Deep neuromuscular blockade in adults undergoing an abdominal laparoscopic procedure.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic surgery is the preferred option for many procedures. To properly perform laparoscopic surgery, it is essential that sudden movements and abdominal contractions in patients are prevented, as it limits the surgeon's view. There has been a growing interest in the potential beneficial effect of deep neuromuscular blockade (NMB) in laparoscopic surgery. Deep NMB improves the surgical field by preventing abdominal contractions, and it is thought to decrease postoperative pain. However, it is uncertain if deep NMB improves intraoperative safety and thereby improves clinical outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of deep neuromuscular blockade versus no, shallow, or moderate neuromuscular blockade during laparoscopic intra- or transperitoneal procedures in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 31 July 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) in adults undergoing laparoscopic intra- or transperitoneal procedures comparing deep NMB to moderate, shallow, or no NMB. We excluded trials that did not report any of the primary or secondary outcomes of our review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. all-cause mortality, 2. health-related quality of life, and 3. proportion of participants with serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were 4. proportion of participants with non-serious adverse events, 5. readmissions within three months, 6. short-term pain scores, 7. measurements of postoperative recovery, and 8. operating time. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included 42 randomised clinical trials with 3898 participants. Most trials included participants undergoing intraperitoneal oncological resection surgery. We present the Peto fixed-effect model for most dichotomous outcomes as only sparse events were reported. Comparison 1: deep versus moderate NMB Thirty-eight trials compared deep versus moderate NMB. Deep NMB may have no effect on mortality, but the evidence is very uncertain (Peto odds ratio (OR) 7.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 115.43; 12 trials, 1390 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Deep NMB likely results in little to no difference in health-related quality of life up to four days postoperative (mean difference (MD) 4.53 favouring deep NMB on the Quality of Recovery-40 score, 95% CI 0.96 to 8.09; 5 trials, 440 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; mean difference lower than the mean clinically important difference of 10 points). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of deep NMB on intraoperatively serious adverse events (deep NMB 38/1150 versus moderate NMB 38/1076; Peto OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.52; 21 trials, 2231 participants; very low-certainty evidence), short-term serious adverse events (up to 60 days) (deep NMB 37/912 versus moderate NMB 42/852; Peto OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.42; 16 trials, 1764 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and short-term non-serious adverse events (Peto OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.35; 11 trials, 1232 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Deep NMB likely does not alter the duration of surgery (MD -0.51 minutes, 95% CI -3.35 to 2.32; 34 trials, 3143 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is uncertain if deep NMB alters the length of hospital stay (MD -0.22 days, 95% CI -0.49 to 0.06; 19 trials, 2084 participants; low-certainty evidence) or pain scores one hour after surgery (MD -0.31 points on the numeric rating scale, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.03; 22 trials, 1823 participants; very low-certainty evidence; mean clinically important difference 1 point) and 24 hours after surgery (MD -0.60 points on the numeric rating scale, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.15; 16 trials, 1404 participants; very low-certainty evidence; mean clinically important difference 1 point). Comparison 2: deep versus shallow NMB Three trials compared deep versus shallow NMB. The trials did not report on mortality and health-related quality of life. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of deep NMB compared to shallow NMB on the proportion of serious adverse events (RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.50 to 5.57; 2 trials, 158 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Comparison 3: deep versus no NMB One trial compared deep versus no NMB. There was no mortality in this trial, and health-related quality of life was not reported. The proportion of serious adverse events was 0/25 in the deep NMB group and 1/25 in the no NMB group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about the effects of deep NMB compared to moderate NMB on all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Deep NMB likely results in little to no difference in health-related quality of life and duration of surgery compared to moderate NMB, and it may have no effect on the length of hospital stay. Due to the very low-certainty evidence, we do not know what the effect is of deep NMB on non-serious adverse events, pain scores, or readmission rates. Randomised clinical trials with adequate reporting of all adverse events would reduce the current uncertainties. Due to the low number of identified trials and the very low certainty of evidence, we do not know what the effect of deep NMB on serious adverse events is compared to shallow NMB and no NMB. We found no trials evaluating mortality and health-related quality of life.

Correction: Continuous Monitoring of Vital Signs Using Wearable Devices on the General Ward: Pilot Study.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.2196/mhealth.7208.].

Transabdominal ultrasound and endoscopic ultrasound for diagnosis of gallbladder polyps.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 0.6% to 4% of cholecystectomies are performed because of gallbladder polyps. The decision to perform cholecystectomy is based on presence of gallbladder polyp(s) on transabdominal ultrasound (TAUS) or endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), or both. These polyps are currently considered for surgery if they grow more than 1 cm. However, non-neoplastic polyps (pseudo polyps) do not need surgery, even when they are larger than 1 cm. True polyps are neoplastic, either benign (adenomas) or (pre)malignant (dysplastic polyps/carcinomas). True polyps need surgery, especially if they are premalignant or malignant. There has been no systematic review and meta-analysis on the accuracy of TAUS and EUS in the diagnosis of gallbladder polyps, true gallbladder polyps, and (pre)malignant polyps. OBJECTIVES: To summarise and compare the accuracy of transabdominal ultrasound (TAUS) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) for the detection of gallbladder polyps, for differentiating between true and pseudo gallbladder polyps, and for differentiating between dysplastic polyps/carcinomas and adenomas/pseudo polyps of the gallbladder in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and trial registrations (last date of search 09 July 2018). We had no restrictions regarding language, publication status, or prospective or retrospective nature of the studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies reporting on the diagnostic accuracy data (true positive, false positive, false negative and true negative) of the index test (TAUS or EUS or both) for detection of gallbladder polyps, differentiation between true and pseudo polyps, or differentiation between dysplastic polyps/carcinomas and adenomas/pseudo polyps. We only accepted histopathology after cholecystectomy as the reference standard, except for studies on diagnosis of gallbladder polyp. For the latter studies, we also accepted repeated imaging up to six months by TAUS or EUS as the reference standard. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened abstracts, selected studies for inclusion, and collected data from each study. The quality of the studies was evaluated using the QUADAS-2 tool. The bivariate random-effects model was used to obtain summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity, to compare diagnostic performance of the index tests, and to assess heterogeneity. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 16 studies were included. All studies reported on TAUS and EUS as separate tests and not as a combination of tests. All studies were at high or unclear risk of bias, ten studies had high applicability concerns in participant selection (because of inappropriate participant exclusions) or reference standards (because of lack of follow-up for non-operated polyps), and three studies had unclear applicability concerns in participant selection (because of high prevalence of gallbladder polyps) or index tests (because of lack of details on ultrasound equipment and performance). A meta-analysis directly comparing results of TAUS and EUS in the same population could not be performed because only limited studies executed both tests in the same participants. Therefore, the results below were obtained only from indirect test comparisons. There was significant heterogeneity amongst all comparisons (target conditions) on TAUS and amongst studies on EUS for differentiating true and pseudo polyps.Detection of gallbladder polyps: Six studies (16,260 participants) used TAUS. We found no studies on EUS. The summary sensitivity and specificity of TAUS for the detection of gallbladder polyps was 0.84 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.95) and 0.96 (95% CI 0.92 to 0.98), respectively. In a cohort of 1000 people, with a 6.4% prevalence of gallbladder polyps, this would result in 37 overdiagnosed and seven missed gallbladder polyps.Differentiation between true polyp and pseudo gallbladder polyp: Six studies (1078 participants) used TAUS; the summary sensitivity was 0.68 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.85) and the summary specificity was 0.79 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.91). Three studies (209 participants) used EUS; the summary sensitivity was 0.85 (95% CI 0.46 to 0.97) and the summary specificity was 0.90 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.96). In a cohort of 1000 participants with gallbladder polyps, with 10% having true polyps, this would result in 189 overdiagnosed and 32 missed true polyps by TAUS, and 90 overdiagnosed and 15 missed true polyps by EUS. There was no evidence of a difference between the diagnostic accuracy of TAUS and EUS (relative sensitivity 1.06, P = 0.70, relative specificity 1.15, P = 0.12).Differentiation between dysplastic polyps/carcinomas and adenomas/pseudo polyps of the gallbladder: Four studies (1,009 participants) used TAUS; the summary sensitivity was 0.79 (95% CI 0.62 to 0.90) and the summary specificity was 0.89 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.97). Three studies (351 participants) used EUS; the summary sensitivity was 0.86 (95% CI 0.76 to 0.92) and the summary specificity was 0.92 (95% CI 0.85 to 0.95). In a cohort of 1000 participants with gallbladder polyps, with 5% having a dysplastic polyp/carcinoma, this would result in 105 overdiagnosed and 11 missed dysplastic polyps/carcinomas by TAUS and 76 overdiagnosed and seven missed dysplastic polyps/carcinomas by EUS. There was no evidence of a difference between the diagnostic accuracy of TAUS and EUS (log likelihood test P = 0.74). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although TAUS seems quite good at discriminating between gallbladder polyps and no polyps, it is less accurate in detecting whether the polyp is a true or pseudo polyp and dysplastic polyp/carcinoma or adenoma/pseudo polyp. In practice, this would lead to both unnecessary surgeries for pseudo polyps and missed cases of true polyps, dysplastic polyps, and carcinomas. There was insufficient evidence that EUS is better compared to TAUS in differentiating between true and pseudo polyps and between dysplastic polyps/carcinomas and adenomas/pseudo polyps. The conclusions are based on heterogeneous studies with unclear criteria for diagnosis of the target conditions and studies at high or unclear risk of bias. Therefore, results should be interpreted with caution. Further studies of high methodological quality, with clearly stated criteria for diagnosis of gallbladder polyps, true polyps, and dysplastic polyps/carcinomas are needed to accurately determine diagnostic accuracy of EUS and TAUS.

Continuous Monitoring of Vital Signs Using Wearable Devices on the General Ward: Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Measurement of vital signs in hospitalized patients is necessary to assess the clinical situation of the patient. Early warning scores (EWS), such as the modified early warning score (MEWS), are generally calculated 3 times a day, but these may not capture early deterioration. A delay in diagnosing deterioration is associated with increased mortality. Continuous monitoring with wearable devices might detect clinical deterioration at an earlier stage, which allows clinicians to take corrective actions. OBJECTIVE: In this pilot study, the feasibility of continuous monitoring using the ViSi Mobile (VM; Sotera Wireless) and HealthPatch (HP; Vital Connect) was tested, and the experiences of patients and nurses were collected. METHODS: In this feasibility study, 20 patients at the internal medicine and surgical ward were monitored with VM and HP simultaneously for 2 to 3 days. Technical problems were analyzed. Vital sign measurements by nurses were taken as reference and compared with vital signs measured by both devices. Patient and nurse experiences were obtained by semistructured interviews. RESULTS: In total, 86 out of 120 MEWS measurements were used for the analysis. Vital sign measurements by VM and HP were generally consistent with nurse measurements. In 15% (N=13) and 27% (N=23) of the VM and HP cases respectively, clinically relevant differences in MEWS were found based on inconsistent respiratory rate registrations. Connection failure was recognized as a predominant VM artifact (70%). Over 50% of all HP artifacts had an unknown cause, were self-limiting, and never took longer than 1 hour. The majority of patients, relatives, and nurses were positive about VM and HP. CONCLUSIONS: Both VM and HP are promising for continuously monitoring vital signs in hospitalized patients, if the frequency and duration of artifacts are reduced. The devices were well received and comfortable for most patients.

Fast track surgery versus conventional recovery strategies for colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: In recent years the Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) postoperative pathway in (ileo-)colorectal surgery, aiming at improving perioperative care and decreasing postoperative complications, has become more common. OBJECTIVES: We investigated the effectiveness and safety of the ERAS multimodal strategy, compared to conventional care after (ileo-)colorectal surgery. The primary research question was whether ERAS protocols lead to less morbidity and secondary whether length of stay was reduced. SEARCH STRATEGY: To answer the research question we entered search strings containing keywords like "fast track", "colorectal and surgery" and "enhanced recovery" into major databases. We also hand searched references in identified reviews concerning ERAS. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included published randomised clinical trials, in any language, comparing ERAS to conventional treatment in patients with (ileo-) colorectal disease requiring a resection. RCT's including at least 7 ERAS items in the ERAS group and no more than 2 in the conventional arm were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data of included trials were independently extracted by the reviewers. Analyses were performed using "REVMAN 5.0.22". Data were pooled and rate differences as well as weighted mean differences with their 95% confidence intervals were calculated using either fixed or random effects models, depending on heterogeneity (I(2)). MAIN RESULTS: 4 RCTs were included and analysed. Methodological quality of included studies was considered low, when scored according to GRADE methodology. Total numbers of inclusion were limited. The trials included in primary analysis reported 237 patients, (119 ERAS vs 118 conventional). Baseline characteristics were comparable. The primary outcome measure, complications, showed a significant risk reduction for all complications (RR 0.50; 95% CI 0.35 to 0.72). This difference was not due to reduction in major complications. Length of hospital stay was significantly reduced in the ERAS group (MD -2.94 days; 95% CI -3.69 to -2.19), and readmission rates were equal in both groups. Other outcome parameters were unsuitable for meta-analysis, but seemed to favour ERAS. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The quantity and especially quality of data are low. Analysis shows a reduction in overall complications, but major complications were not reduced. Length of stay was reduced significantly. We state that ERAS seems safe, but the quality of trials and lack of sufficient other outcome parameters do not justify implementation of ERAS as the standard of care. Within ERAS protocols included, no answer regarding the role for minimally invasive surgery (i.e. laparoscopy) was found. Furthermore, protocol compliance within ERAS programs has not been investigated, while this seems a known problem in the field. Therefore, more specific and large RCT's are needed.

Open, small-incision, or laparoscopic cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis. An overview of Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group reviews.

BACKGROUND: Patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis are treated by three different techniques of cholecystectomy: open, small-incision, or laparoscopic. There is no overview on Cochrane systematic reviews on these three interventions. OBJECTIVES: To summarise Cochrane reviews that assess the effects of different techniques of cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis. METHODS: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) was searched for all systematic reviews evaluating any interventions for the treatment of symptomatic cholecystolithiasis (Issue 4 2008). MAIN RESULTS: Three systematic reviews that included a total of 56 randomised trials with 5246 patients are included in this overview of reviews. All three reviews used identical inclusion criteria for trials and participants, and identical methodological assessments.Laparoscopic versus small-incision cholecystectomy Thirteen trials with 2337 patients randomised studied this comparison. Bias risk was relatively low. There was no significant difference regarding mortality or complications. Total complications of laparoscopic and small-incision cholecystectomy were high, ie, 17.0% and 17.5%. Total complications (risk difference, random-effects model -0.01 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.07 to 0.05)), hospital stay (mean difference (MD), random-effects -0.72 days (95% CI -1.48 to 0.04)), and convalescence were not significantly different. Trials with low risk of bias showed a quicker operative time for small-incision cholecystectomy (MD, low risk of bias considering 'blinding', random-effects model 16.4 minutes (95% CI 8.9 to 23.8)) while trials with high risk of bias showed no statistically significant difference.Laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy Thirty-eight trials with 2338 patients randomised studied this comparison. Bias risk was high. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy patients had a shorter hospital stay (MD, random-effects model -3 days (95% CI -3.9 to -2.3)) and convalescence (MD, random-effects model -22.5 days (95% CI -36.9 to -8.1)) compared with open cholecystectomy but did not differ significantly regarding mortality, complications, and operative time.Small-incision versus open cholecystectomy Seven trials with 571 patients randomised studied this comparison. Bias risk was high. Small-incision cholecystectomy had a shorter hospital stay (MD, random-effects model -2.8 days (95% CI -4.9 to -0.6)) compared with open cholecystectomy but did not differ significantly regarding complications and operative time. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No statistically significant differences in the outcome measures of mortality and complications have been found among open, small-incision, and laparoscopic cholecystectomy. There were no data on symptom relief. Complications in elective cholecystectomy are high. The quicker recovery of both laparoscopic and small-incision cholecystectomy patients compared with patients on open cholecystectomy justifies the existing preferences for both minimal invasive techniques over open cholecystectomy. Laparoscopic and small-incision cholecystectomies seem to be comparable, but the latter has a significantly shorter operative time, and seems to be less costly.