RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Throughout the United Kingdom, there have been sweeping changes to the practice of medicine due to the COVID-19 pandemic. For the surgical speciality, there have been changes to both elective and emergency practice. Concern regarding potential aerosolisation during invasive procedures have been raised - including the use of pneumoperitoneum to facilitate laparoscopy. The aim of this study is to systematically review the data available to date regarding the potential risk posed to theatre staff by laparoscopy. METHOD: A systematic review and meta-analysis was carried out in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Only publications in peer-reviewed journals were considered. PubMed, Ovid Embase, SCOPUS, and Cochrane Library were searched. The search period was between 1st January 1980 and 27th April 2020. Bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool. RESULTS: 4209 records were identified, resulting in 9 unique studies being selected. The included studies examined viral DNA aerosoliation generated by electrosurgery and CO2 laser ablation, with one study examining viral DNA aerosolisation following laparoscopy. Each of these demonstrated that viral DNA (Hepatitis B Virus and Human Papilloma Virus) was detectable in the surgical smoke plume. CONCLUSION: The data and analysis reported in this study reflect the most up-to-date evidence available for the surgeon to assess risk towards healthcare staff. It was constrained by heterogeneity of reporting for several outcomes and lack of comparable studies. There is currently insufficient data to recommend open or a minimally invasive surgical approach with regard to theatre team safety in the COVID-19 era.
Assuntos
Betacoronavirus , Infecções por Coronavirus/transmissão , Transmissão de Doença Infecciosa do Paciente para o Profissional , Laparoscopia/efeitos adversos , Pneumonia Viral/transmissão , COVID-19 , Humanos , Controle de Infecções , Pandemias , Medição de Risco , SARS-CoV-2RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Inguinal hernia repair is a common low-risk intervention. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are being used increasingly as primary outcomes in clinical trials. The aim of this study was to review and meta-analyse the PROs in RCTs comparing laparoscopic versus open inguinal hernia repair techniques in adult patients. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was carried out in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Only RCTs in peer-reviewed journals were considered. PubMed, Ovid Embase, Scopus and the Cochrane Library were searched. In addition, four trial registries were searched. The search interval was between 1 January 1998 and 1 May 2018. Identified publications were reviewed independently by two authors. The review was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42018099552). Bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration risk-of-bias tool. RESULTS: Some 7192 records were identified, from which 58 unique RCTs were selected. Laparoscopic hernia repair was associated with significantly less postoperative pain in three intervals: from 2 weeks to within 6 months after surgery (risk ratio (RR) 0·74, 95 per cent c.i. 0·62 to 0·88), 6 months to 1 year (RR 0·74, 0·59 to 0·93) and 1 year onwards (RR 0·62, 0·47 to 0·82). Paraesthesia (RR 0·27, 0·18 to 0·40) and patient-reported satisfaction (RR 0·91, 0·85 to 0·98) were also significantly better in the laparoscopic repair group. CONCLUSION: The data and analysis reported in this study reflect the most up-to-date evidence available for the surgeon to counsel patients. It was constrained by heterogeneity of reporting for several outcomes.
