CBT is a rare condition which needs surgical excision by experienced vascular surgeon. Surgical resection is associated with significant morbidity of 35% and mortality of 1%. Mostly CBT is benign but malignant forms are not uncommon.
Four randomized trials encompassing 449 patients of non-palpable breast cancer undergoing with radio-guided occult lesion localization (ROLL) or wire guided localization (WGL). In the fixed effects model, accurate localization, peri-procedural complications, and reoperation rate were comparable between two techniques. Risk of having positive resection margins following WGL was higher. Duration of localization and surgical excision was shorter for ROLL. Volume and weight of the excised occult breast lesion was similar in WGL and ROLL groups.
NC is a safe and effective procedure for the management of gallstone disease. NC is as effective as LC for perioperative complications and total stay in hospital. NC is superior to LC for less post-operative pain and better cosmetic results. NC is associated with longer operative time and higher conversion rate.
Objective: The objective of this article is to provide up-to-date information about aetiology, pathogenesis, diagnostic modalities and treatment of upper limb deep vein thrombosis (ULDVT). Methods: Generic terms including ULDVT, axillary-subclavian DVT, and complications of central venous catheters were searched on electronic database. We analysed original studies, review articles and evaluation studies published over the last 25 years. Results: Forty-seven studies on ULDVT encompassing 2,557 patients were evaluated. The incidence of ULDVT was quoted 1–4% of the total DVT. Primary ULDVT (20% of the total) was due to activity-related venous trauma. Secondary ULDVT (80% of the total) was due to central venous catheters and malignancy. Duplex ultrasound (sensitivity 78–100% and specificity 82–100%), contrast venography (gold standard) and magnetic resonance venography were the diagnostic tools used. Pulmonary embolism (2–35%) and post-thrombotic syndrome (7–46%) were the main sequelae. Anticoagulation was the universal intervention, giving 79% symptom relief (13.2% rethrombosis rate). Thrombolysis and/or percutaneous thrombectomy were used in 38% of cases for the management of ULDVT, giving 83% symptom relief (90% recanalization rate and 9% rethrombosis rate). Surgical decompression, venous angioplasty and superior vena cava filters were the main adjunctive interventions. Conclusion: ULDVT, although rare, is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality (29–40%) due to potential risks of pulmonary embolism, post-thrombotic syndrome and loss of vascular access. Simple anticoagulation is suitable for the majority of patients. Thrombolysis/thrombectomy is often successful but less frequently used. Surgical decompression, venous angioplasty and superior vena cava filters have some role in recurrent cases. An optimal management protocol can be established using a multimodality approach.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review was to systematically analyze the trials on the effectiveness of perioperative warming in surgical patients. METHODS:A systematic review of the literature was undertaken. Clinical trials on perioperative warming were selected according to specific criteria and analyzed to generate summative data expressed as standardized mean difference (SMD). RESULTS:Twenty-five studies encompassing 3,599 patients in various surgical disciplines were retrieved from the electronic databases. Nineteen randomized trials on 1785 patients qualified for this review. The no-warming group developed statistically significant hypothermia. In the fixed effect model, the warming group had significantly less pain and lower incidence of wound infection, compared with the no-warming group. In the random effect model, the warming group was also associated with lower risk of post-anesthetic shivering. Both in the random and the fixed effect models, the warming group was associated with significantly less blood loss. However, there was significant heterogeneity among the trials.CONCLUSION: Perioperative warming of surgical patients is effective in reducing postoperative wound pain, wound infection and shivering. Systemic warming of the surgical patient is also associated with less perioperative blood loss through preventing hypothermia-induced coagulopathy. Perioperative warming may be given routinely to all patients of various surgical disciplines in order to counteract the consequences of hypothermia. RESUMOOBJETIVO: O objetivo desta revisão é analisar sistematicamente os ensaios sobre a eficácia do aquecimento perioperatório em pacientes cirúrgicos. MÉTODOS:Uma revisão sistemática da literatura foi realizada. Ensaios clínicos sobre aquecimento perioperatório foram selecionados segundo critérios específicos e analisados para gerar dados sumativo expresso na diferença média padronizada (standardized mean difference, SMD). RESULTADOS:Vinte e cinco estudos englobando 3.599 pacientes de várias disciplinas de cirurgia foram obtidos a partir de bases de dados eletrônicas.Dezenove ensaios aleatórios em 1.785 pacientes qualificados para esta revisão. Nenhum grupo de aquecimento desenvolveu estatisticamente significativa hipotermia. No modelo de efeito fixo, grupo de aquecimento tiveram significativamente menos dor e menor incidência de infecção na ferida quando comparado com o grupo de não-aquecimento. No modelo de efeito aleatório, grupo de aquecimento também foi associado a um menor risco de tremores pós-anestesia. Em ambos os modelos de efeitos fixos e aleatórios, o aquecimento foi significativamente associado com menor perda de sangue. No entanto, houve significativa heterogeneidade entre os ensaios.CONCLUSÃO: O aquecimento perioperatório de pacientes cirúrgicos é eficaz na redução da dor pós-operatória ferida, infecção ferida, e tremores. O aquecimento sistêmico do paciente cirúrgico também está associado com menor perda de sangue no perioperatório prevenindo hipotermia e induzindo coagulopatia. O ...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.