0
selected
-
1.
BIS-guided deep anesthesia decreases short-term postoperative cognitive dysfunction and peripheral inflammation in elderly patients undergoing abdominal surgery.
Quan, C, Chen, J, Luo, Y, Zhou, L, He, X, Liao, Y, Chou, J, Guo, Q, Chen, AF, Wen, O
Brain and behavior. 2019;(4):e01238
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) is a common clinical complication, with an underlying pathophysiology linked to heightened levels of neuroinflammation. However, it requires clarification as to whether the depth of anesthesia modulates postoperative cognitive dysfunction. This study investigated the association between depth of anesthesia and POCD in elderly patients undergoing abdominal surgery. METHODS A total of 120 patients aged 60 years or older who were planned for abdominal surgery under total intravenous anesthesia were included in this study. The depth of anesthesia was guided by monitoring Bispectral Index (BIS) data. All study participants completed a battery of nine neuropsychological tests before surgery and at 7 days and 3 months after surgery. POCD was calculated by using the reliable change index. Plasma concentration of C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin (IL)-1β, IL-10, S-100β, and norepinephrine (NE) were measured. RESULTS The incidence of POCD at 7 days after surgery in the deep anesthesia group was 19.2% (10/52), which was significantly lower (p = 0.032) than the light anesthesia group 39.6% (21/53). The depth of anesthesia had no effect on POCD at 3 months after surgery (10.3% vs 14.6%, respectively, p = 0.558). Similarly, plasma levels of CRP and IL-1β in deep anesthesia group were lower than that in light anesthesia group at 7 days after surgery (p < 0.05), but not at 3 months after surgery (p > 0.05). There were no significant differences in the plasma concentration of IL-10, S-100β, and NE between the groups (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS Deep anesthesia under total intravenous anesthesia could decrease the occurrence of short-term POCD and inhibit postoperative peripheral inflammation in elderly patients undergoing abdominal surgery, compared with light anesthesia.
-
2.
Abdominal drainage versus no drainage post-gastrectomy for gastric cancer.
Wang, Z, Chen, J, Su, K, Dong, Z
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2015;(5):CD008788
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Gastrectomy remains the primary therapeutic method for resectable gastric cancer. Thought of as an important measure to reduce post-operative complications and mortality, abdominal drainage has been used widely after gastrectomy for gastric cancer in previous decades. The benefits of abdominal drainage have been questioned by researchers in recent years. OBJECTIVES The objectives of this review were to assess the benefits and harms of routine abdominal drainage post-gastrectomy for gastric cancer. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Diseases (UGPD) Group Specialised Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library (2014, Issue 11); MEDLINE (via PubMed) (1950 to November 2014); EMBASE (1980 to November 2014); and the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) Database (1979 to November 2014). SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing an abdominal drain versus no drain in patients who had undergone gastrectomy (not considering the scale of gastrectomy and the extent of lymphadenectomy); irrespective of language, publication status, and the type of drain. We excluded RCTs comparing one drain with another. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We adhered to the standard methodological procedures of The Cochrane Collaboration. From each included trial, we extracted the data on the methodological quality and characteristics of the participants, mortality (30-day mortality), re-operations, post-operative complications (pneumonia, wound infection, intra-abdominal abscess, anastomotic leak, drain-related complications), operation time, length of post-operative hospital stay, and initiation of a soft diet. For dichotomous data, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous data, we calculated mean difference (MD) and 95% CI. We tested heterogeneity using the Chi(2) test. We used a fixed-effect model for data analysis with RevMan software, but we used a random-effects model if the P value of the Chi(2) test was less than 0.1. MAIN RESULTS We included four RCTs involving 438 patients (220 patients in the drain group and 218 in the no-drain group). There was no evidence of a difference between the two groups in mortality (RR 1.73, 95% CI 0.38 to 7.84); re-operations (RR 2.49, 95% CI 0.71 to 8.74); post-operative complications (pneumonia: RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.54; wound infection: RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.47 to 3.23; intra-abdominal abscess: RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.29 to 5.51; anastomotic leak: RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.06 to 14.47); or initiation of soft diet (MD 0.15 days, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.37). However, the addition of a drain prolonged the operation time (MD 9.07 min, 95% CI 2.56 to 15.57) and post-operative hospital stay (MD 0.69 day, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.21) and led to drain-related complications. Additionally, we should note that 30-day mortality and re-operations are very rare events and, as a result, very large numbers of patients would be required to make any sensible conclusions about whether the two groups were similar. The overall quality of the evidence according to the GRADE approach was 'very low' for mortality and re-operations, and 'low' for post-operative complications, operation time, and post-operative length of stay. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS We found no convincing evidence to support routine drain use after gastrectomy for gastric cancer.
-
3.
Abdominal drainage versus no drainage post gastrectomy for gastric cancer.
Wang, Z, Chen, J, Su, K, Dong, Z
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2011;(8):CD008788
Abstract
BACKGROUND Gastrectomy remains the primary therapeutic method for resectable gastric cancer. Thought of as an important measure to reduce post-operative complications and mortality, abdominal drainage was used widely after gastrectomy for gastric cancer in previous decades. The benefits of abdominal drainage have been questioned by researchers in recent years. OBJECTIVES The objectives of this review were to access the benefits and harms of routine abdominal drainage post gastrectomy for gastric cancer. SEARCH STRATEGY We searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Central/CCTR) in The Cochrane Library (2010, Issue 10), including the Specialised Registers of the Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Diseases (UGPD) Group; MEDLINE (via Pubmed, 1950 to October, 2010); EMBASE (1980 to October, 2010); and the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) Database (1979 to October, 2010). SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing abdominal drain versus no drain in patients who had undergone gastrectomy (not considering the scale of gastrectomy and the extent of lymphadenectomy; irrespective of language, publication status, and the type of drain). We excluded RCTs comparing one drain with another. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS From each trial, we extracted the data on the methodological quality and characteristics of the included studies, mortality (30-day mortality), re-operations, post-operative complications (pneumonia, wound infection, intra-abdominal abscess, anastomotic leak, drain-related complications), operation time, length of post-operative hospital stay and initiation of soft diet. For dichotomous data, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD) and 95% CI. We tested heterogeneity using the Chi(2) test. We used a fixed-effect model for data analysis with RevMan software but we used a random-effects model if the P value of the Chi(2) test was less than 0.1. MAIN RESULTS We included four RCTs involving 438 patients (220 patients in the drain group and 218 in the no-drain group).There was no evidence of a difference between the two groups in mortality (RR 1.73, 95% CI 0.38 to 7.84); re-operations (RR 2.49, 95% CI 0.71 to 8.74); post-operative complications (pneumonia: RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.54; wound infection: RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.47 to 3.23; intra-abdominal abscess: RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.29 to 5.51; anastomotic leak: RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.06 to 14.47); and initiation of soft diet (MD 0.15 day, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.37). However, the addition of a drain prolonged the operation time (MD 9.07 min, 95% CI 2.56 to 15.57) and post-operative hospital stay (MD 0.69 day, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.21) and lead to drain-related complications. Additionally, we should note that 30-day mortality and re-operations are very rare events and, as a result, very large numbers of patients would be required to make any sensible conclusions about whether the two groups were similar. The overall quality of the evidence according to the GRADE approach was "Very Low" for mortality and re-operations, and "Low" for post-operative complications, operation time, and post-operative length of stay. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS We found no convincing evidence to support routine drain use after gastrectomy for gastric cancer.
-
4.
Randomized clinical trial of Chinese herbal medications to reduce wound complications after mastectomy for breast carcinoma.
Chen, J, Lv, Q, Yu, M, Zhang, X, Gou, J
The British journal of surgery. 2010;(12):1798-804
Abstract
BACKGROUND Ischaemia and necrosis of skin flaps is a common complication after mastectomy. This study evaluated the influence of anisodamine and Salvia miltiorrhiza on wound complications after mastectomy for breast cancer. METHODS Ninety patients undergoing mastectomy for breast carcinoma were divided into three groups. Group 1 received routine wound care, group 2 received intravenous Salvia miltiorrhiza after surgery for 3 days and group 3 similarly received intravenous anisodamine. Skin flaps were observed on postoperative days 4 and 8; areas of wound ischaemia and necrosis were graded and adverse events recorded. RESULTS There was no difference in demographic characteristics between the groups. At 4 days after surgery the rate of ischaemia and necrosis in groups 2 and 3 was significantly reduced compared with that in control group 1 (median wound score 6·80 versus 23·38, P = 0·002, and 3·76 versus 23·38, P < 0·001, respectively). This improvement in groups 2 and 3 continued to postoperative day 8 (both P < 0·001), but wound scores at this stage were better in group 3 than in group 2 (1·82 versus 6·92 respectively; P = 0·022). The volume of wound drainage was lower in group 3 than in group 1 (P = 0·004). The incidence of adverse effects was highest in group 3, and two patients in this group discontinued treatment. No significant complications were noted in group 2. CONCLUSION Anisodamine and S. miltiorrhiza were both effective in reducing skin flap ischaemia and necrosis after mastectomy, although anisodamine was associated with a higher rate of adverse effects.