Glycaemic control for patients with severe acute brain injury: Protocol for a systematic review

Background

Hyperglycaemia is common in patients with acute brain injury admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU). Many studies have found associations between development of hyperglycaemia and increased mortality in hospitalised patients. However, the optimal target for blood glucose control is unknown. We want to conduct a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis to explore the beneficial and harmful effects of restrictive versus liberal glucose control on patient outcomes in adults with severe acute brain injury.

Methods

We will systematically search medical databases including CENTRAL, Embase, MEDLINE and trial registries. We will search the following websites for ongoing or unpublished trials: http://www.controlled-trials.com/ , http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ , www.eudraCT.com , http://centerwatch.com/ , The Cochrane Library's CENTRAL, PubMed, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded and CINAHL. Two authors will independently review and select trials and extract data. We will include randomised trials comparing levels of glucose control in our analyses and observational studies will be included to address potential harms. The primary outcomes are defined as all-cause mortality, functional outcome and health-related quality of life. Secondary outcomes include serious adverse events including hypoglycaemia, length of ICU stay and duration of mechanical ventilation, and explorative outcomes including intracranial pressure and infection. Trial Sequential Analysis will be used to investigate the risk of type I error due to repetitive testing and to further explore imprecision. Quality of trials will be evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, and quality of evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach.

Discussion

The results of the systematic review will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication. With the review, we hope to inform future randomised clinical trials and improve clinical practice.     

Esophageal Calibration with Soft Orogasrtric Tube During Laparoscopic Nissen Fundoplication may Reduce Postoperative Transient Dysphagia

Gastroesophageal reflux is the most common benign disorder of the esophagus and laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication has become the standard surgical treatment for its treatment. In our area, where the use of bougie calibration is debatable, postoperative dysphagia is encountered often after this surgery although it is usually not permanent. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of using a soft silicone tube 39 F in diameter for esophageal calibration during laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication on the incidence of postoperative dysphagia. We divided cases scheduled to undergo laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication between January 2009 and November 2010 into two groups, each consisting 25 patients. Esophageal calibration with a 39 F silicone orogastric tube was used for the first group while there was no operative calibration in the second group. The surgical duration was recorded; the presence and severity of the postoperative dysphagia was calculated by using a dysphagia severity scoring system during the 1-year postoperative follow-up. The dysphagia severity scores were significantly lower in group 1 than group 2 on the postoperative second day and at the end of the first week and first month. We did not find a significant difference at the end of the 6-month and first year. There was also no significant difference regarding surgery duration. The use of a soft orogastric tube 39 F in diameter for esophagus calibration during laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication has significantly decreased the incidence of postoperative transient dysphagia without affecting the duration of surgery. Although dysphagia gradually resolves in the majority of patients, a safe and easy calibration method for its prevention is worth developing, and we believe that the use of our method in larger series could be beneficial.     

Reoperation rates and risk factors for revision 4 years after dynamic stabilization of the lumbar spine

Background Context

The concept of dynamic stabilization (DS) of the lumbar spine for treatment of degenerative instability has been introduced almost two decades ago. Dynamic stabilization follows the principle of controlling movement in the coronal plane by providing load transfer of the spinal segment without fusion and, at the same time, reducing side effects such as adjacent segment disease (ASD). So far, only little is known about revision rates after DS due to ASD and screw loosening (SL).