0.02) were detected in the bile duct-resected group. The duration of postoperative hospital stay between the two groups was comparable (P = 0.58). Selection bias was also detected in our analysis that a significantly higher proportion of advanced lesions with T3-4 or III-IV disease was observed in the bile duct-resected group (P < 0.00001). EHBDR only contributed to a greater lymph yield (P = 0.01).ConclusionEHBDR has no survival advantage for patients with GBC, especially for those with non-jaundiced disease. Considering the unfairness of comparing OS between jaundiced patients receiving EHBDR with non-jaundiced patients without EHBDR, we could only conclude that routine EHBDR in non-jaundiced patients is not recommended and future well-designed studies with more specific subgroup analyses are required for further validation.     

儿童1型糖尿病骨密度变化及影响因素分析

目的 测定儿童1型糖尿病(T1DM)患者骨密度(BMD),分析探讨骨密度变化的影响因素。方法 选取于2018年1月—2021年6月于我院收治的儿童1型糖尿病患者76例,收集性别、年龄、发病年龄、身高、体重、BMI、病程等基本资料,检测空腹血糖、空腹C肽、糖化血红蛋白(HbA1c)、血碳酸氢根(HCO3-)、血清碱性磷酸酶(ALP),应用双能X线吸收测定法测定骨密度,获取Z值。结果 76例儿童1型糖尿病患者骨密度Z值为-0.93±2.14。HbA1c、病程与骨密度Z值呈负相关,差异具有统计学意义(分别B=-0.334,P<0.001;B=-0.191,P=0.017)。结论 儿童1型糖尿病患者骨密度低于健康儿童,血糖控制不良、病程长是1型糖尿病儿童骨密度减低的危险因素。     

Efficacy and safety of cold snare polypectomy for sessile serrated polyps ≥ 10 mm: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundCold snare polypectomy (CSP) is a promising technique for the removal of sessile serrated polyps (SSPs) ≥ 10 mm. However, the efficacy and safety of this technique remain undetermined.AimsWe aimed to comprehensively evaluate the efficacy and safety of CSP for SSPs ≥ 10 mm.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched up to January 2021.ResultsA total of 10 studies consisting of 1727 SSPs (range, 10–40 mm) from 1021 patients were included. The overall rates of technical success, adverse events (AEs) and residual SSPs were 100%, 0.7% and 2.9%, respectively. Subgroup analysis showed that the rates of technical success and AEs were comparable between CSP and cold endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) (99.9% vs. 100% and 1.3% vs. 0.5%, respectively), between the proximal and distal colon (100% vs. 99.9% and 0.3% vs. 0, respectively), and between polyps of 10–19 mm and ≥20 mm (99.8% vs. 100% and 0.9% vs. 0, respectively). However, subgroup analysis showed that the rate of residual SSPs was slightly lower in CSP compared with cold EMR (1.3% vs. 3.9%), as well as in polyps of 10–19 mm compared with those ≥20 mm (3.1% vs. 4.7%).ConclusionCSP was an effective and safe technique for removing SSPs ≥ 10 mm.