Safety and Efficacy of the Moderate Sedation During Flexible Bronchoscopic Procedure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Moderate sedatives have been increasingly used to improve patient comfort during flexible bronchoscopy (FB). However, routine use of moderate sedation during FB is controversial because its efficacy and safety are not well established.This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of moderate sedation during FB.A search was made of Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library to May 2014.Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs were included.The main analysis was designed to examine the efficacy of moderate sedation during FB in sedation than no-sedation.The willingness to repeat FB was significantly more in sedation than no-sedation (odds ratio [OR] 2.30; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11–4.73; P = 0.02; I² = 22.5). The duration of FB was shorter in sedation group than no-sedation group (standardized mean difference [SMD] −0.21; 95% CI −0.38 to −0.03; P = 0.02; I² = 78.3%). Event of hypoxia was not significantly different between sedation and no-sedation groups (OR 0.86; 95% CI 0.42–1.73; P = 0.67; I² = 0%). The SpO₂ during procedure was not different between sedation and no-sedation groups (SMD −0.14; 95% CI −0.37 to 0.08; P = 0.21; I² = 49.9%). However, in subgroup analysis without supplemental oxygen, the SpO₂ was significantly lower in sedation than no-sedation group (SMD −0.45; 95% CI −0.78 to −0.11; P = 0.01; I² = 0.0%).According to this meta-analysis, moderate sedation in FB would be useful in patients who will require repeated bronchoscopies as well as safe in respiratory depression. To our knowledge, although the various sedative drugs are already used in the real field, this analysis was the first attempt to quantify objective results. We anticipate more definite and studies designed to elucidate standardized outcomes for moderate sedation in FB.     

Direct insertion of an ultra‐slim upper endoscope for cholangioscopy in patients undergoing choledochoduodenostomy

Direct peroral cholangioscopy (POC) using an ultra‐slim upper endoscope is one modality of POC for intraductal endoscopic evaluation and treatment of the bile duct. Choledochoduodenostomy (CDS) is one modality of biliary bypass surgery that provides a new route to the bile duct. We carried out direct POC using an ultra‐slim upper endoscope without the use of accessories in 10 patients (four sump syndromes, three bile duct strictures and three intrahepatic duct stones) previously undergoing surgical CDS. Direct POC was successful in all patients. The use of an intraductal balloon catheter was required in one patient for advancement of the endoscope into the bile duct. Distal bile ducts with sump syndromes were cleared using baskets and water irrigation under direct POC. Cholangiocarcinoma was diagnosed in one patient with hilar bile duct stricture after cholangioscopic evaluation and a targeting forceps biopsy under direct POC. Intrahepatic duct stones were successfully extracted after intraductal fragmentation under direct POC. Oozing bleeding occurred during intraductal lithotripsy but stopped spontaneously. Direct POC using an ultra‐slim upper endoscope without the assistance of accessories can easily be carried out in patients undergoing CDS.     

腹膜前引流对腹腔镜经腹腹膜前疝修补术患者术后血肿及血清肿的影响

目的探讨腹腔镜经腹腹膜前疝修补术（TAPP）放置腹膜前引流对术后血肿及血清肿的影响。 方法选取2016年6月至2018年5月，江苏省苏州市中西医结合医院收治的单侧腹股沟疝患者90例，随机分为试验组和对照组，2组患者均行TAPP手术。试验组放置腹膜前引流管，对照组不放置引流管。收集2组患者的一般资料、手术相关资料及随访资料进行统计学分析，对比2组患者术后血肿及血清肿发生率差异。 结果全部患者均完成手术及随访。2组患者的一般资料、疝位置、疝分型、手术时间、住院花费、术后住院时间差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。2组患者的术后发热发生率、急性疼痛发生率差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。试验组术后血肿发生率明显低于对照组（P<0.05），试验组患者术后1和3个月血清肿发生率明显低于对照组，差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）。2组患者1年随访均观察到1例复发的病例，差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）；随访期内2组患者均未出现感染的病例。 结论TAPP中，放置腹膜前引流管能够有效降低患者术后血肿和血清肿的发生率，同时并不增加感染和复发风险。     

Neuroendocrine,epigenetic, and intergenerational effects of general anesthetics

The progress of modern medicine would be impossible without the use of general anesthetics (GAs). Despite advancements in refining anesthesia approaches, the effects of GAs are not fully reversible upon GA withdrawal. Neurocognitive deficiencies attributed to GA exposure may persist in neonates or endure for weeks to years in the elderly. Human studies on the mechanisms of the long-term adverse effects of GAs are needed to improve the safety of general anesthesia but they are hampered not only by ethical limitations specific to human research, but also by a lack of specific biological markers that can be used in human studies to safely and objectively study such effects. The latter can primarily be attributed to an insufficient understanding of the full range of the biological effects induced by GAs and the molecular mechanisms mediating such effects even in rodents, which are far more extensively studied than any other species. Our most recent experimental findings in rodents suggest that GAs may adversely affect many more people than is currently anticipated. Specifically, we have shown that anesthesia with the commonly used GA sevoflurane induces in exposed animals not only neuroendocrine abnormalities (somatic effects), but also epigenetic reprogramming of germ cells (germ cell effects). The latter may pass the neurobehavioral effects of parental sevoflurane exposure to the offspring, who may be affected even at levels of anesthesia that are not harmful to the exposed parents. The large number of patients who require general anesthesia, the even larger number of their future unexposed offspring whose health may be affected, and a growing number of neurodevelopmental disorders of unknown etiology underscore the translational importance of investigating the intergenerational effects of GAs. In this mini review, we discuss emerging experimental findings on neuroendocrine, epigenetic, and intergenerational effects of GAs.     

Comparative outcomes of vascular access in patients older than 70 years with end-stage renal disease

Objective

The advantage of arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs) in older patients requiring dialysis is controversial. We reviewed our vascular access experience in patients ≥70 years of age (older group) compared with younger patients.