Top research priorities in healthcare-associated infection in the UK.

BACKGROUND: There is a mismatch between research questions which are considered to be important by patients, carers and healthcare professionals and the research performed in many fields of medicine. No relevant studies which have assessed research priorities in healthcare-associated infection (HCAI) that have involved patients' and carers' opinions were identified in the literature. AIM: The Healthcare-Associated Infections Priority Setting Partnership was established to identify the top research priorities in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of HCAI in the UK, considering the opinions of all these groups. METHODS: The methods broadly followed the principles of the James Lind Alliance (JLA) priority setting activity. FINDINGS: In total, 259 unique valid research questions were identified from 221 valid responses to a consultation of patients, carers and healthcare professionals after seeking their opinions for research priorities. The steering committee of the priority setting partnership rationalized these to 50 unique questions. A literature review established that for these questions there were no recent high-quality systematic reviews, high-quality systematic reviews which concluded that further studies were necessary, or the steering committee considered that further research was required despite the conclusions of recent systematic reviews. An interim survey ranked the 50 questions, and the 10 main research priorities were identified from the top 32 questions by consensus at a final priority setting workshop of patients, carers and healthcare professionals using group discussions. CONCLUSIONS: A priority setting process using JLA methods and principles involving patients, carers and healthcare professionals was used to identify the top 10 priority areas for research related to HCAI. Basic, translational, clinical and public health research would be required to address these uncertainties.

Transcranial Doppler Ultrasound Detection of Microemboli as a Predictor of Cerebral Events in Patients with Symptomatic and Asymptomatic Carotid Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Identification of patients who will benefit from carotid endarterectomy is not entirely effective, primarily utilising degree of carotid stenosis. This study aimed at determining if microembolic signals (MES) detected by transcranial Doppler ultrasound (TCD) can provide clinically useful information regarding stroke risk in patients with carotid atherosclerosis. METHODS: A meta-analysis of prospective studies was performed. Three analyses were proposed investigating MES detection as a predictor of: stroke or TIA, stroke alone, and stroke or TIA but with an increased positivity threshold. Subgroup analysis was used to compare pre-operative (symptomatic or asymptomatic) patients and peri- or post-operative patients. RESULTS: Twenty-eight studies reported data regarding both MES status and neurological outcome. Of these, 22 papers reported data on stroke and TIA as an outcome, 19 on stroke alone, and eight on stroke and TIA with increased positivity threshold. At the median pre-test probability of 3.0%, the post-test probabilities of a stroke after a positive and negative TCD were 7.1% (95% CI 5-10.1) and 1.2% (95% CI 0.6-2.5), respectively. In addition, the sensitivities and specificities of each outcome showed that increasing the threshold for positivity to 10 MES per hour would make TCD a more clinically useful tool in peri- and post-operative patients. CONCLUSION: TCD provides clinically useful information about stroke risk for patients with carotid disease and is technically feasible in most patients. However, the generally weak level of evidence constituting this review means definitive recommendations cannot be made.

Cost-effectiveness of early laparoscopic cholecystectomy for mild acute gallstone pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND: A recent Cochrane review suggested that laparoscopic cholecystectomy carried out early following mild gallstone pancreatitis was safe. This study compared the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed within 3 days of admission, during the same admission but after more than 3 days, or electively in a subsequent admission. METHODS: A model-based cost-utility analysis was performed estimating mean costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) per patient in the UK National Health Service with a 1-year time horizon. A decision tree model was constructed and populated with probabilities, outcomes and cost data from published sources for mild gallstone pancreatitis, including one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The costs of laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed within 3 days of admission, beyond 3 days but in the same admission, and electively in a subsequent admission were € 2748, € 3543 and € 3752 respectively; the QALYs were 0.888, 0.888 and 0.884 respectively. Early laparoscopic cholecystectomy had a 91 per cent probability of being cost-effective at the maximum willingness to pay for a QALY commonly used in the UK. It is acknowledged that many hospitals do not have access to magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, especially at weekends, and that implementing a 3-day target is unrealistic without allocating new resources that could erode the cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSION: Performing laparoscopic cholecystectomy for mild gallstone pancreatitis within 3 days of admission is cost-effective, but may not be feasible without significant resource allocation. After 3 days there is little financial advantage to same-admission operation.

Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials on safety and efficacy of biliary drainage before surgery for obstructive jaundice.

BACKGROUND: This meta-analysis aimed to investigate whether preoperative biliary drainage (PBD) is beneficial to patients with obstructive jaundice. METHODS: Data from randomized clinical trials related to safety and effectiveness of PBD versus no PBD were extracted by two independent reviewers. Risk ratios, rate ratios or mean differences were calculated with 95 per cent confidence intervals (c.i.), based on intention-to-treat analysis, whenever possible. RESULTS: Six trials (four using percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage and two using endoscopic sphincterotomy) including 520 patients with malignant or benign obstructive jaundice comparing PBD (265 patients) with no PBD (255) were included in this review. All trials had a high risk of bias. There was no significant difference in mortality (risk ratio 1.12, 95 per cent c.i. 0.73 to 1.71; P = 0.60) between the two groups. Overall serious morbidity (grade III or IV, Clavien-Dindo classification) was higher in the PBD group (599 complications per 1000 patients) than in the direct surgery group (361 complications per 1000 patients) (rate ratio 1.66, 95 per cent c.i. 1.28 to 2.16; P < 0.001). Quality of life was not reported in any of the trials. There was no significant difference in length of hospital stay between the two groups: mean difference 4.87 (95 per cent c.i. -1.28 to 11.02) days (P = 0.12). CONCLUSION: PBD in patients undergoing surgery for obstructive jaundice is associated with similar mortality but increased serious morbidity compared with no PBD. Therefore, PBD should not be used routinely.

Influence of zinc and zinc chelator on HT-29 colorectal cell line.

Trace elements are involved in many key pathways involving cell cycle control. The influence of zinc and zinc chelator (TPEN) on transcription levels of the main zinc transporters (ZnT1 and ZIP1) in the HT-29 colorectal cell line has not been reported. Proliferation of HT-29 cells was measured using the methylene blue assay after exposure to zinc (two concentrations), TPEN (two concentrations), or a combination of zinc and TPEN (simultaneously and sequentially) for 4 h, 8 h, and 24 h. The transcription levels of ZnT1, ZIP1, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), and caspase-3 were determined using reverse transcriptase real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) after exposure of cells to zinc and TPEN. The zinc content in the substrate (medium used for culture) was determined using atomic absorption spectrometry. TPEN decreased cellular proliferation causing complete cell death by 8 h. Zinc had a protective effect against short periods of exposure to TPEN. There was no correlation between the transcripts of main zinc transporters and the zinc content in the substrate. The zinc content in the substrate remained constant after varying periods of cell culture. TPEN decreased the transcript levels of caspase-3 and VEGF, which are surrogate markers for apoptosis and angiogenesis. Zinc chelation of HT-29 cells causes cell death. Zinc appears to be protective for short periods of exposure to TPEN but has no protective effect on prolonged exposure. HT-29 cells are not able to counteract the effect of intracellular chelation of zinc by altering zinc transport. Further research into the mechanisms of these findings is necessary and may lead to novel therapeutic options.

Elastography for the diagnosis of severity of fibrosis in chronic liver disease: a meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Transient elastography is a non-invasive method, for the assessment of hepatic fibrosis, developed as an alternative to liver biopsy. We studied the performance of elastography for diagnosis of fibrosis using meta-analysis. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCI, Cochrane Library, conference abstracts books, and article references were searched. We included studies using biopsy as a reference standard, with the data necessary to calculate the true and false positive, true and false negative diagnostic results of elastography for a fibrosis stage, and with a 3-month maximum interval between tests. The quality of the studies was rated with the QUADAS tool. RESULTS: We identified 40 eligible studies. Summary sensitivity and specificity was 0.79 (95% CI 0.74-0.82) and 0.78 (95% CI 0.72-0.83) for F2 stage and 0.83 (95% CI 0.79-0.86) and 0.89 (95% CI 0.87-0.91) for cirrhosis. After an elastography result at/over the threshold value for F2 or cirrhosis ("positive" result), the corresponding post-test probability for their presence (if pre-test probability was 50%) was 78%, and 88% respectively, while, if values were below these thresholds ("negative" result), the post-test probability was 21% and 16%, respectively. No optimal stiffness cut-offs for individual fibrosis stages were validated in independent cohorts and cut-offs had a wide range and overlap within and between stages. CONCLUSIONS: Elastography theoretically has good sensitivity and specificity for cirrhosis (and less for lesser degrees of fibrosis); however, it should be cautiously applied to everyday clinical practice because there is no validation of the stiffness cut-offs for the various stages. Such validation is required before elastography is considered sufficiently accurate for non-invasive staging of fibrosis.

Assessment of risk of bias in randomized clinical trials in surgery.

BACKGROUND: Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with low risk of bias is considered the highest level of evidence available for evaluating an intervention. Bias in RCTs may overestimate or underestimate the true effectiveness of an intervention. METHODS: The causes of bias in surgical trials as described by The Cochrane Collaboration, and the methods that can be used to avoid them, are reviewed. RESULTS: Blinding is difficult in many surgical trials but careful trial design can reduce the bias risk due to lack of blinding. It is possible to conduct surgical trials with low risk of bias by using appropriate trial design. CONCLUSION: The risk of providing a treatment based on a biased effect estimate must be balanced against the difficulty of conducting trials with very low risk of bias. Better understanding of the risk of bias may result in improved trials with a closer estimate of the true effectiveness of an intervention.

Abdominal lift for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the main method of treatment of symptomatic gallstones. Several cardiopulmonary changes (decreased cardiac output, pulmonary compliance, and increased peak airway pressure) occur during pneumoperitoneum. These changes may not be tolerated in individuals with poor cardiopulmonary reserve. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of abdominal wall lift compared to pneumoperitoneum in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation IndexExpanded until January 2007. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised clinical trials comparing abdominal wall lift (with or without pneumoperitoneum) and pneumoperitoneum. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We calculated the relative risk (RR), weighted mean difference (WMD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on intention-to-treat analysis with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects model using RevMan Analysis. MAIN RESULTS: Abdominal wall lift with pneumoperitoneum versus pneumoperitoneum. A total of 156 participants (all with low anaesthetic risk) who underwent elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomised in six trials to abdominal wall lift with pneumoperitoneum (n = 65) versus pneumoperitoneum only (n = 66). One trial which included 25 patients did not state the number of patients in each group. All six trials were of high risk of bias. The cardiopulmonary changes were less in abdominal wall lift than pneumoperitoneum. There was no difference in the morbidity and pain between the groups. Abdominal wall lift versus pneumoperitoneum. A total of 550 participants (the majority with low anaesthetic risk) who underwent elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomised in fourteen trials to abdominal wall lift without pneumoperitoneum (n = 268) versus pneumoperitoneum (n = 282). Two of these fourteen trials were of low risk of bias. The cardiopulmonary changes were less in abdominal wall lift than with pneumoperitoneum. There was no difference in the morbidity and pain between the groups. The operating time was prolonged in abdominal wall lift compared with pneumoperitoneum (WMD 7.74, 95% CI 1.37 to 14.12). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: (1) Abdominal wall lift seems safe and decreases the cardiopulmonary changes associated with laparoscopic cholecystectomy.(2) Abdominal wall lift does not seem to offer advantage over pneumoperitoneum in any of the patient-oriented outcomes for laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with low anaesthetic risk and may increase costs by increasing the operating time. Hence it cannot be recommended routinely. More research on the topic is needed.

Ischaemic preconditioning for liver transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Ischaemic preconditioning is a mechanism for reducing organ ischaemia reperfusion injury by a brief period of organ ischaemia. OBJECTIVES: To assess the advantages and disadvantages of ischaemic preconditioning during donor hepatectomy for liver transplant recipients. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until March 2007. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included only randomised clinical trials comparing ischaemic preconditioning versus no ischaemic preconditioning during donor liver retrievals performed in humans in this review (irrespective of language or publication status). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We collected the data on the characteristics of the trial, methodological quality of the trials, mortality, initial poor function, primary graft non-function, re-transplantation, liver function tests, markers of neutrophil activation, apoptosis, and intensive therapy unit stay. We analysed the data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects models. For each binary outcome we calculated the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on intention-to-treat analysis. For continuous outcomes, we calculated the weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% CI. MAIN RESULTS: In three trials, 162 cadaveric liver donor retrievals were randomised; 78 to ischaemic preconditioning and 84 to no ischaemic preconditioning. In one trial, 15 living donor liver retrievals were randomised; 10 to ischaemic preconditioning and 5 to no ischaemic preconditioning. Three of the four trials were of low-risk bias. There was no statistically significant difference in mortality, initial poor function, primary graft non-function, or re-transplant. There was no statistically significant difference in the transaminase activity, bilirubin level, prothrombin activity, median myeloperoxidase activity, median cluster of differentiation eight (CD8) expression, median inducible nitrogen oxide synthetase, or apoptosis. There was also no significant difference in the median intensive therapy unit stay of the recipients. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently no evidence to support or refute the use of ischaemic preconditioning in donor liver retrievals. Further studies are necessary to identify the optimal ischaemic preconditioning stimulus. Further randomised clinical trials are necessary to evaluate the role of ischaemic preconditioning in donor liver retrievals involving a period of warm reperfusion, following ischaemic preconditioning during donor liver retrieval.

Day-case versus overnight stay in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

BACKGROUND: Although day-case elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy can save bed costs, its safety remains to be established. OBJECTIVES: To assess the safety and benefits of day-case surgery compared to overnight stay in patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until February 2007 for identifying randomised trials using search strategies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomised clinical trials, irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status, comparing day-case and overnight stay in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were considered for the review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We collected the data on the characteristics of the trial, methodological quality of the trials, morbidity, prolonged hospitalisation, re-admissions, pain and quality of life from each trial. We analysed the data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects models using RevMan Analysis. For each outcome we calculated the relative risk, weighted mean difference, or standardised mean difference with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on available case-analysis. MAIN RESULTS: Five trials with 429 patients randomised to the day-case group (215) and overnight stay group (214) were included in the review. Four of the five trials were of low risk of bias regarding randomisation and follow up, but all lacked blinding. The trials recruited 49% of patients undergoing cholecystectomy. The selection criteria varied, but most included only patients without other diseases. The patients were living in easy reach of the hospital and with a responsible adult to take care of them. On the day of surgery, 81% of day-case patients were discharged. The drop-out rate after randomisation varied from 6.5% to 12.7%. There was no significant difference between day-case and overnight stay group as regards to morbidity, prolongation of hospital stay, re-admission rates, pain, quality of life, patient satisfaction and return to normal activity and work. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Day-case elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy seems to be a safe and effective intervention in selected patients (with no or minimal systemic disease and within easy reach of the hospital) with symptomatic gallstones. Because of the decreased hospital stay, it is likely to save costs.

Routine abdominal drainage for uncomplicated laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the main method of treatment of symptomatic gallstones. Drains are used after laparoscopic cholecystectomy to prevent abdominal collections. However, drain use may increase infective complications and delay discharge. OBJECTIVES: The aim is to assess the benefits and harms of routine abdominal drainage in uncomplicated laparoscopic cholecystectomy. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until March 2007. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised clinical trials comparing drainage with no drainage after uncomplicated laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Randomised clinical trials comparing one type of drain with another were also reviewed. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We collected the data on the characteristics, methodological quality, mortality, abdominal collections, pain, nausea, vomiting, and hospital stay from each trial. We analysed the data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects models using RevMan Analysis. For each outcome we calculated the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on intention-to-treat analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We analysed six trials involving 741 patients randomised to drain (361) versus no drain (380). The only patient with abdominal collections requiring intervention belonged to the drain group. Wound infection was significantly higher in those with a drain (OR 5.86, 95% CI 1.05 to 32.70). Drainage was associated with nausea, but this was not statistically significant. Hospital stay was longer in the drain group and the number of patients discharged at the day of operation was significantly reduced in the no drain group (OR 2.45, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.57, 1 trial). We also reviewed one trial with 41 patients randomised to suction drain (22) versus closed passive drain (19). This trial suggests that suction drains carried less pain than passive drains. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Drain use after elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy increases wound infection rates and delays hospital discharge. We could not find evidence to support the use of drain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Wound drains following thyroid surgery.

BACKGROUND: The nature and indications for thyroid surgery vary and a perceived risk of haemorrhage post-surgery is one reason why wound drains are frequently inserted. However when a significant bleed occurs, wound drains may become blocked and the drain does not obviate the need for surgery or meticulous haemostasis. The evidence in support of the use of drains post-thyroid surgery is unclear therefore and a systematic review of the best available evidence was undertaken. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of inserting a wound drain during thyroid surgery, on wound complications, respiratory complications and mortality. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the following databases: Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (issue 1, 2007); MEDLINE (2005 to February 2007); EMBASE (2005 to February 2007); CINAHL (2005 to February 2007) using relevant search strategies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomised controlled trials were eligible for inclusion. Quasi randomised studies were excluded. Studies with participants undergoing any form of thyroid surgery, irrespective of indications, were eligible for inclusion in this review. Studies involving people undergoing parathyroid surgery and lateral neck dissections were excluded. At least 80% follow up (till discharge) was considered essential. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Studies were assessed for eligibility and data were extracted by two authors independently, differences were resolved by discussion. Studies were assessed for validity including criteria on whether they used a robust method of random sequence generation and allocation concealment. Missing and unclear data were resolved by contacting the study authors. MAIN RESULTS: 13 eligible studies were identified (1646 participants). 11 studies compared drainage with no drainage and found no significant difference in re-operation rates; incidence of respiratory distress and wound infections. Post-operative wound collections needing aspiration or drainage were significantly reduced by drains (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.97), but a further analysis of the 4 high quality studies showed no significant difference (RR 1.82, 95% CI 0.51 to 6.46). Hospital stay was significantly prolonged in the drain group (WMD 1.18 days, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.63).Eleven studies compared suction drain with no drainage and found no significant difference in re-operation rates; incidence of respiratory distress and wound infection rates. The incidence of collections that required aspiration or drainage without formal re-operation was significantly less in the drained group (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.92). However, further analysis of only high quality studies showed no significant difference (RR 1.78, 95% CI 0.44 to 7.17). Hospital stay was significantly prolonged in the drain group (WMD 1.20 days, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.63). One study compared open drain with no drain. No participant in either group required re-operation. No data were available regarding the incidence of respiratory distress, wound infection and pain. The incidence of collections needing aspiration or drainage without re-operation was not significantly different between the groups and there was no significant difference in length of hospital stay. One study compared suction drainage with passive closed drainage. None of the participants in the study needed re-operation and data regarding other outcomes were not available. Two studies (180 participants) compared open drainage with suction drainage. One study reported wound infections and minor wound collections, both were not significantly different. The other study reported wound collections requiring intervention and hospital stay; both were not significantly different. None of the participants in either study required re-operation. Data regarding other outcomes were not available. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no clear evidence that using drains in patients undergoing thyroid operations significantly improves patient outcomes and drains may be associated with an increased length of hospital stay. The existing evidence is from trials involving patients having goitres without mediastinal extension, normal coagulation indices and the operation not involving any lateral neck dissection for lymphadenectomy.

Methods of vascular occlusion for elective liver resections.

BACKGROUND: Vascular occlusion is used to reduce blood loss during liver resection surgery. There is considerable controversy regarding whether vascular occlusion should be used or not during elective liver resections. The method of vascular occlusion employed is also controversial. There is also considerable debate on the role of ischaemic preconditioning before vascular occlusion. OBJECTIVES: To assess the advantages (decreased blood loss and peri-operative morbidity) and disadvantages (liver dysfunction from ischaemia) of vascular occlusion during liver resections. To compare the advantages (in decreasing blood loss or decreasing ischaemia-reperfusion injury) and disadvantages of different types of vascular occlusion versus total, continuous portal triad clamping. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until March 2007. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised clinical trials comparing vascular occlusion versus no vascular occlusion during elective liver resections (irrespective of language or publication status). We also included randomised clinical trials comparing the different methods of vascular occlusion and those investigating the role of ischaemic preconditioning in liver resection. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We collected the data on the characteristics of the trial, methodological quality of the trials, mortality, morbidity, blood loss, blood transfusion requirements, liver function tests, markers of neutrophil activation, operating time, and hospital stay. We analysed the data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects models using RevMan Analysis. For each binary outcome we calculated the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on intention-to-treat analysis. For continuous outcomes, we calculated the weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals. MAIN RESULTS: We identified a total of 16 randomised trials. Five trials including 331 patients compared vascular occlusion (n = 166) versus no vascular occlusion (n = 165). Six trials including 521 patients compared different methods of vascular occlusion. Three trials including 210 patients compared ischaemic preconditioning before continuous portal triad clamping (n = 105) versus no ischaemic preconditioning (n = 105). Two trials including 127 patients compared ischaemic preconditioning before continuous portal triad clamping (n = 63) versus intermittent portal triad clamping (n = 64). The blood loss was significantly lower in vascular occlusion compared with no vascular occlusion. The liver enzymes were significantly elevated in the vascular occlusion group compared with no vascular occlusion. There was no difference in the mortality, liver failure, or other morbidities. Four of the five trials comparing vascular occlusion and no vascular occlusion used intermittent vascular occlusion. Trials comparing complete inflow and outflow occlusion to the liver, ie, hepatic vascular exclusion and portal triad clamping demonstrate significant detrimental haemodynamic changes in hepatic vascular exclusion compared to portal triad clamping. There was no significant difference in the number of units transfused and the number of patients needing transfusion. There was no difference in mortality, liver failure, or morbidity between total and selective methods of portal triad clamping. All four cases of mortality and liver failure in the comparison between the intermittent and continuous portal triad clamping occurred in the continuous portal triad clamping (statistically not significant). Intermittent portal triad clamping does not increase the total blood loss or operating time compared to continuous portal triad clamping. There was no statistically significant difference in the mortality, liver failure, morbidity, blood loss, or haemodynamic changes between ischaemic preconditioning versus no ischaemic preconditioning before continuous portal triad clamping. Liver enzymes used as markers of liver injury were significantly lower in the early post-operative period in the ischaemic preconditioning group. The intensive therapy unit stay and hospital stay were statistically significantly lower in the ischaemic preconditioning group than in the no ischaemic preconditioning group. There was no statistically significant difference in the mortality, liver failure, morbidity, intensive therapy unit stay, or hospital stay between ischaemic preconditioning before continuous portal triad clamping and intermittent portal triad clamping. The blood loss and transfusion requirements were lower in the ischaemic preconditioning group. Aspartate aminotransferase level was lower in the intermittent portal triad clamping group than the ischaemic preconditioning group on the third post-operative day. There was no difference in the peak aspartate aminotransferase levels or in the aspartate aminotransferase levels on first or sixth post-operative days of aspartate aminotransferase. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Intermittent vascular occlusion seems safe in liver resection. However, it does not seem to decrease morbidity. Among the different methods of vascular occlusion, intermittent portal triad clamping has most evidence to support the clinical application. Hepatic vascular exclusion cannot be recommended routinely. Ischaemic preconditioning before continuous portal triad clamping may be of clinical benefit in reducing intensive therapy unit and hospital stay.

Routine abdominal drainage for uncomplicated laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the main method of treatment of symptomatic gallstones. Drains are used after laparoscopic cholecystectomy to prevent abdominal collections. However, drain use may increase infective complications and delay discharge. OBJECTIVES: The aim is to assess the benefits and harms of routine abdominal drainage in uncomplicated laparoscopic cholecystectomy. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until March 2007. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised clinical trials comparing drainage with no drainage after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Randomised clinical trials comparing one type of drain with another were also reviewed. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We collected the data on the characteristics, methodological quality, mortality, abdominal collections, pain, nausea, vomiting, and hospital stay from each trial. We analysed the data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects models using RevMan Analysis. For each outcome we calculated the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on intention-to-treat analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We analysed five trials involving 591 patients randomised to drain (281) versus no drain (310). We also reviewed one trial with 41 patients randomised to suction drain (22) versus closed passive drain (19). The only trial that reported on abdominal collections requiring intervention reported no abdominal collections requiring intervention in either group. Wound infection tended to be higher in those with a drain (OR 15.38, 95% CI 0.86 to 275.74). Drainage was associated with lower shoulder, abdominal pain, and nausea, but this was not statistically significant. Hospital stay was longer in the drain group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Drain use after elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy reduces early post-operative pain, but increases wound infection rates and delays hospital discharge. We could not find evidence to support the use of drain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Routine abdominal drainage for uncomplicated liver resection.

BACKGROUND: The main reasons for inserting a drain after elective liver resections are (i) prevention of sub-phrenic or sub-hepatic fluid collection; (ii) identification and monitoring of post-operative bleeding; (iii) identification and drainage of any bile leak; and (iv) prevent the accumulation of ascitic fluid in cirrhotics. However, there are reports that drain use increases the complication rates. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of routine abdominal drainage in elective liver resections. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until March 2007. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised trials comparing abdominal drainage and no drainage in adults undergoing elective liver resection. We also included randomised trials comparing different types of drain in adults undergoing elective liver resection. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We collected the data on the characteristics of the trial, methodological quality of the trials, mortality, morbidity, conversion rate, operating time, and hospital stay from each trial. We analysed the data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects models using the Cochrane Collaboration statistical software RevMan Analysis. For each outcome we calculated the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) (based on intention-to-treat analysis) by combining the trial data sets using fixed-effect model or random-effects model, as appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: Drain versus no drain: We included five trials with 465 patients randomised: 234 to the drain group and 231 to the no drain group. Three of the five trials were of high methodological quality. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups for any of the outcomes (mortality, intra-abdominal collections requiring re-operation, infected intra-abdominal collections, wound infection, ascitic leak, and hospital stay, when the random-effects model was adopted. Open drain versus closed drain: One randomised clinical trial of low methodological quality comparing open with closed drainage (186 patients) showed a lower incidence of infected intra-abdominal collections, chest complications, and hospital stay in the closed drain group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence to support routine drain use after uncomplicated liver resections.

Routine abdominal drainage for uncomplicated open cholecystectomy.

BACKGROUND: Cholecystectomy is the removal of gallbladder and is performed mainly for symptomatic gallstones. Although laparoscopic cholecystectomy is currently preferred over open cholecystectomy for elective cholecystectomy, reports of randomised clinical trials comparing the choice of cholecystectomy (open or laparoscopic) in acute cholecystitis are still being conducted. Drainage in open cholecystectomy is a matter of considerable debate. Surgeons use drains primarily to prevent subhepatic abscess or bile peritonitis from an undrained bile leak. Critics of drain condemn drain use as it increases wound and chest infection. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of routine abdominal drainage in uncomplicated open cholecystectomy. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until April 2006. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised clinical trials comparing 'no drain' versus 'drain' in patients who had undergone uncomplicated open cholecystectomy (irrespective of language, publication status, and the type of drain). Randomised clinical trials comparing one drain with another were also included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We collected the data on the characteristics and methodological quality of each trial, number of abdominal collections requiring different treatments, bile peritonitis, wound infection, chest complications, and hospital stay from each trial. We analysed the data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects models using RevMan Analysis. For each outcome, we calculated the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on intention-to-treat analysis. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty eight trials involving 3659 patients were included. There were 20 comparisons of 'no drain' versus 'drain' and 12 comparisons of one drain with another. There was no statistically significant difference in mortality, bile peritonitis, total abdominal collections, abdominal collections requiring different treatments, or infected abdominal collections. 'No drain' group had statistically significant lower wound infection (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.87) and statistically significant lower chest infection (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.84) than drain group. We found no significant differences between different types of drains. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Drains increase the harms to the patient without providing any additional benefit for patients undergoing open cholecystectomy and should be avoided in open cholecystectomy.

Wound drains after incisional hernia repair.

BACKGROUND: Incisional hernias are caused by the failure of the wall of the abdomen to close after abdominal surgery, leaving a hole through which the viscera protrude. Incisional hernias are repaired by further surgery. Surgical drains are frequently inserted during hernia repair with the aim of facilitating fluid drainage and preventing complications. Traditional teaching has recommended the use of drains after incisional hernia repair other than for laparoscopic ventral hernia repair. More than 50% of open mesh repairs of ventral hernias have drains inserted. However, there is uncertainty as to whether drains are associated with benefits or harms to the patient. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects on wound infection and other outcomes, of inserting a wound drain during surgery to repair incisional hernias, and, if possible, to determine the comparative effects of different types of wound drain after incisional hernia repair. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (last searched March 2006), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL)(The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2006), EMBASE (1974 to March 2006), PubMed (1951 to March 2006), and Science Citation Index Expanded (1974 to March 2006). We also searched the meta-register of controlled trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered all randomised trials performed in adult patients who underwent incisional hernia repair and that compared using a drain with no drain. We also considered trials that compared different types of drain. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data on the characteristics of the trial, methodological quality of the trials, outcomes (e.g. infection and other wound complications) from each trial. For each outcome we calculated the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and based on intention-to-treat analysis. MAIN RESULTS: Only one trial was eligible for inclusion in the review with a total of 24 patients randomised to an electrified drain (12 patients) compared with a corrugated drain (12 patients). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups for any of the outcomes (a variety of measures of infection). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to determine whether wound drains after incisional hernia repair are associated with better or worse outcomes than no drains.

Primary closure versus T-tube drainage after open common bile duct exploration.

BACKGROUND: Between 5% and 11% of people undergoing cholecystectomy have common bile duct stones. Open common bile duct exploration is an important operation when endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography fails or when expertise for laparoscopic common bile duct exploration is not available. The optimal method for performing open common bile duct exploration is unclear. OBJECTIVES: The aim is to assess the benefits and harms of primary closure versus routine T-tube drainage in open common bile duct exploration for common bile duct stones. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until January 2006. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered for inclusion all randomised clinical trials comparing primary closure (with or without biliary stent) versus T-tube drainage after open common bile duct exploration. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We collected the data on the characteristics, methodological quality, mortality, morbidity, operating time, and hospital stay from each trial. We analysed the data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects model using RevMan Analysis. For each outcome we calculated the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on intention-to-treat analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We included five trials with 324 patients randomised: 165 to primary closure without stent and 159 to T-tube. Three of the five trials were considered to have adequate methodological quality, but all lacked blinded outcome assessment. The primary closure group had significantly lower positive bile culture (3 trials, OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.45) and wound infection (5 trials, OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.56). When only trials with high methodological quality were included, there was no statistically significant difference in any of the outcomes except positive bile culture, which became non-significant when the random-effects model was used. The deaths of the three patients in the T-tube group were directly related to surgery and sepsis. Bile peritonitis was higher in the T-tube group (2.9%) than in the primary closure group (1%) (not statistically significant). Hospital stay was significantly longer in the T-tube group compared with the primary closure group in three of the four trials, which reported on the hospital stay. The only trial comparing primary closure with stent (37 patients) versus T-tube drainage (44 patients) did not reveal any statistically significant difference in any of the reported outcomes (mortality, re-operations, wound infection, and hospital stay). There was one case of stent migration, which could not be retrieved after two attempts of ERCP. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Primary closure after common bile duct exploration seems at least as safe as T-tube drainage. We need randomised trials that assess whether stents may offer benefits.

Primary closure versus T-tube drainage after laparoscopic common bile duct stone exploration.

BACKGROUND: Use of T-tube drainage after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration is controversial. We were unable to identify any meta-analysis or systematic reviews of the benefits and harms of T-tube drainage after common bile duct exploration. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of routine primary closure versus T-tube drainage following laparoscopic common bile duct stone exploration. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until January 2006. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered for inclusion all randomised clinical trials comparing primary closure (with or without a biliary stent) versus T-tube drainage after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We collected the data on the characteristics, methodological quality, mortality, morbidity, operating time, and hospital stay from the one identified trial. We analysed the data using the fixed-effect model using RevMan Analysis. For each outcome we calculated the odds ratio (OR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals based on intention-to-treat analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We included one trial with 55 patients randomised: 27 to the primary closure and 28 to the T-tube group. This trial was of inadequate methodological quality. There was no mortality in either group. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups for any of the outcomes except for the hospital stay (WMD -2.8 days, 95% CI -1.93 to -3.67), which was lower in the primary closure group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We have insufficient evidence to recommend T-tube drainage over primary closure after laparoscopic common bile duct stone exploration or vice versa. Further randomised trials are necessary to assess the benefits and harms of T-tube drainage compared with primary closure after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration.

Cholecystectomy versus no cholecystectomy in patients with silent gallstones.

BACKGROUND: Cholecystectomy is currently advised only for patients with symptomatic gallstones. However, about 4% of patients with asymptomatic gallstones develop symptoms including cholecystitis, obstructive jaundice, pancreatitis, and gallbladder cancer. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of surgical removal of the gallbladder for patients with asymptomatic gallstones. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until 2006 for identifying the randomised trials using The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group search strategy. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) comparing cholecystectomy and no cholecystectomy were considered for the review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We were unable to identify any randomised clinical trials comparing cholecystectomy versus no cholecystectomy. MAIN RESULTS: We were unable to identify any randomised clinical trial comparing cholecystectomy versus no cholecystectomy. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are no randomised trials comparing cholecystectomy versus no cholecystectomy in patients with silent gallstones. Further evaluation of observational studies, which measure outcomes such as obstructive jaundice, gallstone-associated pancreatitis, and/or gall-bladder cancer for sufficient duration of follow-up is necessary before randomised trials are designed in order to evaluate whether cholecystectomy or no cholecystectomy is better for asymptomatic gallstones.