Comparison of outcomes between minimally invasive and median sternotomy for double and triple valve surgery: A meta-analysis

Background

Limited data exists demonstrating the efficacy of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) compared to median sternotomy (MS) for multiple valvular disease (MVD). This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare operative and peri-operative outcomes of MIS vs MS in MVD.

Methods

PubMed, Ovid, and Embase were searched from inception until August 2019 for randomized and observational studies comparing MIS and MS in patients with MVD. Clinical outcomes of intra- and postoperative times, reoperation for bleeding and surgical site infection were evaluated.

Results

Five observational studies comparing 340 MIS vs 414 MS patients were eligible for qualitative and quantitative review. The quality of evidence assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale was good for all included studies. Meta-analysis demonstrated increased cardiopulmonary bypass time for MIS patients (weighted mean difference [WMD], 0.487; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.365-0.608; P < .0001). Similarly, aortic cross-clamp time was longer in patients undergoing MIS (WMD, 0.632; 95% CI, 0.509-0.755; P < .0001). No differences were found in operative mortality, reoperation for bleeding, surgical site infection, or hospital stay.

Conclusions

MIS for MVD have similar short-term outcomes compared to MS. This adds value to the use of minimally invasive methods for multivalvular surgery, despite conferring longer operative times. However, the paucity in literature and learning curve associated with MIS warrants further evidence, ideally randomized control trials, to support these findings.

     

(-)-Epigallocatechin-3-gallate,reduces corneal damage secondary from experimental grade II alkali burns in mice

Background

Since recent reports have shown that (-)-Epigallocatechin-3-gallate (EGCG) could be used for treating proliferative and inflammatory disorders, we explored its use for the management of corneal chemical burns.

Anastomotic Recurrence of Colon Cancer—is it a Local Recurrence,a Second Primary,or a Metastatic Disease (Local Manifestation of Systemic Disease)?

The aim of this study is to review the literature to find out the exact etiology of anastomotic cancers of colon post resection and differentiate them between a recurrence, second primary, and metastatic disease (local manifestation of systemic disease). Web-based literature search was done, and datas collected. We searched PubMed for papers using the keywords colon cancer recurrence, anastomotic recurrence, and recurrent colon carcinoma. We also searched for systematic review in the same topic. In addition, we used our personal referrence archive. Anastomotic recurrences of colon are postulated to arise due to inadequate margins, tumor implantation by exfoliated cells, altered biological properties of bowel anastomosis, and missed synchronous lesions. Some tumors are unique with repeated recurrence after repeated resection. Duration after primary surgery plays a major role in differentiating recurrent and second primary lesions. Repeated recurrences after repeated resections have to be considered a manifestation of systemic disease or metastatic disease due to the virulence of the disease. A detailed analysis and study of patients with colonic anastomotic lesion are required to differentiate it between a recurrent, a second primary lesion, and a metastatic disease (local manifestation of a systemic disease). The nomenclature is significant to study the survival of these patients, as a second primary lesion will have different survival compared to that of recurrent lesions.     

Changes in Quality of Health Care Delivery after Vertical Integration

ObjectivesTo fill an empirical gap in the literature by examining changes in quality of care measures occurring when multispecialty clinic systems were acquired by hospital-owned, vertically integrated health care delivery systems in the Twin Cities area.ConclusionsMoving a clinic system into a vertically integrated delivery system resulted in limited increases in quality of care indicators. Caution is warranted when the acquisition causes disruption in referral patterns.