Delay to surgery in acute perforated and ischaemic gastrointestinal pathology: a systematic review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Murray V
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8413368 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundAcute colonic diverticulitis (ACD) complications arise in approximately 8% to 35% patients and the most common ones are represented by phlegmon or abscess, followed by perforation, peritonitis, obstruction, and fistula. In accordance with current guidelines, patients affected by generalized peritonitis should undergo emergency surgery. However, decisions on whether and when to operate ACD patients remain a substantially debated topic while algorithm for the best treatment has not yet been determined. Damage control surgery (DCS) represents a well-established method in treating critically ill patients with traumatic abdomen injuries. At present, such surgical approach is also finding application in non-traumatic emergencies such as perforated ACD. Thanks to a thorough systematic review of the literature, we aimed at achieving deeper knowledge of both indications and short- and long-term outcomes related to DCS in perforated ACD.MethodsWe performed a systematic literature review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyzes (PRISMA) guidelines. Pubmed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were used to search all related literature.ResultsThe 8 included articles covered an approximately 13 years study period (2006-2018), with a total 359 patient population. At presentation, most patients showed III and IV American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score (81.6%) while having Hinchey III perforated ACD (69.9%). Most patients received a limited resection plus vacuum-assisted closure at first-look while about half entire population underwent primary resection anastomosis (PRA) at a second-look. Overall morbidity rate, 30-day mortality rate and overall mortality rate at follow-up were between 23% and 74%, 0% and 20%, 7% and 33%, respectively. Patients had a 100% definitive abdominal wall closure rate and a definitive stoma rate at follow-up ranging between 0% and 33%.ConclusionDCS application to ACD patients seems to offer good outcomes with a lower percentage of patients with definitive ostomy, if compared to Hartmann's procedure. However, correct definition of DCS eligible patients is paramount in avoiding overtreatment. In accordance to 2016 WSES (World Society of Emergency Surgery) Guidelines, DCS remains an effective surgical strategy in critically ill patients affected by sepsis/septic shock and hemodynamical unstability.
| S-EPMC7710165 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLow blood pressure (BP) in acute ischaemic stroke (AIS) is associated with poor functional outcome, death, or severe disability. Increasing BP might benefit patients with post-stroke hypotension including those with potentially salvageable ischaemic penumbra. This updated systematic review considers the present evidence regarding the use of vasopressors in AIS.MethodsWe searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, EMBASE and trial databases using a structured search strategy. We examined reference lists of relevant publications for additional studies examining BP elevation in AIS.ResultsWe included 27 studies involving 1886 patients. Nine studies assessed increasing BP during acute reperfusion therapy (intravenous thrombolysis, mechanical thrombectomy, intra-arterial thrombolysis or combined). Eighteen studies tested BP elevation alone. Phenylephrine was the most commonly used agent to increase BP (n = 16 studies), followed by norepinephrine (n = 6), epinephrine (n = 3) and dopamine (n = 2). Because of small patient numbers and study heterogeneity, a meta-analysis was not possible. Overall, BP elevation was feasible in patients with fluctuating or worsening neurological symptoms, large vessel occlusion with labile BP, sustained post-stroke hypotension and ineligible for intravenous thrombolysis or after acute reperfusion therapy. The effects on functional outcomes were largely unknown and close monitoring is advised if such intervention is undertaken.ConclusionAlthough theoretical arguments support increasing BP to improve cerebral blood flow and sustain the ischaemic penumbra in selected AIS patients, the data are limited and results largely inconclusive. Large, randomised controlled trials are needed to identify the optimal BP target, agent, duration of treatment and effects on clinical outcomes.
| S-EPMC9134777 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionGastrointestinal recovery after surgery is of worldwide significance. Postoperative gastrointestinal dysfunction is multifaceted and known to represent a major source of postoperative morbidity, however, its significance to postoperative care across all surgical procedures is unknown. The complexity of postoperative gastrointestinal recovery is poorly defined within gastrointestinal surgery, and even less so outside this field. To inform the clinical care of surgical patients worldwide, this systematic review and meta-analysis will aim to characterise the duration of postoperative gastrointestinal recovery that can be expected across all surgical procedures and determine the associations between factors that may affect this.Methods and analysisMEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and CINAHL will be searched for studies reporting the time to first postoperative passage of stool after any surgical procedure. We will screen records, extract data and assess risk of bias in duplicate. Forest plots will be constructed for time to postoperative gastrointestinal recovery, as assessed by various outcome measures. Because of potential heterogeneity, a random-effects model will be used throughout the meta-analysis. Funnel plots will be used to test for publication bias. Meta-regressions will be undertaken where the outcome is the mean time to first postoperative passage of stool, with potential predictors and confounders being patient characteristics, postoperative outcomes and surgical factors.Ethics and disseminationThis study will not involve human or animal subjects and, thus, does not require ethics approval. The outcomes will be disseminated via publication in peer-reviewed scientific journal(s) and presentations at scientific conferences.Prospero registration numberCRD42021256210.
| S-EPMC8515468 | biostudies-literature
Project description:As knowledge on the causation of cancers advances and new treatments are developed, early recognition and accurate diagnosis becomes increasingly important. This review focused on identifying factors influencing patient and primary care practitioner delay for upper gastrointestinal cancer. A systematic methodology was applied, including extensive searches of the literature published from 1970 to 2003, systematic data extraction, quality assessment and narrative data synthesis. Included studies were those evaluating factors associated with the time interval between a patient first noticing a cancer symptom and presenting to primary care, between a patient first presenting to primary care and being referred to secondary care, or describing an intervention designed to reduce those intervals. Twenty-five studies were included in the review. Studies reporting delay intervals demonstrated that the patient phase of delay was greater than the practitioner phase, whilst patient-related research suggests that recognition of symptom seriousness is more important than recognition of the presence of the symptom. The main factors related to practitioner delay were misdiagnosis, application and interpretation of tests, and the confounding effect of existing disease. Greater understanding of patient factors is required, along with evaluation of interventions to ensure appropriate diagnosis, examination and investigation.
| S-EPMC2361411 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundMachine learning (ML) has seen an increase in application, and is an important element of a digital evolution. The role of ML within upper gastrointestinal surgery for malignancies has not been evaluated properly in the literature. Therefore, this systematic review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of ML applications within upper gastrointestinal surgery for malignancies.MethodsA systematic search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Web of Science. Studies were only included when they described machine learning in upper gastrointestinal surgery for malignancies. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used to determine the methodological quality of studies. The accuracy and area under the curve were evaluated, representing the predictive performances of ML models.ResultsFrom a total of 1821 articles, 27 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies received a moderate risk-of-bias score. The majority of these studies focused on neural networks (n = 9), multiple machine learning (n = 8), and random forests (n = 3). Remaining studies involved radiomics (n = 3), support vector machines (n = 3), and decision trees (n = 1). Purposes of ML included predominantly prediction of metastasis, detection of risk factors, prediction of survival, and prediction of postoperative complications. Other purposes were predictions of TNM staging, chemotherapy response, tumor resectability, and optimal therapy.ConclusionsMachine Learning algorithms seem to contribute to the prediction of postoperative complications and the course of disease after upper gastrointestinal surgery for malignancies. However, due to the retrospective character of ML studies, these results require trials or prospective studies to validate this application of ML.
| S-EPMC9839827 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIdentification of patients at high risk of surgical-site infection may allow clinicians to target interventions and monitoring to minimize associated morbidity. The aim of this systematic review was to identify and evaluate prognostic tools for the prediction of surgical-site infection in gastrointestinal surgery.MethodsThis systematic review sought to identify original studies describing the development and validation of prognostic models for 30-day SSI after gastrointestinal surgery (PROSPERO: CRD42022311019). MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, and IEEE Xplore were searched from 1 January 2000 to 24 February 2022. Studies were excluded if prognostic models included postoperative parameters or were procedure specific. A narrative synthesis was performed, with sample-size sufficiency, discriminative ability (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve), and prognostic accuracy compared.ResultsOf 2249 records reviewed, 23 eligible prognostic models were identified. A total of 13 (57 per cent) reported no internal validation and only 4 (17 per cent) had undergone external validation. Most identified operative contamination (57 per cent, 13 of 23) and duration (52 per cent, 12 of 23) as important predictors; however, there remained substantial heterogeneity in other predictors identified (range 2-28). All models demonstrated a high risk of bias due to the analytic approach, with overall low applicability to an undifferentiated gastrointestinal surgical population. Model discrimination was reported in most studies (83 per cent, 19 of 23); however, calibration (22 per cent, 5 of 23) and prognostic accuracy (17 per cent, 4 of 23) were infrequently assessed. Of externally validated models (of which there were four), none displayed 'good' discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve greater than or equal to 0.7).ConclusionThe risk of surgical-site infection after gastrointestinal surgery is insufficiently described by existing risk-prediction tools, which are not suitable for routine use. Novel risk-stratification tools are required to target perioperative interventions and mitigate modifiable risk factors.
| S-EPMC10564404 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To compare the safety of fast-track rehabilitation protocols (FT) and conventional care strategies (CC), or FT and laparoscopic surgery (LFT) and FT and open surgery (OFT) after gastrointestinal surgery.We searched MEDLINE, WHO International Trial Register, Embase and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to 2014 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing FT and CC or comparing LFT and OFT, with 10 or more randomized participants and about 30 d follow-up. Two reviewers independently extracted data on complications, anastomotic leak, obstruction, wound infection, re-admission between FT and CC or LFT and OFT after gastrointestinal surgery.Twenty-four RCTs of FT vs CC or LFT vs OFT were included. Compared with CC, FT reduced overall complications and wound infection. However, anastomotic leak, obstruction and re-admission were not significantly reduced. The pooled risk ratio (RR) of 0.69 (95%CI: 0.60-0.78; P < 0.001), pooled RR of 0.71 (95%CI: 0.57-0.88; P < 0.001), pooled RR of 0.93 (95%CI: 0.68-1.25; P > 0.05), a pooled RR of 0.87 (95%CI: 0.67-1.15; P > 0.05) and pooled RR of 0.94 (95%CI: 0.73-1.22; P > 0.05) respectively. Compared with OFT, LFT reduced complications, with a pooled RR of 0.66 (95%CI: 0.54-0.81; P < 0.001).FTs are safe after gastrointestinal surgery. Additional large, prospective RCTs should be conducted to establish further the safety of this approach.
| S-EPMC4223277 | biostudies-other
Project description:IntroductionDamage control surgery (DCS) is the classic approach to manage severe trauma and has recently also been considered an appropriate approach to the treatment of critically ill patients with severe intra-abdominal sepsis. The purpose of the present review is to evaluate the outcomes following DCS for Hinchey II-IV complicated acute diverticulitis (CAD).MethodsA comprehensive systematic search was undertaken to identify all randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies, irrespectively of their size, publication status, and language. Adults who have undergone DCS for CAD Hinchey II, III, or IV were included in this review. DCS is compared with the immediate and definitive surgical treatment in the form of HP, colonic resection, and primary anastomosis (RPA) with or without covering stoma or laparoscopic lavage. We searched the following electronic databases: PubMed MEDLINE, Scopus, and ISI Web of Knowledge. The protocol of this systematic review and meta-analysis was published on Prospero (CRD42020144953).ResultsNine studies with 318 patients, undergoing DCS, were included. The presence of septic shock at the presentation in the emergency department was heterogeneous, and the weighted mean rate of septic shock across the studies was shown to be 35.1% [95% CI 8.4 to 78.6%]. The majority of the patients had Hinchey III (68.3%) disease. The remainder had either Hinchey IV (28.9%) or Hinchey II (2.8%). Phase I is similarly described in most of the studies as lavage, limited resection with closed blind colonic ends. In a few studies, resection and anastomosis (9.1%) or suture of the perforation site (0.9%) were performed in phase I of DCS. In those patients who underwent DCS, the most common method of temporary abdominal closure (TAC) was the negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) (97.8%). The RPA was performed in 62.1% [95% CI 40.8 to 83.3%] and the 22.7% [95% CI 15.1 to 30.3%]: 12.8% during phase I and 87.2% during phase III. A covering ileostomy was performed in 6.9% [95% CI 1.5 to 12.2%]. In patients with RPA, the overall leak was 7.3% [95% CI 4.3 to 10.4%] and the major anastomotic leaks were 4.7% [95% CI 2.0 to 7.4%]; the rate of postoperative mortality was estimated to be 9.2% [95% CI 6.0 to 12.4%].ConclusionsThe present meta-analysis revealed an approximately 62.1% weighted rate of achieving GI continuity with the DCS approach to generalized peritonitis in Hinchey III and IV with major leaks of 4.7% and overall mortality of 9.2%. Despite the promising results, we are aware of the limitations related to the significant heterogeneity of inclusion criteria. Importantly, the low rate of reported septic shock may point toward selection bias. Further studies are needed to evaluate the clinical advantages and cost-effectiveness of the DCS approach.
| S-EPMC8026449 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Despite advances in surgery support there are unmet needs for cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) patients being at risk of perioperative ischemia. Remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) is considered as adjuvant therapy, but its effects are still underexplored. Thus, we monitored transcriptomic responses from the RIPC procedure during and after cardiac surgery in a pilot study, comprising 34 samples and 10 for validation from patients. We systematically compared the response between CTRL and RIPC including individual effects and dynamics. We gratefully acknowledge the support from the study participants as part of the clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT01067703). Different individual and time-resolved patterns were found for preconditioned patients (RIPC) comprising alternated cytokine, ribosomal and stress related genes. This was confirmed by a tailored method for ranking candidates by integrating variance and expression changes at once.
2017-09-01 | GSE58270 | GEO
Project description:BackgroundEarly postoperative mobilization is considered a key element of enhanced recovery after surgery protocols. The aim of this study was to summarize the effect of early postoperative mobilization following gastrointestinal operations on patient recovery, mobility, the morbidity rate and duration of hospital stay.MethodsA systematic literature search was conducted in December, 2022, using PubMed, Web of Science and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Controlled trials reporting the effects of early postoperative mobilization after gastrointestinal surgery were included. The risk of bias was assessed using a modified Downs and Black tool and the Cochrane Collaboration tool for randomized trials. The outcomes of interest were gastrointestinal recovery (defined passage of first flatus or bowel movements), mobility (step count on postoperative day 3), the morbidity rate and duration of hospital stay.ResultsAfter elimination of duplicates, 3678 records were identified, and 71 full-text articles were screened. Finally, 15 studies (eight RCTs) reporting on 3538 patients were included. Most trials evaluated early postoperative mobilization after different gastrointestinal operations, including upper gastrointestinal (n = 8 studies), hepatopancreatobiliary (n = 10 studies) and colorectal resections (n = 10 studies). The investigated early postoperative mobilization protocols, operative techniques (minimally invasive or open) and outcome parameters were heterogeneous between the studies. Early postoperative mobilization seemed to significantly accelerate clinical gastrointestinal recovery (mean difference, hours: -11.53 (-22.08, -0.97), P = 0.03). However, early postoperative mobilization did not significantly improve the morbidity rate (risk ratio: 0.93 (0.70, 1.23), P = 0.59), postoperative mobility of patients (step count mean difference: 1009 (-803, 2821), P = 0.28) or shorten the duration of hospital stay (mean difference, days: -0.25 (-0.99,0.43), P = 0.47) in randomized trials.ConclusionThere is a large heterogeneity among the study cohorts, operations and interventions. The available evidence currently does not support specific early postoperative mobilization protocols as an isolated element to further reduce the morbidity rate and duration of hospital stay. Further well-designed trials are required to identify effective early postoperative mobilization protocols.
| S-EPMC10580147 | biostudies-literature