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.     

《医疗质量管理办法》中医疗质量概念及相关问题探讨

采用文献复习和实证研究经验的方法对《医疗质量管理办法》中涉及的医疗质量概念及相关问题进行探讨。《医疗质量管理办法》中的医疗质量的定义存在重大缺失,没有涉及医疗服务的结果,特别是患者安全。医疗质量的定义应与国际相关权威机构保持一致,应高度重视医疗服务的结果,特别是患者安全。     

慢阻肺急性加重期患者延迟就医与家庭动力学的相关性研究

目的研究慢阻肺急性加重期患者延迟就医与家庭动力学的相关性,希望能够为慢阻肺急性加重期患者拟定护理措施提供科学依据。方法选取2017年1月-2019年12月我院240例诊断为慢阻肺急性加重期的患者为研究对象。根据患者入院就医的时间进行分组,时间≥24h的延迟就医的患者为观察组,时间<24h的及时就医患者为对照组。结果两组患者在文化水平、家庭年收入、在职状态、医疗保险和婚姻状况和APACHEⅡ评分比较(P<0.05)。观察组患者疾病观念、个性化、系统逻辑和家庭氛围得分比对照组高(P<0.05)。Pearman的相关性分析结果显示:慢阻肺急性加重期患者延迟就医时间与各个层面分数以及家庭动力总分呈现负相关性(P<0.05)。应变量为延迟就医为应变量,患者的一般资料为自变量,经Logistic回归分析结果表明:延迟就医的影响因素为文化水平、家庭动力评分、职业状态、家庭收入、婚姻状况和APACHEⅡ评分。结论慢阻肺急性加重期患者家庭动力总分与疾病观念、个性化、系统逻辑和家庭氛围得分与延迟就医时间呈现负相关性,患者延迟就医的影响因素是家庭动力学评分。     

物理治疗翻转课堂教学应用效果的系统综述

目的 系统评价翻转课堂教学模式在物理治疗学教学中的应用效果。方法 计算机检索CENTRAL、MEDLINE、EMBASE、CINAHL Plus、Academic Search Premier、Teacher Reference Center、ERIC以及Education Research,纳入翻转课堂教学模式应用于物理治疗学教学的原始研究。检索时限为建库至2021年6月。由2名研究人员独立完成文献筛选、数据提取、质量评价,对翻转课堂教学模式对比传统教学模式在物理治疗学教学中的效果进行综述。结果与结论 共检索文献1 307篇,最终纳入7篇,包括至少770名学生。发表时间集中在2013年至2019年,研究对象为物理治疗学专业学生,主要结局指标为考试成绩。翻转课堂教学模式总体说来可提高学生的笔试成绩,增强高阶思维能力,得到了学生和教师的积极评价。     

A Pilot First-in-Human Study of Embrace,a Polyethylene Glycol-Based Liquid Embolic Agent,in the Embolization of Malignant and Benign Hypervascular Tumors

PurposeTo investigate the safety and efficacy of an aqueous polyethylene glycol-based liquid embolic agent, Embrace Hydrogel Embolic System (HES), in the treatment of benign and malignant hypervascular tumors.Materials and MethodsA prospective, single-arm, multicenter study included 8 patients, 5 males and 3 females, with a median age of 58.5 years (30–85 years), who underwent embolization in 8 tumors between October 2019 and May 2020. Technical success was defined as successful delivery of HES to the index vessel, with disappearance of >90% of the targeted vascular enhancement or, for portal vein embolization, occlusion of the portal branches to the liver segments for future resection. The volume of HES administered, ease of use (5 point Likert scale), administration time, and adverse events (AEs) were recorded. Evaluation was performed at 7, 30, and 90 days via clinical assessment and blood testing, and follow-up imaging was performed at 30 days.ResultsEight patients were enrolled, and 10 embolizations were performed in 8 lesions. Tumors included hepatocellular carcinoma (n = 4), renal angiomyolipoma (n = 3), and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (n = 1). Technical success was 100%, and the average ease of use was 3.3 ± 1.0 SD. The HES delivery time was 1–28 minutes (median, 16.5 minutes), and the HES volume injected was 0.4–4.0 mL (median, 1.3 mL). All patients reached 30-day follow-up with imaging, and 6 patients reached 90-day follow-up. There were 3 serious AEs in 2 patients that were unrelated to the embolic agent.ConclusionHES resulted in a 100% embolization technical success rate. The product ease of use was acceptable, and no target vessel recanalization was noted on follow-up imaging at 30 days.