BackgroundPeritoneal dialysis (PD) is an effective method of renal replacement therapy for end-stage renal disease patients. The PD catheter could be inserted by surgical (open surgery/laparoscopic-assisted) or percutaneous techniques. However, the efficacy of the techniques, including catheter survival and catheter related complications, is still controversial.MethodThe dataset was defined by searching PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar and the Cochrane database that had been published until July 2014. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager Software version 5.2.6.ResultThe final analysis was conducted on 10 studies (2 randomized controlled studies (RCTs) and 8 retrospective studies), including 1626 patients. The pooled data demonstrate no significant difference in 1-year catheter survival (OR = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.52–2.10, P = 0.90) between surgical and percutaneous groups. However, the sensitivity analysis of the RCTs demonstrated that the incidence of overall infectious (OR = 0.26, 95% CI = 0.11–0.64, P = 0.003) and overall mechanical complications (OR = 0.32, 95% CI = 0.15–0.68, P = 0.003) were significantly lower in the percutaneous groups than the surgical groups. Furthermore, the subgroup analyses revealed no significant difference in the rates of peritonitis, tunnel and exit site infection, leakage, inflow-outflow obstruction, bleeding and hernia by comparing the methods.ConclusionThe results showed that the placement modality did not affect 1-year catheter survival. Percutaneous catheter placement is as safe and effective as surgical technique.
BackgroundBleeding is the most common major complication following colonoscopic polypectomy. The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether submucosal epinephrine injections could prevent the occurrence of postpolypectomy bleeding.MethodThe dataset was defined by searching PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane database for appropriate randomized controlled studies published before April 2015. A meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the preventative effect of submucosal epinephrine injection for overall, early, and delayed postpolypectomy bleeding.ResultsThe final analysis examined the findings of six studies, with data from 1388 patients. The results demonstrated that prophylactic treatment with epinephrine injection significantly reduced the occurrence of overall (OR = 0.38, 95% CI: 0.21, 0.66; p = 0.0006) and early bleeding (OR = 0.38, 95% CI: 0.20, 0.69; p = 0.002). However, for delayed bleeding complications, epinephrine injections were not found to be any more effective than treatment with saline injection or no injection (OR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.11, 1.81; p = 0.26). Moreover, for patients with polyps larger than 20 mm, mechanical hemostasis devices (endoloops or clips) were found to be more effective than epinephrine injection in preventing overall bleeding (OR = 0.33, 95% CI: 0.13, 0.87; p = 0.03) and early bleeding (OR = 0.29, 95% CI: 0.08, 1.02; p = 0.05). This was not established for delayed bleeding.ConclusionThe routine use of prophylaxis submucosal epinephrine injection is safe and beneficial preventing postpolypectomy bleeding.
Introduction Acute appendicitis is one of the most common surgical emergencies worldwide. Clinical scoring system systems have been developed to diagnose acute appendicitis, but insufficient to predict the complication. The amount of serum biomarkers elevates in response to acute inflammation, which could be beneficial for diagnostic tools. Accordingly, a meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of platelet indices, including mean platelet volume (MVP) and platelet distribution width (PDW) as potential biomarkers for the diagnosis of a diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Material and methods The dataset was defined by searching for articles published until December 2020 from PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar and the Cochrane database. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager Software version 5.4.1. Results The final analysis was made from 9 studies, including 3124 patients. The results demonstrated that lower MPV values was significantly associated with acute appendicitis (odds ratio (OR) = 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) = −1.51 to −0.11, P = 0.02), but not associated with complicated appendicitis by comparing it with the control (OR = −0.13,95% CI = −0.33 to −0.07, P = 0.19) and non-complicated appendicitis groups (OR = −0.13,95% CI = −0.30 to −0.04, P = 0.14). The present study failed to demonstrate the diagnostic value of PDW for the prediction of appendicitis and its complication. Conclusion The results of the meta-analysis strongly indicate that a lower MVP values could function as a marker for predicting the acute appendicitis.
Background: Vascular endothelial growth factor C (VEGF-C) is involved in the development and progression of tumor angio-/lymphangiogenesis. The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether VEGF-C expression is an indicator of aggressiveness and poor prognosis of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). Method: A meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the association between VEGF-C expression with clinicopathological characteristics and survival of ESCC patients. The dataset was defined by searching PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane database for appropriate articles published until April 2014. Result: The final analysis was made from 9 studies, including 656 ESCC patients. Positive VEGF-C expression was defined by immunohistochemistry (IHC) or mRNA expression analysis. The results demonstrated that VEGF-C expression was significantly associated with advanced-stage disease (odds ratio (OR) = 2.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.37-3.84, P = 0.002), deeper tumor invasion, lymph node metastasis, and lymphatic invasion. The 5-year survival of VEGF-C expression-negative patients was found to be better than that of VEGF-C expression-positive patients (OR = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.21-0.58, P < 0.0001). However, there was no significant association between the VEGF-C expression levels and either poorer tumor differentiation or vascular invasion. Conclusion: The results of the meta-analysis strongly indicate that VEGF-C expression could function as a marker for predicting the aggressiveness and prognosis of ESCC.
BACKGROUND: Arteriovenous graft infection (AVGI) is a major cause of hemodialysis access failure. Delayed diagnosis and inappropriate treatment may lead to increased morbidity (3-35%) and mortality up to 12%. OBJECTIVES: Compare the postoperative outcomes of total graft excision (TGE) and partial graft excision (PGE) in the treatment of AVGI. DESIGNS: Systematic review and meta-analysis METHODS: The dataset was defined by searching PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane database for articles outlining the terms arteriovenous graft infection, infected dialysis graft, TGE and PGE published between 1995-2020. The data analysis evaluated the outcomes of TGE and PGE in the management of AVGI. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager Software version 5.4.1. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: 30-day mortality, recurrent infection, and reoperation rate. SAMPLE SIZE: Eight studies, including 555 AVGI, and 528 patients. RESULTS: PGE showed a significant increase in recurrent graft infection rate (OR=0.23,95% CI=0.13–0.41, P <.00001) and re-operation rate for control of infection (OR=0.14,95% CI=0.03–0.58, P <.007). However, the 30-day mortality rate did not differ significantly between the groups (OR=0.92,95% CI=0.39–2.17, P =.85). CONCLUSIONS: TGE remains a safe and effective surgical method for the management of AVGI. PGE is associated with a higher risk of graft infection and need for re-operation. As a result, PGE should only be considered in carefully selected patients. LIMITATION: Risk of bias due to the differences in patient characteristics. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None.
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.