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.

     

The longitudinal validity,reproducibility and responsiveness of the Brisbane Burn Scar Impact Profile (caregiver report for young children version) for measuring health-related quality of life in children with burn scars

BackgroundThe measurement of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) provides information about the perceived burden of the health condition and treatments from a lived experience. The Brisbane Burn Scar Impact Profile (caregiver report for young children, BBSIP^0–8), developed in 2013, is a proxy-report measure of burn scar-specific HRQoL. The aim of this study was to report its psychometric properties in line with an evaluative purpose.MethodsCaregivers of children up to 8 years of age at risk of burn scarring were recruited into a prospective, longitudinal cohort study. Caregivers completed the BBSIP^0–8, Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory and Patient Observer Scar Assessment Scale at baseline (approximately ≥85% of the total body surface area re-epithelialised), 1–2 weeks after baseline and 1-month after baseline. Psychometric properties measured included internal consistency, test–retest reliability, validity and responsiveness.ResultsEighty-six caregivers of mostly male children (55%), of a median age (IQR) of 1 year, 10 months (2 years, 1 month) and total body surface area burn of 1.5% (3.0%) were recruited. Over one third of participants were grafted and 15% had contractures or skin tightness at baseline. Internal consistency of ten item groups ranged from 0.73 to 0.96. Hypothesised correlations of changes in the BBSIP^0–8 items with changes in criterion measures supported longitudinal validity (ρ ranging from ?0.73 to 0.68). The majority of item groups had acceptable reproducibility (ICC = 0.65–0.83). The responsiveness of five item groups was supported (AUC = 0.71–0.90).ConclusionThe psychometric properties tested support the use of the BBSIP^0–8 as an evaluative measure of burn scar-related health-related quality of life for children aged below eight years in the early post-acute period of rehabilitation. Further investigation at longer time period after burn injury is indicated.     

Assessment of the reporting of quality and outcome measures in hepatic resections: a call for 90-day reporting in all hepatectomy series

BackgroundThe aim of this paper is to assess the current state of quality and outcomes measures being reported for hepatic resections in the recent literature.MethodsMedline and PubMed databases were searched for English language articles published between 1 January 2002 and 30 April 2013. Two examiners reviewed each article and relevant citations for appropriateness of inclusion, which excluded papers of liver donor hepatic resections, repeat hepatectomies or meta-analyses. Data were extracted and summarized by two examiners for analysis.ResultsFifty-five studies were identified with suitable reporting to assess peri-operative mortality in hepatic resections. In only 35% (19/55) of the studies was the follow-up time explicitly stated, and in 47% (26/55) of studies peri-operative mortality was limited to in-hospital or 30 days. The time period in which complications were captured was not explicitly stated in 19 out of 28 studies. The remaining studies only captured complications within 30 days of the index operation (8/28). There was a paucity of quality literature addressing truly patient-centred outcomes.ConclusionQuality outcomes after a hepatic resection are inconsistently reported in the literature. Quality outcome studies for a hepatectomy should report mortality and morbidity at a minimum of 90 days after surgery.