RESUMO
Minimal access surgery is increasingly popular to reduce postoperative morbidity and enhance recovery. We present a case of a patient who underwent bilateral minimally invasive thoracic and cardiac surgery. An 81-year-old woman was diagnosed with T1aN0M0 left upper lobe small-cell lung cancer and underwent single-port left video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) upper lobectomy in 2016. She developed a contralateral right lower lobe nodule and underwent a single-port right VATS wedge resection of the lower lobe nodule, subsequently confirmed as necrotising granulomatous inflammation with acid-fast bacilli, consistent with previous tuberculosis (TB) infection. On postoperative day 1, she had an episode of self-reverting ventricular tachycardia and bradycardia. Subsequent myocardial perfusion scan and coronary angiogram showed significant LV dysfunction and severe coronary artery disease with a left main stem (LMS) lesion. After agreement at MDT, an Endo-ACAB (endoscopic atraumatic coronary artery bypass grafting) was performed, via 3 ports, with the left internal mammary artery anastomosed to left anterior descending artery. She recovered well postoperatively and was discharged. Multiple sequential minimally invasive procedures are now routine and can be performed safely in patients with a complex combination of pathologies. In this case, bilateral single-port (anatomic and nonanatomic) lung resections were undertaken followed by coronary revascularisation with a total of 5 minimal access ports.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Progestogens have been evaluated in numerous trials and meta-analyses, many of which concluded they were effective. However, two large trials PROMISE and OPPTIMUM have recently concluded that progesterone was ineffective. This raises the possibility that earlier studies and reviews had been biased by either selective publication or selective choice of outcomes, so called "P-hacking". OBJECTIVES: To compare the findings all progestogen trials and systematic reviews with those of trials with pre-registered primary outcomes which avoided selective outcome reporting. SEARCH STRATEGY: Search of PubMed, the Cochrane Library and trial registries. Registration PROSPERO CRD42016035303. SELECTION CRITERIA: Systematic reviews of randomised trials comparing progestogen with placebo in pregnancy and the individual trials included in those reviews. The subset of trials reporting a pre-registered primary outcome were compared with the totality of trials and reviews. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For reviews all outcomes were included. For individual trials all outcomes reported in the systematic reviews were included. For the comparison group we recorded the registered primary outcome from trials that were either registered before they started, or registered during the recruitment phase and also double blind. MAIN RESULTS: Nineteen of twenty-nine meta-analyses concluded that progestogens were effective. Twenty-two trials reported their pre-registered primary outcomes. There was no effect of progesterone on primary registered dichotomous outcome RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.94-1.07). Only one of the 22 showed a nominally statistically significant benefit. AUTHOR'S CONCLUSIONS: When evaluated in registered double-blind trials with analysis restricted to predefined primary outcomes, progestational agents in pregnancy are ineffective. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Progestogens to prevent pregnancy loss, an example of P-hacking.
