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.     

The American Association for Thoracic Surgery (AATS) 2022 Expert Consensus Document: The use of mechanical circulatory support in lung transplantation

ObjectiveThe use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in lung transplantation has been steadily increasing over the prior decade, with evolving strategies for incorporating support in the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative settings. There is significant practice variability in the use of these techniques, however, and relatively limited data to help establish institutional protocols. The objective of the AATS Clinical Practice Standards Committee (CPSC) expert panel was to review the existing literature and establish recommendations about the use of MCS before, during, and after lung transplantation.MethodsThe AATS CPSC assembled an expert panel of 16 lung transplantation physicians who developed a consensus document of recommendations. The panel was broken into subgroups focused on preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative support, and each subgroup performed a focused literature review. These subgroups formulated recommendation statements for each subtopic, which were evaluated by the entire group. The statements were then developed via discussion among the panel and refined until consensus was achieved on each statement.ResultsThe expert panel achieved consensus on 36 recommendations for how and when to use MCS in lung transplantation. These recommendations included the use of veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) as a bridging strategy in the preoperative setting, a preference for central veno-arterial ECMO over traditional cardiopulmonary bypass during the transplantation procedure, and the benefit of supporting selected patients with MCS postoperatively.ConclusionsAchieving optimal results in lung transplantation requires the use of a wide range of strategies. MCS provides an important mechanism for helping these critically ill patients through the peritransplantation period. Despite the complex nature of the decision making process in the treatment of these patients, the expert panel was able to achieve consensus on 36 recommendations. These recommendations should provide guidance for professionals involved in the care of end-stage lung disease patients considered for transplantation.     

Deepm5C: A deep-learning-based hybrid framework for identifying human RNA N5-methylcytosine sites using a stacking strategy

1. Download : Download high-res image (173KB)
2. Download : Download full-size image

     

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.