SUMMARYObjective: Stereo-electroencephalography (SEEG) is a procedure performed for patients with intractable epilepsy in order to anatomically define the epileptogenic zone (EZ) and the possible related functional cortical areas. By avoiding the need for large craniotomies and due to its intrinsic precision placement features, SEEG may be associated with fewer complications. Nevertheless, intracerebral electrodes have gained a reputation of excessive invasiveness, with a "relatively high morbidity" associated with their placement. A systematic literature review and meta-analysis of SEEG complications has not been previously performed. The goal of this study is to quantitatively review the incidence of various surgical complications associated with SEEG electrode implantation in the literature and to provide a summary estimate. This will allow physicians to accurately counsel their patients about the potential complications related to this method of extraoperative invasive monitoring. Methods: The systematic review was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). We conducted MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science database searches with the search algorithm. We analyzed complication rates using a fixed-effects model with inverse variance weighting. Calculations for the meta-analysis and construction of forest plots were completed using an established spreadsheet. The principal summary measures were the effect summary value and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: The initial 1,901 retrieved citations were reviewed. After removing 787 duplicates, the titles and abstracts of 1,114 publications were screened. At this stage, studies that did not mention the absence or presence of complications following SEEG or that did not fulfill the inclusion criteria in any manner were excluded. After excluding 1,057 citations, the full text was assessed in the resulting 57 articles for eligibility criteria. The most common complications were hemorrhagic (pooled prevalence 1.0%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.6-1.4%) or infectious (pooled prevalence 0.8%, 95% CI 0.3-1.2%). Five mortalities were identified (pooled prevalence 0.3%, 95% CI À0.1-0.6%). Overall, our analysis identified 121 surgical complications related to SEEG insertion and monitoring (pooled prevalence 1.3%, 95% CI 0.9-1.7%). Significance: This review represents a comprehensive estimation of the actual incidence of complications related to SEEG. We report a rate substantially lower than the complication rates reported for other methods of extraoperative invasive monitoring. These data should alleviate the concerns of some regarding the safety of the "stereotactic" method, allowing a better decision process among the different methods of

Peri-operative SARS-CoV-2 infection increases postoperative mortality. The aim of this study was to determine the optimal duration of planned delay before surgery in patients who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection. This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study included patients undergoing elective or emergency surgery during October 2020. Surgical patients with pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 infection were compared with those without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality. Logistic regression models were used to calculate adjusted 30-day mortality rates stratified by time from diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection to surgery. Among 140,231 patients (116 countries), 3127 patients (2.2%) had a pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. Adjusted 30-day mortality in patients without SARS-CoV-2 infection was 1.5% (95%CI 1.4-1.5). In patients with a pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, mortality was increased in patients having surgery within 0-2 weeks, 3-4 weeks and 5-6 weeks of the diagnosis (odds ratio (95%CI) 4.1 (3.3-4.8), 3.9 (2.6-5.1) and 3.6 (2.0-5.2), respectively). Surgery performed ≥ 7 weeks after SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis was associated with a similar mortality risk to baseline (odds ratio (95%CI) 1.5 (0.9-2.1)). After a ≥ 7 week delay in undertaking surgery following SARS-CoV-2 infection, patients with ongoing symptoms had a higher mortality than patients whose symptoms had resolved or who had been asymptomatic (6.0% (95%CI 3.2-8.7) vs. 2.4% (95%CI 1.4-3.4) vs. 1.3% (95%CI 0.6-2.0), respectively). Where possible, surgery should be delayed for at least 7 weeks following SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients with ongoing symptoms ≥ 7 weeks from diagnosis may benefit from further delay.

BackgroundThe optimal timing of initiating renal replacement therapy (RRT) in critical illness complicated by acute kidney injury (AKI) is not clearly established. Trials completed on this topic have been marked by contradictory findings as well as quality and heterogeneity issues. Our goal was to perform a synthesis of the evidence regarding the impact of “early” versus “late” RRT in critically ill patients with AKI, focusing on the highest-quality research on this topic.MethodsA literature search using the PubMed and Embase databases was completed to identify studies involving critically ill adult patients with AKI who received hemodialysis according to “early” versus “late”/“standard” criteria. The highest-quality studies were selected for meta-analysis. The primary outcome of interest was mortality at 1 month (composite of 28- and 30-day mortality). Secondary outcomes evaluated included intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay (LOS).ResultsThirty-six studies (seven randomized controlled trials, ten prospective cohorts, and nineteen retrospective cohorts) were identified for detailed evaluation. Nine studies involving 1042 patients were considered to be of high quality and were included for quantitative analysis. No survival advantage was found with “early” RRT among high-quality studies with an OR of 0.665 (95 % CI 0.384–1.153, p = 0.146). Subgroup analysis by reason for ICU admission (surgical/medical) or definition of “early” (time/biochemical) showed no evidence of survival advantage. No significant differences were observed in ICU or hospital LOS among high-quality studies.ConclusionsOur conclusion based on this evidence synthesis is that “early” initiation of RRT in critical illness complicated by AKI does not improve patient survival or confer reductions in ICU or hospital LOS.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-016-1291-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.