Banded versus nonbanded Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BackgroundBariatric surgery is remarkably effective in achieving weight loss and improving obesity-related co-morbidities; however, efforts still continue to improve its long-term outcomes. Particularly, banded Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) has been scrutinized in comparison to standard (nonbanded) RYGB in terms of benefits and postoperative complications.ObjectivesThis study aims to compare the safety and efficacy of banded versus nonbanded RYGB.SettingMeta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).MethodsA meta-analysis of high-quality studies that compared banded and nonbanded RYGB was conducted through February 2019 by systematically searching multiple electronic databases. Published RCTs comparing these 2 procedures were included to pool the data on excess weight loss, food tolerability, and postoperative complications.ResultsThree RCTs were eligible to be included in this meta-analysis, comprising a total of 494 patients (247 in each group). Two of the RCTs provided 2-year postoperative data, and 1 study reported 5-year outcome. Age ranged from 21 to 50 years, and body mass index ranged from 42 to 65 kg/m². Percentage of excess weight loss was significantly greater with banded RYGB than with nonbanded RYGB (mean difference 5.63%; 95% CI 3.26–8.00; P < .05). Postoperative food intolerance, emesis, and dysphagia were more common after banded RYGB (odds ratio 3.76; 95% CI 2.27–6.24; P < .001). Nevertheless, major postoperative complications did not significantly differ between the 2 groups.ConclusionFindings of this meta-analysis of RCTs indicate that in a medium-term follow-up, excess weight loss with banded RYGB would be 5% greater than that with the nonbanded RYGB (about 1 point difference in body mass index) at the expense of more food intolerance and postoperative vomiting; however, the frequency of postoperative complications would not be significantly different.     

Prehabilitation for general surgery: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Background

Prehabilitation seeks to optimize patient health before surgery to improve outcomes. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been conducted on prehabilitation, however an updated synthesis of this evidence is required across General Surgery to inform potential Supplementary discipline-level protocols. Accordingly, this systematic review of RCTs aimed to evaluate the use of prehabilitation interventions across the discipline of General Surgery.

Methods

This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023403289), and adhered to PRISMA 2020 and SWiM guidelines. PubMed/MEDLINE and Ovid Embase were searched to 4 March 2023 for RCTs evaluating prehabilitation interventions within the discipline of General Surgery. After data extraction, risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. Quantitative and qualitative data were synthesized and analysed. However, meta-analysis was precluded due to heterogeneity across included studies.

Results

From 929 records, 36 RCTs of mostly low risk of bias were included. 17 (47.2%) were from Europe, and 14 (38.9%) North America. 30 (83.3%) investigated cancer populations. 31 (86.1%) investigated physical interventions, finding no significant difference in 16 (51.6%) and significant improvement in 14 (45.2%). Nine (25%) investigated psychological interventions: six (66.7%) found significant improvement, three (33.3%) found no significant difference. Five (13.9%) investigated nutritional interventions, finding no significant difference in three (60%), and significant improvement in two (40%).

Conclusions

Prehabilitation interventions showed mixed levels of effectiveness, and there is insufficient RCT evidence to suggest system-level delivery across General Surgery within standardized protocols. However, given potential benefits and non-inferiority to standard care, they should be considered on a case-by-case basis.     

Blunt versus bladed trocars in laparoscopic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

Background

Trocar-associated visceral injuries are rare but potentially fatal complications of laparoscopic access. More commonly, abdominal wall bleeding occurs, which usually requires hemostatic measures and prolongs operative time. Blunt-tipped trocars have been postulated to carry a lower risk of abdominal wall bleeding and intra-abdominal injuries. The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to comparatively evaluate the relative risks of abdominal wall bleeding, visceral injuries, and overall complications with the use of bladed and blunt-tipped laparoscopic trocars.

Methods

The databases of Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Randomized Trials were searched to identify randomized studies that compared trocar-associated complications with the use of blunt and bladed trocars. Primary outcome measure was the relative risk of abdominal wall trocar site bleeding, and secondary outcome measures included visceral injuries and overall complications. Outcome data were pooled and combined overall effect sizes were calculated using the fixed- or random-effects model.

Results

Eight eligible randomized trials were identified; they included 720 patients with a median Jadad score of 4. The incidence of abdominal wall bleeding for the blunt and the bladed trocar group was 3 and 9 %, respectively [odds ratio (OR) 0.42, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.21–0.88]. Trocar-associated morbidity rate, excluding bleeding events of the abdominal wall, was documented at 0.2 and 0.7 % of the blunt and the bladed trocar arm, respectively (OR 0.43, 95 % CI 0.06–2.97). The overall trocar-associated morbidity rate was 3 % in the blunt trocar group and 10 % in the bladed trocar group (OR 0.38, 95 % CI 0.19–0.77).

Conclusions

Reliable data support a lower relative risk of trocar site bleeding and overall complications with blunt laparoscopic cannulas than bladed trocars. Transition to blunt trocars for secondary cannulation of the abdominal wall is thus strongly recommended. Larger patient populations are required to estimate the relative risk of visceral injuries.     

Dural puncture epidural versus conventional epidural block for labor analgesia: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

IntroductionDural puncture epidural (DPE) analgesia is a modification of conventional epidural analgesia that involves the intentional puncture of the dura with a spinal needle through the needle placed in the epidural space, without a medication being injected intrathecally. There have been contradictory findings regarding better analgesia and better block quality.MethodsA systematic literature search was done to identify randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing DPE with epidural analgesia. The risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane tool. Risk ratio and 95% confidence intervals were calculated.ResultsFive RCTs including 581 patients were identified. One RCT on caesarean section was excluded. Single studies suggested slightly better analgesia by finding a median time to achieve sufficient analgesia of two minutes less in the DPE group, a higher number of women having a pain score <10/100 at 20 min, a reduction in the number of epidural top-ups and better sacral spread. The studies did not show a difference between DPE and epidural analgesia for catheter replacement or manipulation rates, the incidence of intravascular placement or unilateral block.ConclusionThere is a lack of clear evidence on either the benefits or the risks of the DPE technique, such that a recommendation for or against its routine use is premature. Two of the three studies showing a beneficial effect of DPE came from the same institution and replication of the findings by other groups is warranted.     

Exercise for counteracting weight recurrence after bariatric surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Exercise is recommended to prevent post-surgical weight recurrence. Yet, whether exercise interventions are efficacious in this regard has not been systematically evaluated. Moreover, clinicians lack evidence-based information to advise patients on appropriate exercise frequency, intensity, time, and type (FITT) for preventing weight recurrence. Thus, we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving exercise interventions specifying FITT and weight measurement ≥12 months post-surgery. We reviewed scientific databases up through February 2022 for RCTs comparing exercise interventions reporting FITT and a nonexercise control group on weight ≥12 months post-surgery. Procedures following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses were registered at the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO: CRD42022342337). Of 1368 studies reviewed, 5 met inclusion criteria (n = 189; 47.8 ± 4.2 yr, 36.1 6 ± 3.8 kg·m2, 83.2 ± 9.5% female; 61.7% underwent Roux-en-Y gastric bypass). Exercise interventions were largely supervised, lasted 12–26 weeks, and prescribed 80–210 minutes/week of moderate-to-vigorous intensity combined aerobic and resistance exercise over ≤5 days. Within-group effects showed non-statistically significant weight loss for exercise (d = − .15, 95% confidence interval [CI]: −1.96, 1.65; −1.4 kg; P = .87) and weight gain for control (d = .11, 95% CI: −1.70,1.92; +1.0 kg; P = .90), with no difference between these groups (d = −2.26, 95% CI: −2.07, 1.55; −2.4 kg; P = .78). Exercise elicited an additional 2.4 kg weight loss versus control, although this effect was small and statistically non-significant. Ability to draw definitive conclusions regarding efficacy of exercise interventions for counteracting post-surgical weight recurrence was limited by the small number of trials and methodological issues. Findings highlight the need for more rigorous RCTs of exercise interventions specifically designed to reduce post-surgical weight recurrence.     

Dexmedetomidine versus other sedatives for non-painful pediatric examinations: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Study objectiveProcedural sedation for non-painful pediatric examinations outside the operating room remains a challenge, this study was designed to compare the safety and effectiveness of sedation provided by dexmedetomidine versus other sedatives including chloral hydrate, midazolam, and pentobarbital for pediatric patients to complete diagnostic examinations.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs.SettingPediatric procedural sedation.InterventionsComparison of sedation by dexmedetomidine and chloral hydrate, or pentobarbital, or midazolam for pediatric non-painful sedation.PatientsThe PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register for randomized clinical trials were searched and limited the studies to those published in English through July 30, 2018.MeasurementsProspective randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing dexmedetomidine to chloral hydrate, pentobarbital, and midazolam for pediatric procedural examinations outside the operating room were included in the meta-analysis. Search terms included dexmedetomidine, precede, adrenergic alpha-2 receptor agonists, adrenergic alpha 2 agonists, adrenergic alpha-agonists, adrenergic alpha 2 receptor agonists, chloral hydrate, pentobarbital, midazolam, AND sedation.Main resultsA total of 1486 studies were screened and nine RCTs were identified; 1076 patients were analyzed. Sedation with dexmedetomidine provided statistically higher incidences in completing examinations with fewer episodes of desaturation than the other sedatives did (OR 2.90, 95% CI: 1.39–6.07, P = 0.005, I² = 77%; OR 0.29, 95% CI: 0.15–0.57, P = 0.0004, I² = 0%, respectively).ConclusionsThe meta-analysis shows that sedation by dexmedetomidine has lower incidence of respiratory depression and provides higher success rates in completing examinations than other traditional sedatives without compromising safety, indicating a prospective clinical use for procedural sedation.     

Transurethral laser versus open simple prostatectomy for large volume prostates: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

The benefit of transurethral laser prostatectomy over open simple prostatectomy (OSP) is controversial in aged symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) patients with large volume prostates, and the aim of this study is to compare the safety and efficiency of these two methods. Meta-analysis was applied using the Review Manager V5.3 software and the retrieved randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) comparing transurethral laser prostatectomy with OSP were analyzed for the treatment of large volume prostates from 2000 to 2019 in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, and EMBASE datasets. Five RCTs assessing transurethral laser prostatectomy versus OSP were considered suitable for this meta-analysis, which included a total of 448 patients, with 232 patients undergoing laser and 216 patients undergoing OSP. Compared with OSP, although transurethral laser prostatectomy required a longer operative time (weighted mean difference (WMD) 27.49 mins; 95% confidence interval (CI) 16.54–38.44; P?<?0.00001) and obtained a less resected prostate weight (WMD ??11.72 g; 95% CI ??21.75 to ??1.70; P?=?0.02), patients undergoing laser prostatectomy benefited from significantly less hemoglobin decline (??0.97 g/dL; 95% CI ??1.31 to ??0.64; P?<?0.00001), shorter time of catheterization (WMD ??3.67 days; 95% CI ??5.60 to ??1.75; P?=?0.0002), shorter length of hospital stay (WMD ??4.75 days; 95% CI ??6.57 to ??2.93; P?<?0.00001), and less blood transfusion (odds ratio 0.10; 95% CI 0.03 to 0.35; P?=?0.0003). During postoperative follow-up, no significant difference was observed between the two groups in IPSS, QoL, Q_max, and PVR. Both transurethral laser prostatectomy and OSP are safe and effective for large prostates that require prostate resection. Taking into account of less blood loss, shorter catheterization time and hospital stay, and less blood transfusion, transurethral laser prostatectomy may be a better treatment for patients with large prostates.

     

Effect of epidural analgesia in patients with traumatic rib fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Purpose

A consensus group recently proposed epidural analgesia as the optimal analgesic modality for patients with multiple traumatic rib fractures. However, its beneficial effects are not consistently recognized in the literature. We performed a systematic review and a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) of epidural analgesia in adult patients with traumatic rib fractures.

Methods

A systematic search strategy was applied to MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and to the annual meeting of relevant societies (up to July 2008). All randomized controlled trials comparing epidural analgesia with other analgesic modalities in adult patients with traumatic rib fractures were included. Primary outcomes were mortality, ICU length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS and duration of mechanical ventilation.

Results

Eight studies (232 patients) met eligibility criteria. Epidural analgesia did not significantly affect mortality (odds ratio [OR] 1.6, 95% CI, 0.3, 9.3, 3 studies, n = 89), ICU LOS (weighted mean difference [WMD] ?3.7 days, 95% CI, ?11.4, 4.0, 4 studies, n = 135), hospital LOS (WMD ?6.7, 95% CI, ?19.8, 6.4, 4 studies, n = 140) or duration of mechanical ventilation (WMD ?7.5, 95% CI, ?16.3, 1.2, 3 studies, n = 101). Duration of mechanical ventilation was decreased when only studies using thoracic epidural analgesia with local anesthetics were evaluated (WMD ?4.2, 95% CI, ?5.5, ?2.9, 2 studies, n = 73). However, hypotension was significantly associated with the use of thoracic epidural analgesia with local anesthetics (OR 13.76, 95% CI, 2.89, 65.51, 3 studies, n = 99).

Conclusions

No significant benefit of epidural analgesia on mortality, ICU and hospital LOS was observed compared to other analgesic modalities in adult patients with traumatic rib fractures. However, there may be a benefit on the duration of mechanical ventilation with the use of thoracic epidural analgesia with local anesthetics. Further research is required to evaluate the benefits and harms of epidural analgesia in this population before being considered as a standard of care therapy.     

Epidural analgesia compared with peripheral nerve blockade after major knee surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

The relative analgesic efficacy and side-effect profile of peripheral nerve blockade (PNB) techniques compared with lumbar epidural analgesia for major knee surgery is unclear. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized trials comparing epidural analgesia with PNB for major knee surgery. Eight studies were identified that had enrolled a total of 510 patients of whom 464 (91%) had undergone total knee joint replacement. All were small trials and none was blinded (Jadad score 1-3). PNB technique was variable: in addition to a femoral catheter (n=5), femoral single shot (n=2), or lumbar plexus catheter (n=1) techniques, sciatic blockade was performed in three trials. There was no significant difference in pain scores between epidural and PNB at 0-12 or 12-24 h, WMD 0.22 (95% CI: -0.36, 0.81), 0.05 (-1.01, 0.91), respectively, and no clinically significant difference at 24-48 h, WMD -0.35 (-0.64, -0.02). There was also no difference in morphine consumption (mg) at 0-24 h, WMD -6.25 (-18.35, 5.86). Hypotension occurred more frequently among patients who received epidurals [OR 0.19 (0.08, 0.45)], but there was no difference in the incidence of nausea and vomiting. Two studies reported a higher incidence of urinary retention in the epidural group. Patient satisfaction was higher with PNB in two of three studies which measured this, although rehabilitation indices were similar. PNB with a femoral nerve block provides postoperative analgesia which is comparable with that obtained with an epidural technique but with an improved side-effect profile and is less likely to cause a severe neuraxial complication.     

胃肠手术后肠内/肠外营养临床对照研究的荟萃分析

目的 分析国内外相关文献资料,比较肠内营养(EN)、肠外营养(PN)对胃肠手术患者预后的影响,探讨胃肠术后早期应用EN的合理性.方法 检索PubMed、EMBASE和Cochrane图书馆数据库,对1970年至2008年中胃肠手术后给予EN、PN相关的临床随机对照试验进行荟萃分析.评价终止的指标包括吻合口裂开、感染(包括导管脓毒症、伤口感染、肺炎、腹腔脓肿、泌尿系感染)、呕吐及腹胀、其他并发症、住院天数和病死率.结果 23组临床随机实验共2784例患者符合录入标准.与PN组比较,EN可减少吻合口裂开(RR=0.67,95%Cl:0.50～0.91;P=0.010)、感染(RR=0.72,95%CI:0.64～0.81;P<0.001),其他并发症(RR=0.82,95%CI:0.73～0.92;P<0.001)和住院的时间(加权均数差值=-3.60;95% CI:-3.88～-3.32;P<0.001).但EN组腹胀和呕吐的不良反应更多见(RR=1.39,95%CI:1.21～1.59;P<0.001).两组病死率比较差异无统计学意义(P=0.400).结论 胃肠手术后患者没有"禁食水"的必要,早期给予EN辅助治疗,有利于促进患者恢复,减少并发症的发生.     

Aprotinin in major orthopedic surgery: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Aprotinin therapy is a promising strategy for reducing blood loss and blood transfusion requirements. The efficacy and safety of aprotinin in orthopedic surgery, however, remain controversial. We searched electronic databases for randomized controlled trials on the efficacy and safety of the use of aprotinin in orthopedic surgery. Thirteen trials that included a total of 506 patients who underwent major orthopedic surgery were analyzed. The pooled intraoperative and perioperative blood loss was significantly less in the aprotinin-treated patients than in the control patients (weighted mean difference [WMD] for intraoperative blood loss = -229 mL, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -367 to -91 mL, P = 0.0011; WMD for perioperative blood loss = -557 mL; 95% CI = -860 to -254 mL; P < 0.0001). The pooled amounts of red blood cell (RBC) units (U) transfused intraoperatively and perioperatively were significantly less in the aprotinin-treated patients than in the control patients (WMD for intraoperative RBC U = -1.1 U; 95% CI = -1.7 to -0.4 U; P = 0.0001; WMD for perioperative RBC U = -1.1 U; 95% CI = -1.7 to -0.5 U; P < 0.0001). Aprotinin was not associated with an increased incidence of deep vein thrombosis (odds ratio = 0.39; 95% CI = 0.14 to 1.05, P = 0.061). The authors conclude that aprotinin reduces the intraoperative and perioperative blood loss and allogeneic blood transfusion requirement and may not be associated with increased risk of deep vein thrombosis in the presence of pharmacological or mechanical prophylaxis in patients undergoing major orthopedic surgery.