No abstract

Background The optimal analgesic strategy for patients with acute pancreatitis (AP) remains unknown. Objective The present systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy of different analgesic modalities trialled in AP. Methods A systematic search of PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, SCOPUS and Web of Science conducted up until June 2021, identified all randomised control trials (RCTs) comparing analgesic modalities in AP. A pooled analysis was undertaken of the improvement in pain scores as reported on visual analogue scale (VAS) on day 0, day 1 and day 2. Results Twelve RCTs were identified including 542 patients. Seven trial drugs were compared: opiates, non-steroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs), metamizole, local anaesthetic, epidural, paracetamol, and placebo. Across all modalities, the pooled VAS scores showed global improvement from baseline to day 2. Epidural analgesia appears to provide the greatest improvement in VAS within the first 24 h but is equivalent to opiates by 48 h. Within 24 h, NSAIDs offered similar pain-relief to opiates, while placebo also showed equivalence to other modalities but then plateaued. Local anaesthetics demonstrated least overall efficacy. VAS scores for opiate and non-opiate analgesics were comparable at baseline and day 1. The identified RCTs demonstrated significant statistical and methodological heterogeneity in pain-relief reporting. Conclusions There is remarkable paucity of level 1 evidence to guide pain management in AP with small datasets per study. Epidural administration appears effective within the first 24 h of AP although infrequently used and featured in only a single RCT. NSAIDs are an effective opiate sparing alternative during the first 24 h.

Background:The purpose of the present study was to systematically evaluate the completeness of trial registration and the extent of outcome-reporting bias in modern randomized controlled trials (RCTs) relating to the treatment of distal radial fracture.Methods:With use of 4 databases (PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, Embase, and PEDro), this systematic review identified all RCTs of distal radial fracture treatment published from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2015. We independently determined the registration status of these trials in a public trial registry and compared the characteristics of registered and non-registered trials. We assessed the quality and consistency of primary outcome measure (POM) reporting between the registration data and the final published studies.Results:Ninety studies met the inclusion criteria. Of those, only 28 (31%) were registered, and only 3 (3%) were “appropriately registered” (i.e., prospectively registered and identifying and fully describing the POM). Registered trials had larger sample sizes and were more likely to be multicenter, to report funding sources, and to be published in higher-impact-factor journals. Sixteen (18%) of the 90 registered RCTs named a POM in the registry; 7 (44%) of those 16 registered RCTs stated a different POM, an additional POM, or no POM at all in the final publication than was stated in the registry data. Additionally, 13 (81%) of those 16 registered RCTs had discrepancies in the time point reported for the POM.Conclusions:In an attempt to address publication and outcome-reporting bias, prospective trial registration in a public registry has been deemed a condition for publication by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) since 2005. This study shows poor registration rates as well as inconsistencies in the reporting of POMs of recent trials relating to the treatment of distal radial fracture, one of the most common and most investigated injuries in orthopaedic practice.Clinical Relevance:The problems of registration and outcome-reporting bias in RCTs are important to highlight and address, and to find a solution will require the cooperation of researchers, reviewers, and journal editors. Increasing the transparency and consistency of reporting will help to increase the quality of research, which can impact patient care through evidence-based guidelines.

No abstract

No abstract

Background Preoperative Obstructive Sleep Apnoea (OSA) screening, followed by sleep studies as indicated, is commonly performed for patients undergoing bariatric surgery in our hospital but not for patients with similar weight undergoing other surgeries such as laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The purpose of this audit was to understand if laparoscopic cholecystectomy can be performed safely in patients with a Body Mass Index (BMI) ≥35 kg/m2 without such screening. Methods Patients with a BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2 undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy between 2nd May 2014 and 4th April 2022 were included. Patients with known OSA were excluded and no patients were referred for sleep studies. Data on patient demographics, co-morbidities, and any intraoperative or postoperative surgical complications were extracted and analysed. Univariate associations between different preoperative and operative variables and 30-day morbidity were studied using the Fisher's exact test. Results A total of 434 patients were included in the audit (64 male, 370 female). The mean age was 49 +/- 15 years. The mean weight and BMI were 110 +/- 20 kg (range 70–79kg) and 37 +/- 6 kg/m2 respectively. The mean operating time was 70 +/- 31 minutes (median=62). Approximately, 92% (398/434) had a day case procedure. The readmission rate at 30-day was 1% (5/434). There were no intraoperative complications. 17 patients had post-operative complications including deep vein thrombosis (n=2), leak in transverse colon secondary to cholecysto-colic fistula (n=1), wound infection (n=9), bile leak and post-op ERCP (n=3), common bile duct stone requiring ERCP (n=1) and pneumonia (n=1). No patients required ITU or HDU admission for further organ support. The 30-day mortality rate was 0% (0/434) while the 30-day morbidity rate was 3.9% (17/434). ASA grade, previous abdominal surgery, hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, smoking history, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, ischemic heart disease, fatty liver disease, preoperative liver reducing diet, number of ports, and conversion to laparotomy were not associated with increased 30-day morbidity rate (p<0.05) on univariate analysis. Higher BMI values (≥40 and ≥50 kg/m2) were also not associated with increased 30-day morbidity rate (p<0.05). Conclusions This audit demonstrated that laparoscopic cholecystectomy can be performed safely without the need for preoperative sleep studies in patients with BMI ≥35 kg/m2.

Background The incidence of, and risk factors for chyle leak, as defined by the 2017 International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS), remain unknown.  Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Scopus were systematically searched for studies of patients undergoing pancreatectomy that reported chyle leak according to the 2017 ISGPS definition. The primary outcomes were the incidence of overall and clinically-relevant chyle leak. A random-effects pairwise meta-analysis was used to identify risk factors where possible.  Results Thirty-five studies including 7083 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The weighted incidence of overall chyle leak was 6.8% (95% CI 5.6 - 8.2) and clinically-relevant chyle leak was 5.5% (95% CI 3.8 - 7.7). Pancreaticoduodenectomy, total pancreatectomy and distal pancreatectomy were associated with a CL incidence of 7.3%, 4.3%, 5.8% respectively. Fourteen individual risk factors for chyle leak were identified from included studies. Younger age, low prognostic nutritional index, para-aortic node manipulation, lymphatic involvement, and post-pancreatectomy pancreatitis were significantly associated with chyle leak, all from individual studies. Conclusions The incidence of overall chyle leak and clinically relevant chyle leak after pancreatic surgery, as defined by the 2017 ISGPS definition is 6.8% and 5.5% respectively. Several risk factors for chyle leak were identified in the present review, however, larger high-quality studies are needed to more accurately define these risks.

Aims To evaluate the effectiveness of using a clinical prediction tool in the management of suspected acute appendicitis Methods Retrospective data was collected on patients undergoing appendicectomy at a single tertiary centre from November 2019 to June 2020. Inclusion criteria were all patients aged 18 and above undergoing diagnostic laparoscopy for suspected appendicitis. Exclusion criteria were all patients that had a pathological finding other than appendicitis at laparoscopy. The pre operative AAS score at first presentation was calculated and patients grouped into low(0-10), intermediate(11-15), and high(16 and above) risk. These groups were then compared to the histological findings. Results A total of 74 patients were included, 44 male and 30 female. The age range was from 18 to 83, with a median age of 36. Of 10 patients in the low risk group, 4 (40%) had appendicitis on histology. 36 out of 40 (90%) patients in the intermediate risk group had appendicitis and 100% of the 24 patients in the high risk group. Pearson’s coefficient showed a significant correlation between the AAS risk (low, intermediate, and high) and the histological diagnosis of appendicitis (r = 0.48, p = 0.000016). Conclusions Our study did show a positive correlation between the AAS risk stratification and histological diagnosis. Based on our findings we would recommend the adoption of this score in assessing patients with suspected acute appendicitis and minimising the negative appendicectomy rate.