Background Minimally invasive surgery has been considered as an alternative to open surgery by surgeons for colorectal cancer. However, the efficacy and safety profiles of robotic and conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer remain unclear in the literature. The primary aim of this review was to determine whether roboticassisted laparoscopic surgery (RAS) has better clinical outcomes for colorectal cancer patients than conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS). Methods All randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies were systematically searched in the databases of CENTRAL, EMBASE and PubMed from their inception until January 2018. Case reports, case series and non-systematic reviews were excluded. Results Seventy-three studies (6 RCTs and 67 observational studies) were eligible (n = 169,236) for inclusion in the data synthesis. In comparison with the CLS arm, RAS cohort was associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of conversion to open surgery (q \ 0.001, I 2 = 65%; REM: OR 0.40; 95% CI 0.30,0.53), all-cause mortality (q \ 0.001, I 2 = 7%; FEM: OR 0.48; 95% CI 0.36,0.64) and wound infection (q \ 0.001, I 2 = 0%; FEM: OR 1.24; 95% CI 1.11,1.39). Patients who received RAS had a significantly shorter duration of hospitalization (q \ 0.001, I 2 = 94%; REM: MD -0.77; 95% CI 1.12, -0.41; day), time to oral diet (q \ 0.001, I 2 = 60%; REM: MD -0.43; 95% CI -0.64, -0.21; day) and lesser intraoperative blood loss (q = 0.01, I 2 = 88%; REM: MD -18.05; 95% CI -32.24, -3.85; ml). However, RAS cohort was noted to require a significant longer duration of operative time (q \ 0.001, I 2 = 93%; REM : MD 38.19; 95% CI 28.78,47.60; min). Conclusions This meta-analysis suggests that RAS provides better clinical outcomes for colorectal cancer patients as compared to the CLS at the expense of longer duration of operative time. However, the inconclusive trial sequential analysis and an overall low level of evidence in this review warrant future adequately powered RCTs to draw firm conclusion.

Delirium is common in intensive care patients. Dexmedetomidine is increasingly used for sedation in this setting, but its effect on delirium remains unclear. The primary aim of this review was to examine whether dexmedetomidine reduces the incidence of delirium and agitation in intensive care patients. We sought randomised clinical trials in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and CENTRAL from their inception until June 2018. Observational studies, case reports, case series and non-systematic reviews were excluded. Twenty-five trials including 3240 patients were eligible for inclusion in the data synthesis. In the patients who received dexmedetomidine (eight trials, 1425 patients), delirium was reduced, odds ratio (95%CI) 0.36 (0.26-0.51), p < 0.001 and high quality of evidence. The use of dexmedetomidine was associated with a reduced incidence of agitation, OR (95%CI) 0.34 (0.20-0.59), p < 0.001, moderate quality of evidence. Patients who were randomly assigned to dexmedetomidine had a significantly higher incidence of bradycardia, OR (95%CI) 2.18 (1.46-3.24), p < 0.001, moderate quality of evidence; and hypotension, OR (95%CI) 1.89 (1.48-2.41), p < 0.001, high quality of evidence. We found no evidence of an effect on mortality, OR (95%CI) 0.86 (0.66-1.10), p = 0.23, moderate quality of evidence. The trial sequential analyses for the incidence of delirium, bradycardia and hypotension was conclusive but not for the incidence of agitation and mortality. In summary, this meta-analysis suggests that dexmedetomidine reduces the incidence of delirium and agitation in intensive care patients. The general quality of evidence ranged from moderate to high.

Study objective To review the effects of prone position and supine position on oxygenation parameters in patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of non-randomised trials. Patients Databases of EMBASE, MEDLINE and CENTRAL were systematically searched from its inception until March 2021. Interventions COVID-19 patients being positioned in the prone position either whilst awake or under general anaesthesia. Measurements Primary outcomes were oxygenation parameters (PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio, PaCO2, SpO2). Secondary outcomes included the rate of intubation and mortality rate. Results Thirty-five studies ( n = 1712 patients) were included in this review. In comparison to the supine group, prone position significantly improved the PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio (study = 13, patients = 1002, Mean difference, MD 52.15, 95% CI 37.08 to 67.22; p < 0.00001) and SpO₂ (study = 11, patients = 998, MD 4.17, 95% CI 2.53 to 5.81; p ≤0.00001). Patients received prone position were associated with lower incidence of mortality (study = 5, patients = 688, Odd ratio, OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.80; p = 0.007). No significant difference was noted in the incidence of intubation rate (study = 5, patients = 626, OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.86; p = 0.42) between the supine and prone groups. Conclusion Our meta-analysis demonstrated that prone position improved PaO2/FiO2 ratio with better SpO2 than supine position in COVID-19 patients. Given the limited number of studies with small sample size and substantial heterogeneity of measured outcomes, further studies are warranted to standardize the regime of prone position to improve the certainty of evidence. PROSPERO Registration: CRD42021234050

Corticosteroids are often administered prophylactically to attenuate the inflammatory response associated with cardiac surgery using cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). However, the efficacy and safety profile of corticosteroids remain uncertain. The primary aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the effect of corticosteroids on mortality in adult cardiac surgery using CPB. Secondary aims were to examine the effect of corticosteroids on myocardial adverse events, pulmonary adverse events, atrial fibrillation, surgical site infection, gastrointestinal bleeding and duration of stay in the intensive care unit and hospital. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were systematically searched in electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL and Web of Science) from their inception until March 2019. Observational studies, case reports, case series and literature reviews were excluded. Sixty-two studies (n = 16 457 patients) were included in this meta-analysis. There was no significant difference in mortality between the corticosteroid and placebo groups [odds ratio (OR) 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81–1.14; P = 0.65, participants = 14 693, studies = 24, evidence of certainty: moderate]. Compared to those receiving a placebo, patients who were given corticosteroids had a significantly higher incidence of myocardial adverse events (OR 1.17, 95% CI 1.03–1.33; P = 0.01, participants = 14 512, studies = 23) and a lower incidence of pulmonary adverse events (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75–0.98; P = 0.02, participants = 13 426, studies = 17). The incidences of atrial fibrillation (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.81–0.94; P &lt; 0.001, participants = 14 148, studies = 24) and surgical site infection (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.73–0.90; P &lt; 0.001, participants = 13 946; studies = 22) were all lower in patients who were given corticosteroids. In the present meta-analysis of 62 RCTs (16 457 patients), including the 2 major RCTs (SIRS and DECS trials: 12 001 patients), we found that prophylactic corticosteroids in cardiac surgery did not reduce mortality. The clinical significance of an increase in myocardial adverse events remains unclear as the definition of a relevant myocardial end point following cardiac surgery varied greatly between RCTs.

Loop diuretics remain a fundamental pharmacological therapy to remove excess fluid and improve symptom control in acute decompensated heart failure. Several recent randomised controlled trials have examined the clinical benefit of continuous vs. bolus furosemide in acute decompensated heart failure, but have reported conflicting findings. The aim of this review was to compare the effects of continuous and bolus furosemide with regard to mortality, length of hospital stay and its efficacy profile in acute decompensated heart failure. All parallel-arm randomised controlled trials from MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception until May 2017 were included. Cross-over randomised controlled trials, observational studies, case reports, case series and non-systematic reviews that involved children were excluded. Eight trials (n = 669) were eligible for inclusion. There was no difference between furosemide continuous infusion and bolus administration for all-cause mortality (four studies; n = 491; I = 0%; OR 1.65; 95%CI 0.93-2.91; p = 0.08) or duration of hospitalisation (six studies; n = 576; I = 71%; mean difference 0.27; 95%CI -1.35 to 1.89 days; p = 0.74). Continuous infusion of intravenous furosemide was associated with increased weight reduction (five studies; n = 516; I = 0%; mean difference 0.70; 95%CI 0.12-1.28 kg; p = 0.02); increased total urine output in 24 h (four studies; n = 390; I = 33%; mean difference 461.5; 95%CI 133.7-789.4 ml; p < 0.01); and reduced brain natriuretic peptide (two studies; n = 390; I = 0%; mean difference 399.5; 95%CI 152.7-646.3 ng.l ; p < 0.01), compared with the bolus group. There was no difference in the incidence of raised creatinine and hypokalaemia between the two groups. In summary, there was no difference between continuous infusion and bolus of furosemide for all-cause mortality, length of hospital stay and electrolyte disturbance, but continuous infusion was superior to bolus administration with regard to diuretic effect and reduction in brain natriuretic peptide.

A serum lactate of >1.7 mmol/l on day 2 should raise the possibility of a potential AL. Such patients should be selected for more intensive monitoring, optimization and selective gastroscopy.

BACKGROUND Several studies suggest that systemic magnesium reduces postoperative opioid consumption and the intensity of pain, but others report conflicting results. The efficacy and safety profile of intravenous magnesium in noncardiac surgery remain uncertain. OBJECTIVES The aim of this review was to investigate the effect of intravenous magnesium on the consumption of postoperative morphine in the first 24 h in adults undergoing noncardiac surgery. DESIGN Systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis. DATA SOURCES MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL from their inception until January 2019. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA All randomised clinical trials comparing intravenous magnesium versus placebo in noncardiac surgery were systematically searched in the databases. Observational studies, case reports, case series and nonsystematic reviews were excluded. RESULTS Fifty-one trials (n=3311) were included for quantitative meta-analysis. In comparison with placebo, postoperative morphine consumption at 24-h was significantly reduced in the magnesium group, with a mean difference [95% confidence interval (CI)] of −5.6 mg (−7.54 to −3.66, P < 0.001, I 2 = 92%, level of evidence low). The trial sequential analysis for the effect of magnesium on postoperative morphine consumption was conclusive. Patients who received magnesium had a longer time to the first analgesia request [143 (103 to 183) min, P < 0.001, I 2 = 99%, level of evidence low] and a lower incidence of shivering [0.26 (0.15 to 0.44), P < 0.001, I 2 = 35%, level of evidence very low]. However, no significance differences were demonstrated in postoperative pain scores in the first 24 h (mean difference, 95% CI) −0.30 (−0.69 to 0.09, P = 0.13, I 2 = 91%, level of evidence low), bradycardia (odds ratio, 95% CI) 1.13 (0.43 to 2.98, P = 0.80, I 2 = 35%, level of evidence very low) and postoperative nausea and vomiting (odds ratio, 95% CI) 0.90 (0.67 to 1.22, P = 0.49, I 2 = 25%, level of evidence moderate). CONCLUSION The current meta-analysis demonstrates that the use of intravenous magnesium as part of multimodal analgesia may reduce morphine consumption in the first 24 h after surgery and delay the time to the first request for analgesia in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. However, the included studies were of low-quality with substantial heterogeneity. TRIAL REGISTRATION CRD42018086846.

Objectives: Perioperative bleeding remains a major concern to all clinicians caring for perioperative patients. Due to the theoretical risk of thromboembolic events associated with tranexamic acid (TXA) when administered intravenously, topical route of TXA has been extensively studied, but its safety and efficacy profile remain unclear in the literature. The primary aim of this review was to assess the effect of topical TXA on incidence of blood transfusion and mortality in adults undergoing surgery. Data sources: EMBASE, MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and ISI Web of Science were systematically searched from their inception until May 31, 2019. Review methods: Parallel-arm randomized controlled trials were included. Results: Seventy-one trials (7539 participants: orthopedics 5450 vs nonorthopedics 1909) were included for quantitative meta-analysis. In comparison to placebo, topical TXA significantly reduced intraoperative blood loss [mean difference (MD) À36.83 mL, 95% confidence interval (CI) À54.77 to À18.88, P < 0.001], total blood loss (MD À319.55 mL, 95% CI À387.42 to À251.69, P < 0.001), and incidence of blood transfusion [odds ratio (OR) 0.30, 95% CI 0.26-0.34, P < 0.001]. Patients who received topical TXA were associated with a shorter length of hospital stay (MD À0.28 days, 95% CI À0.47 to À0.08, P ¼ 0.006). No adverse events associated with the use of topical TXA were observed, namely mortality (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.45-1.36, P ¼ 0.39), pulmonary embolism (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.27-1.93, P ¼ 0.52), deep vein thrombosis (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.65-1.77, P ¼ 0.79), myocardial infarction (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.21-2.99, P ¼ 0.73), and stroke (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.28-2.57, P ¼ 0.77). Of all included studies, the risk of bias assessment was ''low'' for 20 studies, ''unclear'' for 26 studies and ''high'' for 25 studies. Conclusions: In the meta-analysis of 71 trials (7539 patients), topical TXA reduced the incidence of blood transfusion without any notable adverse events associated with TXA in adults undergoing surgery. PROSPERO: CRD 42018111762.