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.     

PKP术中不同注入量高粘度骨水泥治疗骨质疏松性腰椎骨折的疗效分析

目的探讨经皮椎体后凸成形术（PKP）术中不同注入量高粘度骨水泥治疗骨质疏松性腰椎骨折（OLVF）的疗效及安全性。 方法前瞻性收集2016年9月至2018年9月本院OLVF患者150例，男84例，女66例，年龄（60±8）岁。依据随机数字表分为高量组、中量组、低量组，每组50例，高量组、中量组、低量组PKP术中高粘度骨水泥注入量分别为5.0~7.0 ml、3~4.9 ml、<3.0 ml，比较三组疗效及安全性。 结果150例患者获得满意随访，随访时间（19±7）个月。高量组、中量组、低量组手术时间、术中出血量比较，差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）；高量组和中量组术后3、6个月椎体前缘高度[（27.3±3.1）mm、（26.0±2.7）mm和（26.9±3.0）mm、（25.7±2.8）mm]明显高于低量组[（23.8±2.8）mm、（21.3±2.5）mm]，高量组和中量组术后3、6个月Cobb角及疼痛视觉模拟评分法（VAS）、Oswestry功能障碍指数问卷表（ODI）评分[（40.2±4.7）°、（41.5±4.8）°、（2.6±0.4）分、（1.6±0.3）分、（25.8±3.5）分、（26.9±3.5）分和（40.9±4.8）°、（42.1±4.8）°、（2.6±0.4）分、（1.6±0.3）分、（26.2±3.5）分、（27.2±3.7）分]明显低于低量组[（46.3±5.3）°、（47.8±5.6）°、（3.3±0.4）分、（2.3±0.4）分、（33.3±4.1）分、（34.3±4.2）分]，差异有统计学意义（F=25.371、18.914、29.334、22.457、34.276、30.217、29.364、20.071，均P<0.001）；高量组骨水泥渗漏率（28.00%）明显高于中量组和低量组（8.00%和4.00%），差异有统计学意义（χ²=10.241，P=0.005）。 结论PKP术中不同注入量高粘度骨水泥治疗OLVF的疗效及安全性存在一定的差异，其中注入中量（3~4.9 ml）高粘度骨水泥可获得良好的疗效及安全性，值得临床推广。     

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.     

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。     

超微经皮肾镜取石术在直径1.5～2.5 cm肾及输尿管上段结石患者中的应用

目的探讨超微经皮肾镜取石术(UMP)应用于直径1.5~2.5 cm肾及输尿管上段结石患者中的安全性和有效性。方法回顾性分析2018年6月-2020年6月宿迁市第一人民医院收治的60例直径为1.5~2.5 cm肾及输尿管上段结石患者的临床资料,均采用UMP治疗,分析患者手术时间、住院时间、手术成功率、结石清除率、并发症发生率及额外镇痛药使用情况。结果60例患者均一期建立通道并顺利完成手术。所有患者均未行单通道手术,未接受输血,无毗邻脏器损伤(肠道、肝脏和脾脏等),无血气胸发生;存在尿外渗或者有明显症状的腹膜后灌注液患者3例(5.0%),均行保守治疗好转;发热(体温高于38℃)5例(8.3%),均对症治疗后好转;无感染性休克患者。手术时间为35~98 min,平均(56.1±21.3)min;术后住院天数为3~8 d,平均(4.1±1.8)d;术后立即评估结石清除率为85.0%(51/60),术后1个月评估结石清除率为91.7%(55/60);术后镇痛药使用率为15.0%(9/60)。结论UMP是治疗直径1.5~2.5 cm肾及输尿管上段结石安全、有效的治疗方法之一,值得临床推广。