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.     

锁骨钩钢板内固定术后钢板钩与肩峰匹配性影像学研究

目的通过测量锁骨钩钢板内固定术后患者影像学资料，分析发生肩峰骨侵蚀的原因是否与钢板钩-肩峰匹配度相关。 方法回顾性分析2015年8月1日至2018年8月31日期间在上海市浦东医院骨科就诊的210例患者的影像学资料，210例患者均因肩锁关节脱位或锁骨远端骨折行锁骨钩钢板内固定治疗，其中男110例、女100例；年龄24~76岁，平均（44.60±8.75）岁；肩锁关节脱位70例，锁骨远端骨折140例。测量术后及终末随访患者肩锁关节正位X线片相关数据，按锁骨钩钢板术后是否发生肩峰骨侵蚀，将纳入患者分为3组：无骨侵蚀组（A组）、伴钢板钩移位骨侵蚀组（B组）、不伴移位的骨侵蚀组（C组），分别测量钢板钩-肩峰的匹配度（β），统计分析术后发生肩峰骨侵蚀与钢板钩-肩峰匹配度之间的关系。 结果纳入研究的210例患者术后随访24~64周，平均（32.0±6.5）周。A组患者115例，B组患者54例，C组患者41例。A组匹配度β（3.72±0.48）mm与B组β¹（6.91±0.84）mm比较差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）；A组匹配度β（3.72±0.48）mm与C组β²（5.88±0.65）mm比较差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）；B组匹配度β¹（6.91±0.84）mm与C组β²（5.88±0.65）mm比较差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）。 结论锁骨钩钢板内固定术后是否发生肩峰骨侵蚀与钢板钩-肩峰匹配度β存在明显相关性，钢板钩与肩峰之间的匹配度越好，β值越小，发生肩峰骨侵蚀的可能性更小。     

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.     

Oral biosciences: The annual review 2021

BackgroundThe Journal of Oral Biosciences is devoted to advancing and disseminating fundamental knowledge concerning every aspect of oral biosciences.HighlightThis review features review articles in the fields of “Extracellular Vesicles,” “Propolis,” “Odontogenic Tumors,” “Periodontitis,” “Periodontium,” “Flavonoids,” “Lactoferrin,” “Dental Plaque,” “Anatomy,” “Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells,” “Bone Cell Biology,” “Dysgeusia,” “Dental Caries,” and “Dental Pulp Cavity,” in addition to the review article by the winners of the “Lion Award” (“Sox9 function in salivary gland development”) presented by the Japanese Association for Oral Biology.ConclusionThese reviews in the Journal of Oral Biosciences have inspired its readers to broaden their knowledge regarding various aspects of oral biosciences. The current editorial review introduces these exciting review articles.