ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Our aim was to update evidence-based and consensus-based recommendations for the surgical and interventional management of blunt or penetrating injuries to the chest in patients with multiple and/or severe injuries on the basis of current evidence. This guideline topic is part of the 2022 update of the German Guideline on the Treatment of Patients with Multiple and/or Severe Injuries. METHODS: MEDLINE and Embase were systematically searched to May and June 2021 respectively for the update and new questions. Further literature reports were obtained from clinical experts. Randomised controlled trials, prospective cohort studies, cross-sectional studies and comparative registry studies were included if they compared interventions for the surgical management of injuries to the chest in patients with multiple and/or severe injuries. We considered patient-relevant clinical outcomes such as mortality, length of stay, and diagnostic test accuracy. Risk of bias was assessed using NICE 2012 checklists. The evidence was synthesised narratively, and expert consensus was used to develop recommendations and determine their strength. RESULTS: One study was identified. This study compared wedge resection, lobectomy and pneumonectomy in the management of patients with severe chest trauma that required some form of lung resection. Based on the updated evidence and expert consensus, one recommendation was modified and two additional good practice points were developed. All achieved strong consensus. The recommendation on the amount of blood loss that is used as an indication for surgical intervention in patients with chest injuries was modified to reflect new findings in trauma care and patient stabilisation. The new good clinical practice points (GPPs) on the use of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) in patients with initial circulatory stability are also in line with current practice in patient care. CONCLUSION: As has been shown in recent decades, the treatment of chest trauma has become less and less invasive for the patient as diagnostic and technical possibilities have expanded. Examples include interventional stenting of aortic injuries, video-assisted thoracoscopy and parenchyma-sparing treatment of lung injuries. These less invasive treatment concepts reduce morbidity and mortality in the primary surgical phase following a chest trauma.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: This systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis aimed to investigate the relationship between hospital volume and outcomes for total knee arthroplasty (TKA). METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL and CINAHL were searched up to February 2020 for randomised controlled trials and cohort studies that reported TKA performed in hospitals with at least two different volumes and any associated patient-relevant outcomes. The adjusted effect estimates (odds ratios, OR) were pooled using a random-effects, linear dose-response meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was quantified using the I2-statistic. ROBINS-I and the GRADE approach were used to assess the risk of bias and the confidence in the cumulative evidence, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 68 cohort studies with data from 1985 to 2018 were included. The risk of bias for all outcomes ranged from moderate to critical. Higher hospital volume may be associated with a lower rate of early revision ≤ 12 months (narrative synthesis of k = 7 studies, n = 301,378 patients) and is likely associated with lower mortality ≤ 3 months (OR = 0.91 per additional 50 TKAs/year, 95% confidence interval [0.87-0.95], k = 9, n = 2,638,996, I2 = 51%) and readmissions ≤ 3 months (OR = 0.98 [0.97-0.99], k = 3, n = 830,381, I2 = 44%). Hospital volume may not be associated with the rates of deep infections within 1-4 years, late revision (1-10 years) or adverse events ≤ 3 months. The confidence in the cumulative evidence was moderate for mortality and readmission rates; low for early revision rates; and very low for deep infection, late revision and adverse event rates. CONCLUSION: An inverse volume-outcome relationship probably exists for some TKA outcomes, including mortality and readmissions, and may exist for early revisions. Small reductions in unfavourable outcomes may be clinically relevant at the population level, supporting centralisation of TKA to high-volume hospitals. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III. REGISTRATION NUMBER: The study was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO CRD42019131209 available at: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=131209 ).
