Dataset Information

Acute surgical vs non-surgical management for ocular and peri-ocular burns: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Background:Burn-related injury to the face involving the structures of the eyes, eyelids, eyelashes, and/or eyebrows could result in multiple reconstructive procedures to improve functional and cosmetic outcomes, and correct complications following poor acute phase management. The objective of this article was to evaluate if non-surgical or surgical interventions are best for acute management of ocular and/or peri-ocular burns. Methods:This systematic review and meta-analysis compared 272 surgical to 535 non-surgical interventions within 1 month of patients suffering burn-related injuries to 465 eyes, 253 eyelids, 90 eyelashes, and 0 eyebrows and evaluated associated outcomes and complications. The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were systematically and independently searched. Patient and clinical characteristics, surgical and medical interventions, outcomes, and complications were recorded. Results:Eight of the 14,927 studies queried for this study were eligible for the systematic review and meta-analysis, with results from 33 of the possible 58 outcomes and complications using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) and Cochrane guidelines. Surgery was associated with standard mean differences (SMD) 0.44 greater visual acuity on follow-up, SMD 1.63 mm shorter epithelial defect diameters on follow-up, SMD 1.55 mm greater changes in epithelial diameters from baseline, SMD 1.17 mm2 smaller epithelial defect areas on follow-up, SMD 1.37 mm2 greater changes in epithelial defect areas from baseline, risk ratios (RR) 1.22 greater numbers of healed epithelial defects, RR 11.17 more keratitis infections, and a 2.2 greater reduction in limbal ischemia compared to no surgical intervention. Conclusions:This systematic review and meta-analysis found that compared to non-surgical interventions, acute surgical interventions for ocular, eyelid, and/or eyelash burns were found to have greater visual acuity on follow-up, shorter epithelial defect diameters on follow-up, greater changes in epithelial diameters from baseline, smaller epithelial defect areas on follow-up, greater changes in epithelial defect areas from baseline, greater numbers of healed epithelial defects, more keratitis infections, and a greater reduction in limbal ischemia, possibility preventing the need of a future limbal stem cell transplantation.

SUBMITTER: Klifto KM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6717987 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOcular surface burns can be caused by chemicals (alkalis and acids) or by direct heat. Amniotic membrane transplantation (AMT) performed in the acute phase (day 0 to day 7) of an ocular surface burn is reported to relieve pain, accelerate healing and reduce scarring and blood vessel formation. The surgery involves applying a patch of amniotic membrane (AM) over the entire ocular surface up to the eyelid margins.ObjectivesTo assess the effects of AMT on the eyes of people having suffered acute ocular surface burns.Search methodsWe searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 6), MEDLINE (January 1946 to June 2012), EMBASE (January 1980 to June 2012), Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS) (January 1982 to June 2012), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 11 June 2012.Selection criteriaWe included randomised trials of medical therapy and AMT applied in the first seven days after an ocular surface burn compared to medical therapy alone.Data collection and analysisTwo authors independently assessed the risk of bias of included studies and extracted relevant data. We contacted trial investigators for missing information. We summarised data using risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) as appropriate.Main resultsWe included one RCT of 100 participants with ocular burns that were randomised to treatment with AMT and medical therapy or medical therapy alone. A subset of patients (n = 68) who were treated within the first seven days of the injury met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. The remaining 32 eyes were excluded. The included subset consisted of 36 moderate (Dua classification II-III) and 32 severe (Dua classification IV-VI) ocular burns from alkali, acid and thermal injuries. In the moderate category, 13/20 control eyes and 14/16 treatment eyes had complete epithelialisation by 21 days. The RR of failure of epithelialisation by day 21 was 0.18 in the treatment group (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 1.31; P = 0.09). Mean LogMAR final visual acuities were 0.06 (standard deviation (SD) 0.10) in the treatment group and 0.38 (SD 0.52) in the control group, representing a MD of -0.32 (95% CI -0.05 to -0.59). In the severe category, 1/17 treatment and 1/15 control eyes were epithelialised by day 21. The RR of failure of epithelialisation in the treatment group was 1.01 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.21; P = 0.93). Final visual acuity was 1.77 (SD 1.31) in the treated eyes and 1.64 (SD 1.48) in the control group (MD 0.13; 95% CI -0.88 to 1.14). The risks of performance and detection biases were high, because treating personnel and outcome assessors could not be masked to treatment. There was also a high risk of bias in the visual outcomes of the moderate category, since mean visual acuity was significantly worse at presentation in the control eyes. This reduced confidence in the study findings.Authors' conclusionsConclusive evidence supporting the treatment of acute ocular surface burns with AMT is lacking. Heterogeneity of disease presentation, variations in treatment, undefined criteria for treatment success and failure, and non-uniform outcome measures are some of the factors complicating the search for clear evidence regarding this treatment.

Project description:BackgroundOsteoporotic vertebral fractures affect a large number of older adults OBJECTIVES: Systematically review evidence of the benefits and harms of non-surgical and non-pharmacological management of people with osteoporotic vertebral fractures compared with standard care (control); and evaluate the benefits and harms of non-surgical and non-pharmacological management of people with osteoporotic vertebral fractures compared with an alternative non-pharmacological, non-invasive intervention.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Five electronic databases (CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PUBMED, and COCHRANE) were searched. Eligible trials included participants with primary osteoporosis and at least one vertebral fracture diagnosed on radiographs, with treatment that was non-surgical and non-pharmacological involving more than one session.ResultsTwenty randomized controlled trials were included with 2083 participants with osteoporotic vertebral fractures. Exercise, bracing, multimodal therapy, electrotherapy, and taping were investigated interventions. Meta-analyses provided low certainty evidence that exercise interventions compared to no exercise were effective in reducing pain in patients with osteoporotic vertebral fractures (mean difference (MD)= 1.01; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.08, 1.93), and low certainty evidence that rigid bracing intervention compared with no bracing was effective in reducing pain in patients with osteoporotic vertebral fractures (MD= 2.61; 95%CI: 0.95, 4.27). Meta-analyses showed no differences in harms between exercise and no exercise groups. No health-related quality of life or activity improvements were demonstrated for exercise interventions, bracing, electrotherapy, or multimodal interventions.ConclusionsExercise and rigid bracing as management for patients with osteoporotic vertebral fractures may have a small benefit for pain without increasing risk of harm.Trial registrationPROSPERO registration number CRD42012002936.

Dataset Information

Acute surgical vs non-surgical management for ocular and peri-ocular burns: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets