METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis study, data from studies conducted on the global prevalence of seroma after abdominoplasty was extracted using the keywords "Prevalence, Epidemiology, Complications, Abdominoplasty, Seroma, and Lipo abdominoplasty" in the databases of Science, Scientific Information Database, MagIran, Embase, Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar search engine without time limit until October 2020. The random-effects model was used to analyze the eligible studies, and the heterogeneity of the studies was investigated with the I2 index. Data analysis was performed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software (Version 2).
RESULTS: In reviewing 143 studies (five studies related to Asia, 55 studies related to Europe, three studies related to Africa, and 80 studies related to the Americas) with a total sample size of 27834 individuals, the global prevalence of seroma after abdominoplasty was obtained as 10.9% (95% CI: 9.3-3.6.6%) and the highest prevalence of seroma was related to the Europe continent with 12.8% (95% CI: 10.15-3.9%). The results from meta-regression showed a declining trend in the global prevalence of seroma after abdominoplasty with an increase in the sample size, age of study participants, and the year of study (p
DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL were systematically searched from its inception until May 2019.
REVIEW METHODS: All observational studies were included.
RESULTS: Twenty-two studies (n = 3,033,814; 184,968 OSA vs 2,848,846 non-OSA) were included for quantitative meta-analysis. In non-cardiac surgery, OSA was significantly associated with a higher incidence of the composite endpoints of postoperative cardiac or cerebrovascular complications (odd ratio: 1.44, 95%CI: 1.17 to 1.78, ρ = 0.007, trial sequential analysis = conclusive; certainty of evidence = very low). In comparison to non-OSA, OSA patients were reported to have nearly 2.5-fold risk of developing pulmonary complications (odd ratio: 2.52, 95%CI: 1.92 to 3.31, ρ
METHODS: We included patients from the Vascular events In noncardiac Surgery patIents cOhort evaluatioN (VISION) study, who were ≥45 years of age, scheduled for overnight hospital admission, and had intraoperative F io2 recorded. The primary outcome was myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery (MINS), and secondary outcomes included mortality and pneumonia, all within 30 postoperative days. Data were analyzed with logistic regression, adjusted for many baseline cardiovascular risk factors, and illustrated in relation to findings from 2 recent controlled trials.
RESULTS: We included 6588 patients with mean age of 62 years of whom 49% had hypertension. The median intraoperative F io2 was 0.46 (5%-95% range, 0.32-0.94). There were 808 patients (12%) with MINS. Each 0.10 increase in median F io2 was associated with a confounder-adjusted increase in odds for MINS: odds ratio (OR), 1.17 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12-1.23; P < .0001). MINS occurred in contrast with similar frequencies and no significant difference in controlled trials (2240 patients, 194 events), in which patients were given 80% vs 30% oxygen. Mortality was 2.4% and was not significantly associated with a median F io2 (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.97-1.19 per 0.10 increase; P = .18), and 2.9% of patients had pneumonia (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.95-1.15 per 0.10 increase; P = .34).
CONCLUSIONS: We observed an association between intraoperative F io2 and risk of myocardial injury within 30 days after noncardiac surgery, which contrasts with recent controlled clinical trials. F io2 was not significantly associated with mortality or pneumonia. Unobserved confounding presumably contributed to the observed association between F io2 and myocardial injury that is not supported by trials.
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to examine the current local anaesthetic practice (general anaesthesia versus regional anaesthesia (RA)) in hip fracture surgery and to analyse their associations with perioperative outcomes.
METHODOLOGY: A retrospective observational study of hip fracture patients from April to December 2017 was undertaken. Patient characteristics and perioperative outcomes were analysed against the types of anaesthesia using multiple logistic regression.
RESULTS: One hundred and twelve out of 154 patients (72.7%) had a general anaesthesia. Patients from residential care facilities were more likely to receive general anaesthesia (OR = 2.9, 95% CI: 1.1, 7.4; P = 0.03). There was no significant association between type of anaesthesia and specific postoperative outcomes; however, patients with postoperative delirium and hypotension were more likely to have received general anaesthesia [OR = 1.7, 95% CI: 0.68, 4.38; P = 0.25] and [OR = 1.6, 95% CI: 0.67, 4.04; P = 0.27] respectively). Subgroup analysis showed increased length of stay with patients who underwent general anaesthesia (OR = 1.26, 95% CI:1.04, 1.54; P = 0.02).
CONCLUSION: Regional anaesthesia may be considered in patients without contraindications in view of increased risk of postoperative delirium and hypotension, and longer length of stay with general anaesthesia. A larger prospective study is needed to confirm these findings.
DESIGN: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis (TSA).
SETTING: In the operating room, postoperative anesthesia care units (PACU), and ward.
PARTICIPANTS: Elderly patients (>60 years old) undergoing surgery.
INTERVENTIONS: The EMBASE, MEDLINE, and CENTRAL databases were searched systematically from their inception until December 2020 for randomized controlled trials comparing BIS and usual care or blinded BIS.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Ten trials (N = 3,891) were included for quantitative meta-analysis. In comparison to the control group, there was no significant difference in the incidence of POD in elderly patients randomized to BIS-guided anesthesia (odds ratio [OR] 0.71, 95% CI 0.47-1.08, I2 = 76%, p = 0.11, level of evidence = very low, TSA = inconclusive). The authors' review demonstrated that elderly patients with BIS-guided anesthesia were significantly associated with a lower incidence of postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.46-0.88, p = 0.006), extubation time (mean difference [MD] -3.38 minutes, 95% CI -4.38 to -2.39, p < 0.00001), time to eye opening (MD -2.17 minutes, 95% CI -4.21 to -0.14, p = 0.04), and time to discharge from the PACU (MD -10.77 minutes, 95% CI -11.31 to - 10.23, p < 0.00001).
CONCLUSION: The authors' meta-analysis demonstrated that BIS-guided anesthesia was not associated with a reduced incidence of POD, but it was associated with a reduced incidence of POCD and improved recovery parameters.
METHODS AND RESULTS: The 'COlchicine for the Prevention of Perioperative Atrial Fibrillation' (COP-AF) trial is an international, blinded, randomized trial that compares colchicine to placebo in patients aged at least 55 years and undergoing major noncardiac thoracic surgery with general anesthesia. Exclusion criteria include a history of AF and a contraindication to colchicine (eg, severe renal dysfunction). Oral colchicine at a dose of 0.5 mg or matching placebo is given within 4 hours before surgery. Thereafter, patients receive colchicine 0.5 mg or placebo twice daily for a total of 10 days. The 2 independent co-primary outcomes are clinically important perioperative AF (including atrial flutter) and MINS during 14 days of follow-up. The main safety outcomes are sepsis or infection and non-infectious diarrhea. We aim to enroll 3,200 patients from approximately 40 sites across 11 countries to have at least 80% power for the independent evaluation of the 2 co-primary outcomes. The COP-AF main results are expected in 2023.
CONCLUSIONS: COP-AF is a large randomized and blinded trial designed to determine whether colchicine reduces the risk of perioperative AF or MINS in patients who have major noncardiac thoracic surgery.
METHODS AND RESULTS: The PeriOperative ISchemic Evaluation (POISE)-1 trial evaluated the effects of metoprolol vs. placebo in 8351 patients, and POISE-2 compared the effect of aspirin vs. placebo, and clonidine vs. placebo in 10 010 patients. These trials included patients with, or at risk of, cardiovascular disease who were undergoing non-cardiac surgery. For the purpose of this study, we combined the POISE datasets, excluding 244 patients who were in atrial fibrillation (AF) at the time of randomization. Perioperative atrial fibrillation was defined as new AF that occurred within 30 days after surgery. Our primary outcome was the incidence of stroke at 1 year of follow-up; secondary outcomes were mortality and myocardial infarction (MI). We compared outcomes among patients with and without POAF using multivariable adjusted Cox proportional hazards models. Among 18 117 patients (mean age 69 years, 57.4% male), 404 had POAF (2.2%). The stroke incidence 1 year after surgery was 5.58 vs. 1.54 per 100 patient-years in patients with and without POAF, adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 3.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.00-5.90; P
METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and trial registries for randomised controlled trials that evaluated metoprolol for preventing the occurrence of POAF after surgery against other treatments or placebo. Random-effects model was used for estimating the risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences with 95% CIs.
RESULTS: Nine trials involving 1570 patients showed metoprolol reduced POAF compared with placebo (416 patients; RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.66; I²=21%; risk difference (RD) -0.19, 95% CI -0.28 to -0.10). However, metoprolol increased the risk of POAF compared with carvedilol (159 patients; RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.12; I²=4%; RD 0.13, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.20). There was no difference when compared with sotalol or amiodarone. The occurrence of cardiovascular conditions after drugs administration or death between the groups was not different. The overall quality of evidence was moderate to high. Subgroup analysis and funnel plot were not performed.
CONCLUSIONS: Metoprolol is effective in preventing POAF compared with placebo and showed no difference with class III antiarrhythmic drugs. Death and thromboembolism are associated with open heart surgery, but not significant in relation to the use of metoprolol.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019131585.
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
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The present study included the assessment of all the patients who underwent prosthetic rehabilitation by dental implants. An experienced registered prosthodontist was given duty for examination of all the cases from the record file data. Prosthetic complications in the patients were identified using photographs, radiographs, and all other relevant data of the patients obtained from the record files. All types of complications and other factors were recorded separately and analyzed.
RESULTS: While correlating the prosthetic complications in OSA patients grouped based on number of dental implants, nonsignificant results were obtained. Significant correlation was observed while comparing the prosthetic complications divided based on type of prosthesis. Fracture of the porcelain was observed in four and eight cases respectively, of screwed and cemented dental implant cases.
CONCLUSION: Some amount of significant correlation existed between the incidences of prosthetic complications and OSA.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Proper history of the patients undergoing dental implant procedures should be taken to avoid failure.
METHOD: This systematic review was conducted according to the recommendations of the Cochrane Handbook for Reviews of Interventions and reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify eligible studies. The main outcome variable was the preoperative assessment of patterns of blood supply to the colon and the impact of these patterns on anastomosis leak. The quality of bias control in the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Due to the heterogeneous nature of the included studies, no meta-analysis was conducted.
RESULTS: Fourteen studies were included. The study covered a period from 1978 to 2021. A significant degree of variation in the arterial and/or venous supply of the colon and rectum might influence anastomosis leak rates. Calcification in great blood vessels can be assessed with a preoperative computed tomography scan, which may predict anastomosis leak rates. This is supported by many experimental studies that showed increased rates of anastomosis leak after preoperative ischemia, but the extent of this impact is not well established.
CONCLUSION: Preoperative assessment of blood supply to the colon and rectum might help in planning the surgical intervention to reduce anastomosis leak rates. Calcium scoring of major arteries might predict anastomosis leak and thus play a crucial role in intraoperative decision-making.