METHODS: A meta-analysis and systematic review of MEDLINE, PubMed Central (via PubMed), Embase (via Ovid), SCOPUS, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, SCI and Cochrane Library databases were undertaken. Seven randomized controlled trials assessing the outcomes of PSR and POMR were analyzed in accordance with the PRISMA statement. The risk of bias was assessed using the Rob2 tool.
RESULTS: According to the pooled analysis, POMR significantly reduced the incidence of IH compared to the PSR (OR 5.82 [95% CI 2.69, 12.58] P
METHOD: A prospective, randomized, double-blinded controlled trial was conducted with 58 patients undergoing breast conserving surgery (BCS) and ALND, stratified into two groups: Group A (ALND + Haemoblock, n = 29) and Group B (ALND + placebo, n = 29). Postoperative drainage charts were monitored, with the primary endpoint being the time to drain removal, Additionally, patients were observed for surgical site infection (SSI).
RESULTS: Group A exhibited a marginally higher mean total drain output (398 +/- 205 vs. 326 +/- 198) compared to Group B, this difference did not attain statistical significance (p = 0.176). Equally, the mean time to drain removal demonstrated no discernible distinction between the two groups (6 +/- 3.0 vs. 6 +/- 3.0, Group A vs. Group B, p = 0.526). During follow up, nine patients in Group A required seroma aspiration (mean aspiration 31 +/- 73) as compared to Group B, 6 patients required aspiration (mean aspiration 12 +/- 36), p = 0.222). No notable disparity in SSI rates between the groups was identified.
CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the administration of Haemoblock did not manifest a discernible effect in mitigating seroma production, hastening drain removal, or influencing SSI rates following ALND. The study underscores the intricate and multifactorial nature of seroma formation, suggesting avenues for future research to explore combined interventions and protracted follow-up periods for a more comprehensive understanding.
METHODS: This is a pragmatic randomized control trial study where elective admitted patients will be randomly divided into the intervention (SS) or control (NN) group. All data will be collected during a face-to-face interview, anthropometric measurement, blood sampling (albumin, white blood count, hemoglobin, and c-reactive protein), handgrip strength, and postoperative complications. Group SS will be receiving a tailored lifestyle and intensively supplemented with oral nutrition support as compared to Group NN that will receive standard medical care. The primary outcome for this study is the length of stay in the hospital. Additional outcome measures are changes in biochemical profile and nutritional and functional status. The effects of intervention between groups on the outcome parameters will be analyzed by using the SPSS General Linear Model (GLM) for the repeated measure procedure.
DISCUSSION: The intervention implemented in this study will serve as baseline data in providing appropriate nutritional management in patients undergoing gastrointestinal and oncological surgery.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Protocol Registration and Results System (PRS) NCT04347772 . Registered on 20 November 2019.
METHODS: This was a randomized control, open-label trial. Women underwent major gynecological surgery were randomized to receive either subcutaneous 50 mg of Na-PPS twice daily or subcutaneous enoxaparin 40 mg once daily. Fondaparinux 2.5 mg once daily was given to Muslim women as an alternative to enoxaparin. The treatment was started 6 h postoperatively, for at least 3 days. All the patients received thromboembolic deterrent stockings. The primary efficacy outcome was venous thromboembolism up to 3 days postsurgery. The main safety outcomes were minor and major bleeding.
RESULTS: Among 109 participants, there was no incidence of venous thromboembolism. None of the women developed major bleeding. Minor bleeding was observed in 28.3% (15/53) and 5.4% (3/56) of Na-PPS and standard thromboprophylaxis group, respectively (P = 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Na-PPS was associated with increased risk of minor bleeding. There was insufficient data to conclude its efficacy as thromboprophylaxis. Further research is needed to evaluate Na-PPS safety as a standard thromboprophylactic agent.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: An interventional study was carried out among oesophageal and gastric cancer patients who had undergone surgery at the National Cancer Institute of Malaysia. The prehabilitation process took a maximum of two weeks, depending on the patient's optimisation before surgery. The prehabilitation is based on functional capacity (ECOG performance status), muscle function (handgrip strength), cardio-respiratory function (peak flow meter) and nutritional status (calorie and protein). Postoperative outcomes are measured based on the length of hospital stay, complications, and Clavien-Dindo Classification.
RESULTS: Thirty-one patients were recruited to undergo a prehabilitation intervention prior to gastrectomy (n=21) and esophagectomy (n=10). Demographically, most of the cancer patients were males (67.7%) with an ideal mean of BMI (23.5±6.0). Physically, the majority of them had physical class (ASA grade) Grade 2 (67.7%), ECOG performance status of 1 (61.3%) and SGA grade B (51.6%). The functional capacity and nutritional status showed a significant improvement after one week of prehabilitation interventions: peak expiratory flow meter (p<0.001), handgrip (p<0.001), ECOG performance (p<0.001), walking distance (p<0.001), incentive spirometry (p<0.001), total body calorie (p<0.001) and total body protein (p=0.004). However, those patients who required two weeks of prehabilitation for optimization showed only significant improvement in peak expiratory flow meter (p<0.001), handgrip (p<0.001), and incentive spirometry (p<0.001). Prehabilitation is significantly associated postoperatively with the length of hospital stay (p=0.028), complications (p=0.011) and Clavien-Dindo Classification (p=0.029).
CONCLUSION: Prehabilitation interventions significantly increase the functional capacity and nutritional status of cancer patients preoperatively; concurrently reducing hospital stays and complications postoperatively. However, certain cancer patients might require over two weeks of prehabilitation to improve the patient's functional capacity and reduce complications postoperatively.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: An interventional study was carried out among oesophageal and gastric cancer patients who had undergone surgery at the National Cancer Institute of Malaysia. The prehabilitation process took a maximum of two weeks, depending on the patient's optimisation before surgery. The prehabilitation is based on functional capacity (ECOG performance status), muscle function (handgrip strength), cardio-respiratory function (peak flow meter) and nutritional status (calorie and protein). Postoperative outcomes are measured based on the length of hospital stay, complications, and Clavien-Dindo Classification.
RESULTS: Thirty-one patients were recruited to undergo a prehabilitation intervention prior to gastrectomy (n=21) and esophagectomy (n=10). Demographically, most of the cancer patients were males (67.7%) with an ideal mean of BMI (23.5±6.0). Physically, the majority of them had physical class (ASA grade) Grade 2 (67.7%), ECOG performance status of 1 (61.3%) and SGA grade B (51.6%). The functional capacity and nutritional status showed a significant improvement after one week of prehabilitation interventions: peak expiratory flow meter (p<0.001), handgrip (p<0.001), ECOG performance (p<0.001), walking distance (p<0.001), incentive spirometry (p<0.001), total body calorie (p<0.001) and total body protein (p=0.004). However, those patients who required two weeks of prehabilitation for optimization showed only significant improvement in peak expiratory flow meter (p<0.001), handgrip (p<0.001), and incentive spirometry (p<0.001). Prehabilitation is significantly associated postoperatively with the length of hospital stay (p=0.028), complications (p=0.011) and Clavien-Dindo Classification (p=0.029).
CONCLUSION: Prehabilitation interventions significantly increase the functional capacity and nutritional status of cancer patients preoperatively; concurrently reducing hospital stays and complications postoperatively. However, certain cancer patients might require over two weeks of prehabilitation to improve the patient's functional capacity and reduce complications postoperatively.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of nasal lavage with and without mupirocin after endoscopic endonasal skull base surgery.
METHODS: A pilot randomised, controlled trial was conducted on 20 adult patients who had undergone endoscopic endonasal approaches for skull base lesions. These patients were randomly assigned to cohorts using nasal lavages with mupirocin or without mupirocin. Patients were assessed in the out-patient clinic, one week and one month after surgery, using the 22-item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test questionnaire and nasal endoscopy.
RESULTS: Patients in the mupirocin nasal lavage group had lower nasal endoscopy scores post-operatively, and a statistically significant larger difference in nasal endoscopy scores at one month compared to one week. The mupirocin nasal lavage group also showed better Sino-Nasal Outcome Test scores at one month compared to the group without mupirocin.
CONCLUSION: Nasal lavage with mupirocin seems to yield better outcomes regarding patients' symptoms and endoscopic findings.
METHODS: POISE-2 was a blinded, randomized trial of patients having non-cardiac surgery. Patients were assigned to perioperative aspirin or placebo. The primary outcome was a composite of death or myocardial infarction at 30 days. Secondary outcomes included: vascular occlusive complications (a composite of amputation and peripheral arterial thrombosis) and major or life-threatening bleeding.
RESULTS: Of 10 010 patients in POISE-2, 603 underwent vascular surgery, 319 in the continuation and 284 in the initiation stratum. Some 272 patients had vascular surgery for occlusive disease and 265 had aneurysm surgery. The primary outcome occurred in 13·7 per cent of patients having aneurysm repair allocated to aspirin and 9·0 per cent who had placebo (hazard ratio (HR) 1·48, 95 per cent c.i. 0·71 to 3·09). Among patients who had surgery for occlusive vascular disease, 15·8 per cent allocated to aspirin and 13·6 per cent on placebo had the primary outcome (HR 1·16, 0·62 to 2·17). There was no interaction with the primary outcome for type of surgery (P = 0·294) or aspirin stratum (P = 0·623). There was no interaction for vascular occlusive complications (P = 0·413) or bleeding (P = 0·900) for vascular compared with non-vascular surgery.
CONCLUSION: This study suggests that the overall POISE-2 results apply to vascular surgery. Perioperative withdrawal of chronic aspirin therapy did not increase cardiovascular or vascular occlusive complications. Registration number: NCT01082874 ( http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: It is a prospective observational study. A tension-releasing suture was prepared by appending a polyglactin suture to one end of the MiniArc sling tip fiber, which could be used to manipulate the sling tip when postoperative voiding dysfunction was identified. Primary outcome measure was the number of patients requiring tension-releasing suture manipulation to treat postoperative voiding dysfunctions successfully.
RESULTS: Twelve of the 131 (9.2%) patients who underwent SIS procedure for urodynamic stress incontinence surgery required tension-releasing suture manipulation due to voiding dysfunction during the immediate postoperative period with a good outcome. Postoperative overall objective and subjective cure rates were 90.5% and 88.9% (126 available patients at 1-year follow up, mean 19.2 ± 8.0 months), respectively. The subanalysis of the objective and subjective cure rates of the group with tension-releasing suture manipulation were 91.7% (11/12) and 91.7% (11/12), and those of the group without tension-releasing suture manipulation were 90.4% (103/114) and 88.6% (101/114), respectively, at 1-year follow up.
CONCLUSION: Tension-releasing suture is effective in the management of immediate postoperative voiding dysfunction in an SIS procedure. SIS operation has good short-term objective and subjective cure rates for female urodynamic stress incontinence.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to look at our intermediate outcomes after LDJB-SG.
SETTING: An academic medical center.
METHODS: A prospective analysis of T2D patients who underwent LDJB-SG between October 2011 and October 2014 was performed. Data collected included baseline demographic, body mass index, fasting blood glucose, glycosylated hemoglobin, C-peptide, resolution of co-morbidities, and postoperative complications.
RESULTS: A total of 163 patients with minimum of follow-up >1 year were enrolled in this study (57 men and 106 women). The mean age and body mass index were 47.7 (±10.7) years and a 30.2 (±5.1) kg/m2, respectively. There were 119 patients on oral hypoglycemic agents only, 29 patients were on oral hypoglycemic agents and insulin, 3 patients were on insulin only, and the other 12 patients were not on diabetic medication. Mean operation time and length of hospital stay were 144.7 (± 45.1) minutes and 2.4 (± 1.0) days, respectively. Seven patients (3.6%) needed reoperation due to bleeding (n = 1), anastomotic leak (n = 2), sleeve strictures (n = 2), and incisional hernia (n = 2). At 2 years of follow-up, there were 56 patients. None of the patients were on insulin and only 20% of patients were on oral hypoglycemic agents. Mean body mass index significantly dropped to 22.9 (±5.6) kg/m2 at 2 years. The mean preoperative fasting blood glucose, glycosylated hemoglobin, and C-peptide levels were 174.7 mg/dL (± 61.0), 8.8% (±1.8), and 2.6 (±1.7) ng/mL, respectively. The mean fasting blood glucose, glycosylated hemoglobin, and C-peptide at 2 years were 112.5 (±60.7) mg/dL, 6.4% (±2.0), and 1.5 (±0.6) ng/mL, respectively. No patient needed revisional surgery because of dumping syndrome, marginal ulcer, or gastroesophageal reflux disease at the last follow up period.
CONCLUSION: At 2 years, LDJB-SG is a relatively safe and effective metabolic surgery with significant weight loss and resolution of co-morbidities.