Revealing the impact of local access-site complications and upper extremity dysfunction post transradial percutaneous coronary procedures.

OBJECTIVES: Little is known about local access-site complications and upper extremity dysfunction after transradial percutaneous coronary procedures (TR-PCP). This systematic review study aimed to summarise the current knowledge on the incidences of access-site complications and upper extremity dysfunction after TR-PCP. METHODS: Two independent, trained investigators searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL for eligible studies published before 1 January 2015. Also, they hand-searched the conference proceedings of the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, European Society of Cardiology, and the Trans-catheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics. Inclusion criteria were cohort studies and clinical trials discussing the incidence of access-site complications and upper extremity function after transradial percutaneous coronary intervention (TR-PCI) and/or transradial coronary angiography (TR-CAG) as endpoints. RESULTS: 176 articles described access-site complications. The incidence is up to 9.6 %. Fourteen articles described upper extremity dysfunction, with an incidence of up to 1.7 %. Upper extremity dysfunction was rarely investigated, hardly ever as primary endpoint, and if investigated not thoroughly enough. CONCLUSION: Upper extremity dysfunction in TR-PCP has never been properly investigated and is therefore underestimated. Further studies are needed to investigate the magnitude, prevention and best treatment of upper extremity dysfunction. Optimising TR-PCP might be achieved by using slender techniques, detection of upper extremity dysfunction and early referral to a hand rehabilitation centre.

Laparoscopic reintervention for anastomotic leakage after primary laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Anastomotic leakage is associated with high morbidity and mortality rates. The aim of this study was to assess the potential benefits of a laparoscopic reintervention for anastomotic leakage after primary laparoscopic surgery. METHODS: Between January 2003 and January 2006, ten patients who had laparoscopic colorectal resection and later developed anastomotic leakage had a laparoscopic reintervention. A second group included 15 patients who had relaparotomy after primary open surgery. RESULTS: Patient characteristics were comparable in the two groups. The median time from first operation to reintervention was 6 days in both groups. There were no conversions. The intensive care stay was shorter in the laparoscopic group (1 versus 3 days; P = 0.002). Resumption of a normal diet (median 3 versus 6 days; P = 0.031) and first stoma output (2 versus 3 days; P = 0.041) occurred earlier in the laparoscopic group. The postoperative 30-day morbidity rate was lower (four of ten patients versus 12 of 15; P = 0.087) and hospital stay was shorter (median 9 versus 13 days; P = 0.058) in the laparoscopic group. No patient developed incisional hernia in the laparoscopic group compared with five of 15 in the open group (P = 0.061). CONCLUSION: These data suggest that laparoscopic reintervention for anastomotic leakage after primary laparoscopic surgery is associated with less morbidity, faster recovery and fewer abdominal wall complications than relaparotomy.