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.     

Confounded association between proton pump inhibitor use and risk of biliary tract cancer: Result from three cohorts

Recent epidemiological studies suggested that proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use was associated with an increased risk of biliary tract cancer (BTC), however, confounders were not adequately controlled. Our study aimed to evaluate PPI use and subsequent risk of BTC and its subtypes in three well-established cohorts. We conducted a pooled analysis of the subjects free of cancers in UK Biobank (n = 463 643), Nurses' Health Study (NHS, n = 80 235) and NHS II (n = 95 869). Propensity score weighted Cox models were used to estimate marginal HRs of PPIs use on BTC risk, accounting for potential confounders. We documented 284 BTC cases in UK Biobank (median follow-up: 7.6 years), and 91 cases in NHS and NHS II cohorts (median follow-up: 15.8 years). In UK biobank, PPI users had a 96% higher risk of BTC compared to nonusers in crude model (HR 1.96, 95% CI 1.44-2.66), but the effect was attenuated to null after adjusting for potential confounders (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.60-1.49). PPI use was not associated with risk of BTC in the pooled analysis of three cohorts (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.60-1.43). We also observed no associations between PPI use with risk of intrahepatic (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.49-2.04), extrahepatic bile duct (HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.52-2.27) and gallbladder cancers (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.26-1.66) in UK Biobank. In summary, regular use of PPIs was not associated with the risk of BTC and its subtypes.     

The fate of aortic valve after rheumatic mitral valve surgery

ObjectiveDeterioration of the native aortic valve function by a late progression of rheumatic disease is not infrequent in patients who underwent rheumatic mitral valve surgery; however, this phenomenon has not been clearly quantified.MethodsA total of 1155 consecutive patients (age 52.0 ± 12.9 years; 807 female) who underwent rheumatic mitral valve surgery without concomitant aortic valve surgery from 1997 to 2015 were enrolled. The primary end point was the composite of progression to severe aortic valve dysfunction or a requirement of subsequent aortic valve replacements during follow-up. To determine the risk factors of the primary outcome, we performed the generalized linear mixed model.ResultsThe baseline severities of aortic valve were none to trivial in 880 patients (76.2%), mild in 256 patients (22.2%), and moderate in 19 patients (1.6%). The latest 1062 echocardiographic assessments (91.9%; median, 81.2 postoperative months; interquartile range, 37.3-132.1 months) demonstrated 26 cases (0.33%/patient-year) meeting the primary end point during follow-up. Cumulative incidence of the primary end point at 10 years was 0.4% ± 0.3% and 7.4% ± 2.5% depending on the presence of mild or greater aortic valve dysfunction at baseline (P < .01). In multivariable analyses, aortic valve peak pressure gradient (odds ratio, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.20), aortic regurgitation degree (mild over none: odds ratio, 3.26; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-9.23), and time (odds ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval 1.19-1.41) were significantly associated with the occurrence of the primary end point.ConclusionsProgression of severe aortic valve dysfunction and the need for aortic valve replacement are uncommon in patients undergoing rheumatic mitral valve surgery. However, such events were relatively common among those with mild or greater aortic valve dysfunction at the time of mitral valve surgery.     

腹腔镜经脐单一部位幽门环肌切开术治疗小儿先天性肥厚性幽门狭窄的临床效果研究

目的研究腹腔镜经脐单一部位幽门环肌切开术治疗小儿先天性肥厚性幽门狭窄的临床效果。方法100例小儿先天性肥厚性幽门狭窄患儿作为研究对象,按照随机方式分为观察组和对照组,每组50例。对照组采用腹腔镜幽门环肌切开术治疗,观察组采用腹腔镜经脐单一部位幽门环肌切开术治疗。观察记录患儿的手术结果及随访结果,并比较两组患儿手术时间、术后住院时间。结果手术过程顺利,100例患儿均成功完成手术,无一例中转开腹手术,无并发症发生。观察组患儿术后6 h将胃管取下,少量喂入温水后逐渐过渡到喂糖水、喂奶;对照组患儿术后24 h开始逐渐进食。患儿术后进行6个月的延续性随访,观察组患儿切口恢复美观,已经无法观察到切口瘢痕,两组患儿的生长发育均显示正常状态。观察组患儿手术时间(21.23±1.65)min及术后住院时间(5.58±1.98)d均显著短于对照组的(38.44±1.23)min、(9.67±1.22)d,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论先天性肥厚性幽门狭窄患儿采用腹腔镜经脐单一部位幽门环肌切开术治疗,手术效果良好,手术创伤小而且安全。     

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.