Reprint - Medical and surgical interventions for the treatment of urinary stones in children: A Cochrane Review.

INTRODUCTION: We performed systematic review to assess the effects of different medical and surgical management of urinary stones in children. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials), trials registries (World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov), and abstract proceedings of major urological and pediatric urology meetings, with no restrictions on the language of publication or publication status, up until December 2017. We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs. Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility of studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in accordance with the Cochrane "Risk of bias" tool. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and assessed the quality of the evidence according to GRADE. RESULTS: We included 14 studies with a total of 978 randomized participants in our review, informing seven comparisons with shock wave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotripsy, ureterorenoscopy (regardless of the type of lithotripsy), open stone surgery, and medical expulsive therapy. There was very low quality of evidence in the most comparisons with regards to the effectiveness and adverse events for the treatment of pediatric upper renal tract stone disease. CONCLUSIONS: Based on mostly very low-quality evidence for most comparisons and outcomes, we are uncertain about the effect of nearly all medical and surgical interventions to treat stone disease in children. There is a critical need for better-quality trials assessing patient-important outcomes in children with stone disease to inform future guidelines on the management of this condition.

Medical and surgical interventions for the treatment of urinary stones in children.

BACKGROUND: Urolithiasis is a condition where crystalline mineral deposits (stones) form within the urinary tract. Urinary stones can be located in any part of the urinary tract. Affected children may present with abdominal pain, blood in the urine or signs of infection. Radiological evaluation is used to confirm the diagnosis, to assess the size of the stone, its location, and the degree of possible urinary obstruction. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of different medical and surgical interventions in the treatment of urinary tract stones of the kidney or ureter in children. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid) as well as the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. We searched reference lists of retrieved articles and conducted an electronic search for conference abstracts for the years 2012 to 2017. The date of the last search of all electronic databases was 31 December 2017 and we applied no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs looking at interventions for upper urinary tract stones in children. These included shock wave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotripsy, ureterorenoscopy, open surgery and medical expulsion therapy for upper urinary tract stones in children aged 0 to 18 years. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures according to Cochrane guidance. Two review authors independently searched and assessed studies for eligibility and conducted data extraction. 'Risk of bias' assessments were completed by three review authors independently. We used Review Manager 5 for data synthesis and analysis. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 studies with a total of 978 randomised participants in our review, informing eight comparisons. The studies contributing to most comparisons were at high or unclear risk of bias for most domains.Shock wave lithotripsy versus dissolution therapy for intrarenal stones: based on one study (87 participants) and consistently very low quality evidence, we are uncertain about the effects of SWL on stone-free rate (SFR), serious adverse events or complications of treatment and secondary procedures for residual fragments.Slow shock wave lithotripsy versus rapid shock wave lithotripsy for renal stones: based on one study (60 participants) and consistently very low quality evidence, we are uncertain about the effects of SWL on SFR, serious adverse events or complications of treatment and secondary procedures for residual fragments.Shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy with holmium laser or pneumatic lithotripsy for renal and distal ureteric stones: based on three studies (153 participants) and consistently very low quality evidence, we are uncertain about the effects of SWL on SFR, serious adverse events or complications of treatment and secondary procedures.Shock wave lithotripsy versus mini-percutaneous nephrolithotripsy for renal stones: based on one study (212 participants), SWL likely has a lower SFR (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.97; moderate quality evidence); this corresponds to 113 fewer stone-free patients per 1000 (189 fewer to 28 fewer). SWL may reduce severe adverse events (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.98; low quality evidence); this corresponds to 66 fewer serious adverse events or complications per 1000 (74 fewer to 2 fewer). Rates of secondary procedures may be higher (RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.01 to 6.20; low-quality evidence); this corresponds to 85 more secondary procedures per 1000 (1 more to 294 more).Percutaneous nephrolithotripsy versus tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotripsy for renal stones: based on one study (23 participants) and consistently very low quality evidence, we are uncertain about the effects of percutaneous nephrolithotripsy on SFR, serious adverse events or complications of treatment and secondary procedures.Percutaneous nephrolithotripsy versus tubeless mini-percutaneous nephrolithotripsy for renal stones: based on one study (70 participants), SFR are likely similar (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.14; moderate-quality evidence); this corresponds to 28 more per 1,000 (66 fewer to 132 more). We did not find any data relating to serious adverse events. Based on very low quality evidence we are uncertain about secondary procedures.Alpha-blockers versus placebo with or without analgesics for distal ureteric stones: based on six studies (335 participants), alpha-blockers may increase SFR (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.54; low quality evidence); this corresponds to 199 more stone-free patients per 1000 (94 more to 317 more). Based on very low quality evidence we are uncertain about serious adverse events or complications and secondary procedures. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on mostly very low-quality evidence for most comparisons and outcomes, we are uncertain about the effect of nearly all medical and surgical interventions to treat stone disease in children.Common reasons why we downgraded our assessments of the quality of evidence were: study limitations (risk of bias), indirectness, and imprecision. These issues make it difficult to draw clinical inferences. It is important that affected individuals, clinicians, and policy-makers are aware of these limitations of the evidence. There is a critical need for better quality trials assessing patient-important outcomes in children with stone disease to inform future guidelines on the management of this condition.

Medical and surgical interventions for the treatment of urinary stones in children.

BACKGROUND: Urolithiasis is a condition where crystalline mineral deposits (stones) form within the urinary tract. Urinary stones can be located in any part of the urinary tract. Affected children may present with abdominal pain, blood in the urine or signs of infection. Radiological evaluation is used to confirm the diagnosis, to assess the size of the stone, its location, and the degree of possible urinary obstruction. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of different medical and surgical interventions in the treatment of urinary tract stones of the kidney or ureter in children. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid) as well as the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. We searched reference lists of retrieved articles and conducted an electronic search for conference abstracts for the years 2012 to 2017. The date of the last search of all electronic databases was 31 December 2017 and we applied no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs looking at interventions for upper urinary tract stones in children. These included shock wave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotripsy, ureterorenoscopy, open surgery and medical expulsion therapy for upper urinary tract stones in children aged 0 to 18 years. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures according to Cochrane guidance. Two review authors independently searched and assessed studies for eligibility and conducted data extraction. 'Risk of bias' assessments were completed by three review authors independently. We used Review Manager 5 for data synthesis and analysis. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 studies with a total of 978 randomised participants in our review, informing eight comparisons. The studies contributing to most comparisons were at high or unclear risk of bias for most domains.Shock wave lithotripsy versus dissolution therapy for intrarenal stones: based on one study (87 participants) and consistently very low quality evidence, we are uncertain about the effects of SWL on stone-free rate (SFR), serious adverse events or complications of treatment and secondary procedures for residual fragments.Slow shock wave lithotripsy versus rapid shock wave lithotripsy for renal stones: based on one study (60 participants) and consistently very low quality evidence, we are uncertain about the effects of SWL on SFR, serious adverse events or complications of treatment and secondary procedures for residual fragments.Shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy with holmium laser or pneumatic lithotripsy for renal and distal ureteric stones: based on three studies (153 participants) and consistently very low quality evidence, we are uncertain about the effects of SWL on SFR, serious adverse events or complications of treatment and secondary procedures.Shock wave lithotripsy versus mini-percutaneous nephrolithotripsy for renal stones: based on one study (212 participants), SWL likely has a lower SFR (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.97; moderate quality evidence); this corresponds to 113 fewer stone-free patients per 1000 (189 fewer to 28 fewer). SWL may reduce severe adverse events (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.98; low quality evidence); this corresponds to 66 fewer serious adverse events or complications per 1000 (74 fewer to 2 fewer). Rates of secondary procedures may be higher (RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.01 to 6.20; low-quality evidence); this corresponds to 85 more secondary procedures per 1000 (1 more to 294 more).Percutaneous nephrolithotripsy versus tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotripsy for renal stones: based on one study (23 participants) and consistently very low quality evidence, we are uncertain about the effects of SWL on SFR, serious adverse events or complications of treatment and secondary procedures.Percutaneous nephrolithotripsy versus tubeless mini-percutaneous nephrolithotripsy for renal stones: based on one study (70 participants), SFR are likely similar (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.14; moderate-quality evidence); this corresponds to 28 more per 1,000 (66 fewer to 132 more). We did not find any data relating to serious adverse events. Based on very low quality evidence we are uncertain about secondary procedures.Alpha-blockers versus placebo with or without analgesics for distal ureteric stones: based on six studies (335 participants), alpha-blockers may increase SFR (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.54; low quality evidence); this corresponds to 199 more stone-free patients per 1000 (94 more to 317 more). Based on very low quality evidence we are uncertain about serious adverse events or complications and secondary procedures. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on mostly very low-quality evidence for most comparisons and outcomes, we are uncertain about the effect of nearly all medical and surgical interventions to treat stone disease in children.Common reasons why we downgraded our assessments of the quality of evidence were: study limitations (risk of bias), indirectness, and imprecision. These issues make it difficult to draw clinical inferences. It is important that affected individuals, clinicians, and policy-makers are aware of these limitations of the evidence. There is a critical need for better quality trials assessing patient-important outcomes in children with stone disease to inform future guidelines on the management of this condition.

Evaluation of Antiseptic Use in Pediatric Surgical Units in the United Kingdom-Where Is the Evidence Base?

Aim Our aim was to conduct a survey of practice regarding skin preparation products for premature neonates (under 32 weeks gestation, below 1.5 kg) in the United Kingdom (UK) pediatric surgical units and to review the evidence on the safety and efficacy of the commonest skin preparation products used. Methods For the survey, following Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust's (Addenbrooke's Hospital) approval, the UK pediatric surgical units were contacted. Each unit was asked for both unit policy and individual consultant preference for skin preparation in infants. A structured literature search was performed using Medline and EMBASE. All study types investigating skin antisepsis with povidone iodine or chlorhexidine in neonates were included. Abstracts and non-English language articles were excluded. Target outcomes related to effectiveness and potential risks of the product. Results A total of 28 pediatric surgical units were surveyed. Overall, 14 units had a standardized policy, with 8 units using Betadine (Purdue Products L.P., Stamford, CT), 4 using alcoholic chlorhexidine, and 2 using aqueous chlorhexidine. A total of 34 articles fulfilled the criteria for inclusion. There is moderate quality evidence to support the efficacy of chlorhexidine over povidone iodine for preoperative skin antisepsis. There is evidence that povidone iodine can be absorbed, causing reactive hypothyroidism. Chlorhexidine can be absorbed but there is no evidence of this being significant. Both alcoholic and aqueous chlorhexidine can cause skin damage, including burns. Conclusion A majority of pediatric surgical units and individual surgeons use Betadine in premature and below 1.5 kg infants despite this being outside the product license. There is no ideal product choice based on current evidence but surgeons must be aware of the inherent risks and benefits of each product.

Congenital lung lesions: preoperative three-dimensional reconstructed CT scan as the definitive investigation and surgical management.

AIM OF STUDY: The aim of this study was to review our experience of postnatal investigations and management of congenital lung lesions. METHODS: All children with antenatal diagnosis undergoing surgical management were identified from hospital records. Antenatal diagnosis and serial antenatal ultrasound findings were noted, postnatal chest X-ray (CXR) and computed tomographic (CT) scan were reviewed. Pearson correlation coefficient (r) was used to look into relation between CT scan and per-operative findings. Surgical management and outcome of these lesions were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 38 children were identified between January 2000 and December 2011; 22 were males and 16 were females. The mean gestational age at diagnosis was 21 weeks (range 18 to 26 weeks). Five children showed complete resolution antenatally. Four children were symptomatic at birth. Postnatal CXR showed an abnormality in only 17 infants. CT scan with three-dimensional (3D) reconstructions was performed at the mean age of 7.7 months (range 1 day to 42 months). CT scan correlated well with per-operative findings and provided adequate anatomical information r = 0.98. Open thoracotomy and lobectomy/excision was performed in 23, and 15 had thoracoscopic lobectomy/excision. The mean age of operation was 18 months (range 2 days to 96 months). Twenty patients had signs of recurrent preoperative infection with pleural adhesions and hilar thickening resulting in conversion of 10 thoracoscopic cases to open surgery. Histology confirmed 26 congenital cystic adenomatoid malformations, 2 hybrid lesions, 7 sequestrations, and 3 bronchopulmonary malformations. CONCLUSIONS: Antenatal resolution and normal postnatal CXR are not reliable indicators of resolution of the lesion. Early postnatal CT scan preferably with 3D reconstruction and early surgical treatment are suggested, as delaying the operation may result in repeated infection making thoracoscopic approach more difficult.

Intestinal perforation in the context of thoracoamniotic shunting and congenital diaphragmatic hernia.

A fetus was diagnosed by prenatal ultrasound with bilateral intrauterine pleural effusions that were subsequently drained in utero by insertion of bilateral thoracoamniotic shunts. Serial prenatal ultrasound scans were consistent with a left-sided diaphragmatic hernia. On the first day of life, the infant underwent an exploratory laparotomy for intestinal obstruction, with radiographic findings of pneumatosis intestinalis. Intraoperative findings were suggestive of prenatal bowel and diaphragm perforation, which might have occurred as a complication of thoracoamniotic shunting.

Guidelines for the management of partial-thickness burns in a general hospital or community setting--recommendations of a European working party.

Most partial-thickness burns in Europe and the United States are managed by non-burns specialists who do not treat burns on a regular basis. To achieve better patient outcomes, partial-thickness burns should be properly managed in non-specialist centres and referred to burn units when appropriate. Although some guidelines have been published to assist non-specialists, few have attempted to provide a comprehensive step-by-step guidance emphasising wound-healing principles. A working party of European burn specialists devised a new treatment algorithm to provide clear and current guidance on the management of partial-thickness burns in the general hospital and community setting. Four areas were identified for improvement: diagnosis and referral, wound preparation, wound covering and post-wound care. The guidelines take into account the role of wound dressings, infection and general patient well-being, bearing in mind the different working environments that occur across Europe. They are aimed at improving the overall outcome for community-treated patients within the expanding European Union and reducing the number of preventable late referrals to specialists.