Myura Nagendran

Virtual reality training for surgical trainees in laparoscopic surgery

BACKGROUNDnStandard surgical training has traditionally been one of apprenticeship, where the surgical trainee learns to perform surgery under the supervision of a trained surgeon. This is time-consuming, costly, and of variable effectiveness. Training using a virtual reality simulator is an option to supplement standard training. Virtual reality training improves the technical skills of surgical trainees such as decreased time for suturing and improved accuracy. The clinical impact of virtual reality training is not known.nnnOBJECTIVESnTo assess the benefits (increased surgical proficiency and improved patient outcomes) and harms (potentially worse patient outcomes) of supplementary virtual reality training of surgical trainees with limited laparoscopic experience.nnnSEARCH METHODSnWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Science Citation Index Expanded until July 2012.nnnSELECTION CRITERIAnWe included all randomised clinical trials comparing virtual reality training versus other forms of training including box-trainer training, no training, or standard laparoscopic training in surgical trainees with little laparoscopic experience. We also planned to include trials comparing different methods of virtual reality training. We included only trials that assessed the outcomes in people undergoing laparoscopic surgery.nnnDATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSISnTwo authors independently identified trials and collected data. We analysed the data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects models using Review Manager 5 analysis. For each outcome we calculated the mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals based on intention-to-treat analysis.nnnMAIN RESULTSnWe included eight trials covering 109 surgical trainees with limited laparoscopic experience. Of the eight trials, six compared virtual reality versus no supplementary training. One trial compared virtual reality training versus box-trainer training and versus no supplementary training, and one trial compared virtual reality training versus box-trainer training. There were no trials that compared different forms of virtual reality training. All the trials were at high risk of bias. Operating time and operative performance were the only outcomes reported in the trials. The remaining outcomes such as mortality, morbidity, quality of life (the primary outcomes of this review) and hospital stay (a secondary outcome) were not reported. Virtual reality training versus no supplementary training: The operating time was significantly shorter in the virtual reality group than in the no supplementary training group (3 trials; 49 participants; MD -11.76 minutes; 95% CI -15.23 to -8.30). Two trials that could not be included in the meta-analysis also showed a reduction in operating time (statistically significant in one trial). The numerical values for operating time were not reported in these two trials. The operative performance was significantly better in the virtual reality group than the no supplementary training group using the fixed-effect model (2 trials; 33 participants; SMD 1.65; 95% CI 0.72 to 2.58). The results became non-significant when the random-effects model was used (2 trials; 33 participants; SMD 2.14; 95% CI -1.29 to 5.57). One trial could not be included in the meta-analysis as it did not report the numerical values. The authors stated that the operative performance of virtual reality group was significantly better than the control group. Virtual reality training versus box-trainer training: The only trial that reported operating time did not report the numerical values. In this trial, the operating time in the virtual reality group was significantly shorter than in the box-trainer group. Of the two trials that reported operative performance, only one trial reported the numerical values. The operative performance was significantly better in the virtual reality group than in the box-trainer group (1 trial; 19 participants; SMD 1.46; 95% CI 0.42 to 2.50). In the other trial that did not report the numerical values, the authors stated that the operative performance in the virtual reality group was significantly better than the box-trainer group.nnnAUTHORS CONCLUSIONSnVirtual reality training appears to decrease the operating time and improve the operative performance of surgical trainees with limited laparoscopic experience when compared with no training or with box-trainer training. However, the impact of this decreased operating time and improvement in operative performance on patients and healthcare funders in terms of improved outcomes or decreased costs is not known. Further well-designed trials at low risk of bias and random errors are necessary. Such trials should assess the impact of virtual reality training on clinical outcomes.

Laparoscopic surgical box model training for surgical trainees with no prior laparoscopic experience

BACKGROUNDnSurgical training has traditionally been one of apprenticeship, where the surgical trainee learns to perform surgery under the supervision of a trained surgeon. This is time consuming, costly, and of variable effectiveness. Training using a box model physical simulator - either a video box or a mirrored box - is an option to supplement standard training. However, the impact of this modality on trainees with no prior laparoscopic experience is unknown.nnnOBJECTIVESnTo compare the benefits and harms of box model training versus no training, another box model, animal model, or cadaveric model training for surgical trainees with no prior laparoscopic experience.nnnSEARCH METHODSnWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded to May 2013.nnnSELECTION CRITERIAnWe included all randomised clinical trials comparing box model trainers versus no training in surgical trainees with no prior laparoscopic experience. We also included trials comparing different methods of box model training.nnnDATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSISnTwo authors independently identified trials and collected data. We analysed the data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects models using Review Manager for analysis. For each outcome, we calculated the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on intention-to-treat analysis whenever possible.nnnMAIN RESULTSnTwenty-five trials contributed data to the quantitative synthesis in this review. All but one trial were at high risk of bias. Overall, 16 trials (464 participants) provided data for meta-analysis of box training (248 participants) versus no supplementary training (216 participants). All the 16 trials in this comparison used video trainers. Overall, 14 trials (382 participants) provided data for quantitative comparison of different methods of box training. There were no trials comparing box model training versus animal model or cadaveric model training. Box model training versus no training: The meta-analysis showed that the time taken for task completion was significantly shorter in the box trainer group than the control group (8 trials; 249 participants; SMD -0.48 seconds; 95% CI -0.74 to -0.22). Compared with the control group, the box trainer group also had lower error score (3 trials; 69 participants; SMD -0.69; 95% CI -1.21 to -0.17), better accuracy score (3 trials; 73 participants; SMD 0.67; 95% CI 0.18 to 1.17), and better composite performance scores (SMD 0.65; 95% CI 0.42 to 0.88). Three trials reported movement distance but could not be meta-analysed as they were not in a format for meta-analysis. There was significantly lower movement distance in the box model training compared with no training in one trial, and there were no significant differences in the movement distance between the two groups in the other two trials. None of the remaining secondary outcomes such as mortality and morbidity were reported in the trials when animal models were used for assessment of training, error in movements, and trainee satisfaction. Different methods of box training: One trial (36 participants) found significantly shorter time taken to complete the task when box training was performed using a simple cardboard box trainer compared with the standard pelvic trainer (SMD -3.79 seconds; 95% CI -4.92 to -2.65). There was no significant difference in the time taken to complete the task in the remaining three comparisons (reverse alignment versus forward alignment box training; box trainer suturing versus box trainer drills; and single incision versus multiport box model training). There were no significant differences in the error score between the two groups in any of the comparisons (box trainer suturing versus box trainer drills; single incision versus multiport box model training; Z-maze box training versus U-maze box training). The only trial that reported accuracy score found significantly higher accuracy score with Z-maze box training than U-maze box training (1 trial; 16 participants; SMD 1.55; 95% CI 0.39 to 2.71). One trial (36 participants) found significantly higher composite score with simple cardboard box trainer compared with conventional pelvic trainer (SMD 0.87; 95% CI 0.19 to 1.56). Another trial (22 participants) found significantly higher composite score with reverse alignment compared with forward alignment box training (SMD 1.82; 95% CI 0.79 to 2.84). There were no significant differences in the composite score between the intervention and control groups in any of the remaining comparisons. None of the secondary outcomes were adequately reported in the trials.nnnAUTHORS CONCLUSIONSnThe results of this review are threatened by both risks of systematic errors (bias) and risks of random errors (play of chance). Laparoscopic box model training appears to improve technical skills compared with no training in trainees with no previous laparoscopic experience. The impacts of this decreased time on patients and healthcare funders in terms of improved outcomes or decreased costs are unknown. There appears to be no significant differences in the improvement of technical skills between different methods of box model training. Further well-designed trials of low risk of bias and random errors are necessary. Such trials should assess the impacts of box model training on surgical skills in both the short and long term, as well as clinical outcomes when the trainee becomes competent to operate on patients.

Methods of preventing bacterial sepsis and wound complications after liver transplantation

BACKGROUNDnBacterial sepsis and wound complications after liver transplantation increase mortality, morbidity, or hospital stay and are likely to increase overall transplant costs. All liver transplantation patients receive antibiotic prophylaxis. This is an update of our 2008 Cochrane systematic review on the same topic in which we identified seven randomised clinical trials.nnnOBJECTIVESnTo assess the benefits and harms of different methods aimed at preventing bacterial sepsis and wound complications in people undergoing liver transplantation.nnnSEARCH METHODSnWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded to February 2013.nnnSELECTION CRITERIAnWe included only randomised clinical trials irrespective of language or publication status. We excluded quasi-randomised and other observational studies for assessment of benefits, but not for harms.nnnDATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSISnTwo review authors collected the data independently. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using fixed-effect and the random-effects models based on available-case analysis.nnnMAIN RESULTSnWe identified only seven trials for inclusion, including 614 participants. Only one trial was of low risk of bias risk. Overall, the quality of evidence was very low. There were five comparisons in the seven trials: selective bowel decontamination versus inactive control; selective bowel decontamination versus prebiotics with probiotics; selective bowel decontamination versus prebiotics; prebiotics with probiotics versus prebiotics; and granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) versus control. Four trials compared selective bowel decontamination versus placebo or no treatment. In one trial, participants were randomised to selective bowel decontamination, active lactobacillus with fibres (probiotic with prebiotic), or to inactivated lactobacillus with fibres (prebiotic). In one trial, active lactobacillus with fibres (probiotic with prebiotic) was compared with inactive lactobacillus with fibres (prebiotic). In the remaining trial, different doses of G-CSF and placebo were compared. There was no trial comparing different antibiotic prophylactic regimens in people undergoing liver transplantation. Most trials included adults undergoing elective liver transplantation. There was no significant difference in proportion of people who died or required retransplantation between the intervention and control groups in any of the five comparison groups. MORTALITY There were no differences between 190 participants (three trials); 5/87 (adjusted proportion: 6.2%) in selective bowel decontamination group versus 7/103 (6.8%) in inactive control group; RR 0.91 (95% CI 0.31 to 2.72); 63 participants (one trial); 0/32 (0%) in selective bowel decontamination group versus 0/31 (0%) in prebiotics with probiotics group; RR - not estimable; 64 participants (one trial); 0/32 (0%) in selective bowel decontamination group versus 0/32 (0%) in prebiotics group; RR - not estimable; 129 participants (two trials); 0/64 (0%) in prebiotics with probiotics group versus 0/65 (0%) in prebiotics group; RR - not estimable; and 194 participants (one trial); 22/124 (17.7%) in G-CSF group versus 10/70 (14.3%) in placebo group; RR 1.24 (95% 0.62 to 2.47). RETRANSPLANTATION There were no differences between 132 participants (two trials); 4/58 (adjusted proportion: 6.9%) in selective bowel decontamination group versus 6/74 (8.1%) in inactive control group; RR 0.85 (95% CI 0.26 to 2.85); 63 participants (one trial); 1/32 (3.1%) in selective bowel decontamination group versus 0/31 (0%) in prebiotics with probiotics group; RR 2.91 (0.12 to 68.81); 64 participants (one trial); 1/32 (3.1%) in selective bowel decontamination group versus 0/32 (0%) in prebiotics group; RR 3.00 (95% CI 0.13 to 71.00); 129 participants (two trials); 0/64 (0%) in prebiotics with probiotics group versus 1/65 (1.5%) in prebiotics group; RR 0.33 (95% CI 0.01 to 7.9); and 194 participants (one trial); 10/124 (7.1%) in G-CSF group versus 5/70 (7.1%) in placebo group; RR 1.13 (95% CI 0.4 to 3.17).There was no significant difference in the graft rejections, intensive therapy unit stay, or hospital stay between the intervention and control groups in any of the comparisons. Overall, 193/611 participants (31.6%) developed infective complications. The proportion of people who developed infective complications and the number of infective complication episodes were significantly higher in the selective bowel decontamination group than in the prebiotics with probiotics group (1 study; 63 participants; 15/32 (46.9%) in selective bowel decontamination group versus 4/31 (12.9%) in prebiotics with probiotics group; RR 3.63; 95% CI 1.36 to 9.74 and 23/32 participants (0.72 infective complications per participant) in selective bowel decontamination group versus 4/31 participants (0.13 infective complications per participant) in prebiotics with probiotics group; rate ratio 5.58; 95% CI 1.94 to 16.09). There was no significant difference between the proportion of participants who developed infection and the number of infection episodes between the intervention group and control group in any of the other comparisons.No trials reported quality of life and overall serious adverse events.nnnAUTHORS CONCLUSIONSnCurrently, there is no clear evidence for any intervention offering significant benefits in the reduction of bacterial infections and wound complications in liver transplantation. Selective bowel decontamination may even increase the rate of infections compared with prebiotics with probiotics. The confidence intervals were wide and further randomised clinical trials of low risk of bias are necessary.

Wound infiltration with local anaesthetic agents for laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUNDnWhile laparoscopic cholecystectomy is generally considered to be less painful than open surgery, pain is one of the important reasons for delayed discharge after day surgery resulting in overnight stay following laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The safety and effectiveness of local anaesthetic wound infiltration in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy is not known.nnnOBJECTIVESnTo assess the benefits and harms of local anaesthetic wound infiltration in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy and to identify the best method of local anaesthetic wound infiltration with regards to the type of local anaesthetic, dosage, and time of administration of the local anaesthetic.nnnSEARCH METHODSnWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until February 2013 to identify studies of relevance to this review. We included randomised clinical trials for benefit and quasi-randomised and comparative non-randomised studies for treatment-related harms.nnnSELECTION CRITERIAnOnly randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) comparing local anaesthetic wound infiltration versus placebo, no intervention, or inactive control during laparoscopic cholecystectomy, trials comparing different local anaesthetic agents for local anaesthetic wound infiltration, and trials comparing the different times of local anaesthetic wound infiltration were considered for the review.nnnDATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSISnTwo review authors collected the data independently. We analysed the data with both fixed-effect and random-effects meta-analysis models using RevMan. For each outcome, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI).nnnMAIN RESULTSnTwenty-six trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria of the review. All the 26 trials except one trial of 30 participants were at high risk of bias. Nineteen of the trials with 1263 randomised participants provided data for this review. Ten of the 19 trials compared local anaesthetic wound infiltration versus inactive control. One of the 19 trials compared local anaesthetic wound infiltration with two inactive controls, normal saline and no intervention. Two of the 19 trials had four arms comparing local anaesthetic wound infiltration with inactive controls in the presence and absence of co-interventions to decrease pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Four of the 19 trials had three or more arms that could be included for the comparison of local anaesthetic wound infiltration versus inactive control and different methods of local anaesthetic wound infiltration. The remaining two trials compared different methods of local anaesthetic wound infiltration.Most trials included only low anaesthetic risk people undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Seventeen trials randomised a total of 1095 participants to local anaesthetic wound infiltration (587 participants) versus no local anaesthetic wound infiltration (508 participants). Various anaesthetic agents were used but bupivacaine was the commonest local anaesthetic used. There was no mortality in either group in the seven trials that reported mortality (0/280 (0%) in local anaesthetic infiltration group versus 0/259 (0%) in control group). The effect of local anaesthetic on the proportion of people who developed serious adverse events was imprecise and compatible with increase or no difference in serious adverse events (seven trials; 539 participants; 2/280 (0.8%) in local anaesthetic group versus 1/259 (0.4%) in control; RR 2.00; 95% CI 0.19 to 21.59; very low quality evidence). None of the serious adverse events were related to local anaesthetic wound infiltration. None of the trials reported patient quality of life. The proportion of participants who were discharged as day surgery patients was higher in the local anaesthetic infiltration group than in the no local anaesthetic infiltration group (one trial; 97 participants; 33/50 (66.0%) in the local anaesthetic group versus 20/47 (42.6%) in the control group; RR 1.55; 95% CI 1.05 to 2.28; very low quality evidence). The effect of local anaesthetic on the length of hospital stay was compatible with a decrease, increase, or no difference in the length of hospital stay between the two groups (four trials; 327 participants; MD -0.26 days; 95% CI -0.67 to 0.16; very low quality evidence). The pain scores as measured by the visual analogue scale (0 to 10 cm) were lower in the local anaesthetic infiltration group than the control group at 4 to 8 hours (13 trials; 806 participants; MD -1.33 cm on the VAS; 95% CI -1.54 to -1.12; very low quality evidence) and 9 to 24 hours (12 trials; 756 participants; MD -0.36 cm on the VAS; 95% CI -0.53 to -0.20; very low quality evidence). The effect of local anaesthetic on the time taken to return to normal activity between the two groups was imprecise and compatible with a decrease, increase, or no difference in the time taken to return to normal activity (two trials; 195 participants; MD 0.14 days; 95% CI -0.59 to 0.87; very low quality evidence). None of the trials reported on return to work.Four trials randomised a total of 149 participants to local anaesthetic wound infiltration prior to skin incision (74 participants) versus local anaesthetic wound infiltration at the end of surgery (75 participants). Two trials randomised a total of 176 participants to four different local anaesthetics (bupivacaine, levobupivacaine, ropivacaine, neosaxitoxin). Although there were differences between the groups in some outcomes the changes were not consistent. There was no evidence to support the preference of one local anaesthetic over another or to prefer administration of local anaesthetic at a specific time compared with another.nnnAUTHORS CONCLUSIONSnSerious adverse events were rare in studies evaluating local anaesthetic wound infiltration (very low quality evidence). There is very low quality evidence that infiltration reduces pain in low anaesthetic risk people undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. However, the clinical importance of this reduction in pain is likely to be small. Further randomised clinical trials at low risk of systematic and random errors are necessary. Such trials should include important clinical outcomes such as quality of life and time to return to work in their assessment.

Early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute gallstone pancreatitis

BACKGROUNDnGallstones and alcohol account for more than 80% of acute pancreatitis. Cholecystectomy is the definitive treatment for gallstones. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the preferred route for performing cholecystectomy. The timing of laparoscopic cholecystectomy after an attack of acute biliary pancreatitis is controversial.nnnOBJECTIVESnTo compare the benefits and harms of early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy in people with acute biliary pancreatitis. For mild acute pancreatitis, we considered early laparoscopic cholecystectomy to be laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed within three days of onset of symptoms. We considered all laparoscopic cholecystectomies performed beyond three days of onset of symptoms as delayed. For severe acute pancreatitis, we considered early laparoscopic cholecystectomy as laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed within the index admission. We considered all laparoscopic cholecystectomies performed in a later admission as delayed.nnnSEARCH METHODSnWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Libraryxa02012, issue 12), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and trial registers until January 2013.nnnSELECTION CRITERIAnWe included randomised controlled trials, irrespective of language or publication status, comparing early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for people with acute biliary pancreatitis.nnnDATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSISnTwo authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and independently extracted data. We planned to analyse data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects models using Review Manager 5 (RevMan 2011). We calculated the risk ratio (RR), or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on an intention-to-treat analysis.nnnMAIN RESULTSnWe identified one trial comparing early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for people with mild acute pancreatitis. Fifty participants with mild acute gallstone pancreatitis were randomised either to early laparoscopic cholecystectomy (within 48 hours of admission irrespective of whether the abdominal symptoms were resolved or the laboratory values had returned to normal) (n = 25), or to delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy (surgery after resolution of abdominal pain and after the laboratory values had returned to normal) (n = 25). This trial is at high risk of bias. There was no short-term mortality in either group. There was no significant difference between the groups in the proportion of participants who developed serious adverse events (RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.01 to 7.81). Health-related quality of life was not reported in this trial. There were no conversions to open cholecystectomy in either group. The total hospital stay was significantly shorter in the early laparoscopic cholecystectomy group than in the delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy group (MD -2.30 days; 95% CI -4.40 to -0.20). This trial reported neither the number of work-days lost nor the costs. We did not identify any trials comparing early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy after severe acute pancreatitis.nnnAUTHORS CONCLUSIONSnThere is no evidence of increased risk of complications after early laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Early laparoscopic cholecystectomy may shorten the total hospital stay in people with mild acute pancreatitis. If appropriate facilities and expertise are available, early laparoscopic cholecystectomy appears preferable to delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy in those with mild acute pancreatitis. There is currently no evidence to support or refute early laparoscopic cholecystectomy for people with severe acute pancreatitis. Further randomised controlled trials at low risk of bias are necessary in people with mild acute pancreatitis and severe acute pancreatitis.

Iron therapy in anaemic adults without chronic kidney disease

BACKGROUNDnAnaemia affects about a quarter of the worlds population. An estimated 50% of anaemic people have anaemia due to iron deficiency.nnnOBJECTIVESnTo assess the safety and efficacy of iron therapies for the treatment of adults with anaemia who are not pregnant or lactating and do not have chronic kidney disease.nnnSEARCH METHODSnWe ran the search on 11 July 2013. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, EMBASE (Ovid SP), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) Plus (EBSCO Host), the Institute for Scientific Information Web of Science (ISI WOS) Scientific Citation Index (SCI)-EXPANDED (1970) and Conference Proceedings Citation Index (CPCI)-Science (1990) and Clinicaltrials.gov; we also screened reference lists. An updated search was run on 24 November 2014 but the results have not yet been incorporated into the review.nnnSELECTION CRITERIAnTwo review authors independently selected references for further assessment by going through all titles and abstracts. Further selection was based on review of full-text articles for selected references.nnnDATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSISnTwo review authors independently extracted study data. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for binary outcomes and the mean difference (MD) or the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes. We performed meta-analysis when possible, when I(2) was less than or equal to 80% using a fixed-effect or random-effects model, using Review Manager software. The range of point estimates for individual studies is presented when I(2) > 80%.nnnMAIN RESULTSnWe included in this systematic review 4745 participants who were randomly assigned in 21 trials. Trials were conducted in a wide variety of clinical settings. Most trials included participants with mild to moderate anaemia and excluded participants who were allergic to iron therapy. All trials were at high risk of bias for one or more domains. We compared both oral iron and parenteral iron versus inactive controls and compared different iron preparations.The comparison between oral iron and inactive control revealed no evidence of clinical benefit in terms of mortality (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.61; four studies, N = 659; very low-quality evidence). The point estimate of the mean difference in haemoglobin levels in individual studies ranged from 0.3 to 3.1 g/dL higher in the oral iron group than in the inactive control group. The proportion of participants who required blood transfusion was lower with oral iron than with inactive control (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.99; three studies, N = 546; very low-quality evidence). Evidence was inadequate for determination of the effect of parenteral iron on mortality versus oral iron (RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.56 to 3.94; 10 studies, N = 2141; very low-quality evidence) or inactive control (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.69; six studies, N = 1009; very low-quality evidence). Haemoglobin levels were higher with parenteral iron than with oral iron (MD -0.50 g/dL, 95% CI -0.73 to -0.27; six studies, N = 769; very low-quality evidence). The point estimate of the mean difference in haemoglobin levels in individual studies ranged between 0.3 and 3.0 g/dL higher in the parenteral iron group than in the inactive control group. Differences in the proportion of participants requiring blood transfusion between parenteral iron and oral iron groups (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.58; two studies, N = 371; very low-quality evidence) or between parenteral iron groups and inactive controls (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.06; eight studies, N = 1315; very low-quality evidence) were imprecise. Average blood volume transfused was less in the parenteral iron group than in the oral iron group (MD -0.54 units, 95% CI -0.96 to -0.12; very low-quality evidence) based on one study involving 44 people. Differences between therapies in quality of life or in the proportion of participants with serious adverse events were imprecise (very low-quality evidence). No trials reported severe allergic reactions due to parenteral iron, suggesting that these are rare. Adverse effects related to oral iron treatment included nausea, diarrhoea and constipation; most were mild.Comparisons of one iron preparation over another for mortality, haemoglobin or serious adverse events were imprecise. No information was available on quality of life. Thus, little evidence was found to support the use of one preparation or regimen over another.Subgroup analyses did not reveal consistent results; therefore we were unable to determine whether iron is useful in specific clinical situations, or whether iron therapy might be useful for people who are receiving erythropoietin.nnnAUTHORS CONCLUSIONSn• Very low-quality evidence suggests that oral iron might decrease the proportion of people who require blood transfusion, and no evidence indicates that it decreases mortality. Oral iron might be useful in adults who can tolerate the adverse events, which are usually mild.• Very low-quality evidence suggests that intravenous iron results in a modest increase in haemoglobin levels compared with oral iron or inactive control without clinical benefit.• No evidence can be found to show any advantage of one iron preparation or regimen over another.• Additional randomised controlled trials with low risk of bias and powered to measure clinically useful outcomes such as mortality, quality of life and blood transfusion requirements are needed.

Intraperitoneal local anaesthetic instillation versus no intraperitoneal local anaesthetic instillation for laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUNDnWhile laparoscopic cholecystectomy is generally considered less painful than open surgery, pain is one of the important reasons for delayed discharge after day surgery and overnight stay laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The safety and effectiveness of intraperitoneal local anaesthetic instillation in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy is unknown.nnnOBJECTIVESnTo assess the benefits and harms of intraperitoneal instillation of local anaesthetic agents in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.nnnSEARCH METHODSnWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded to March 2013 to identify randomised clinical trials of relevance to this review.nnnSELECTION CRITERIAnWe considered only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) comparing local anaesthetic intraperitoneal instillation versus placebo, no intervention, or inactive control during laparoscopic cholecystectomy for the review with regards to benefits while we considered quasi-randomised studies and non-randomised studies for treatment-related harms.nnnDATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSISnTwo review authors collected the data independently. We analysed the data with both fixed-effect and random-effects models using Review Manager 5 analysis. For each outcome, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).nnnMAIN RESULTSnWe included 58 trials, of which 48 trials with 2849 participants randomised to intraperitoneal local anaesthetic instillation (1558 participants) versus control (1291 participants) contributed data to one or more of the outcomes. All the trials except one trial with 30 participants were at high risk of bias. Most trials included only low anaesthetic risk people undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Various intraperitoneal local anaesthetic agents were used but bupivacaine in the liquid form was the most common local anaesthetic used. There were considerable differences in the methods of local anaesthetic instillation including the location (subdiaphragmatic, gallbladder bed, or both locations) and timing (before or after the removal of gallbladder) between the trials. There was no mortality in either group in the eight trials that reported mortality (0/236 (0%) in local anaesthetic instillation versus 0/210 (0%) in control group; very low quality evidence). One participant experienced the outcome of serious morbidity (eight trials; 446 participants; 1/236 (0.4%) in local anaesthetic instillation group versus 0/210 (0%) in the control group; RR 3.00; 95% CI 0.13 to 67.06; very low quality evidence). Although the remaining trials did not report the overall morbidity, three trials (190 participants) reported that there were no intra-operative complications. Twenty trials reported that there were no serious adverse events in any of the 715 participants who received local anaesthetic instillation. None of the trials reported participant quality of life, return to normal activity, or return to work.The effect of local anaesthetic instillation on the proportion of participants discharged as day surgery between the two groups was imprecise and compatible with benefit and no difference of intervention (three trials; 242 participants; 89/160 (adjusted proportion 61.0%) in local anaesthetic instillation group versus 40/82 (48.8%) in control group; RR 1.25; 95% CI 0.99 to 1.58; very low quality evidence). The MD in length of hospital stay was 0.04 days (95% CI -0.23 to 0.32; five trials; 335 participants; low quality evidence). The pain scores as measured by the visual analogue scale (VAS) were significantly lower in the local anaesthetic instillation group than the control group at four to eight hours (32 trials; 2020 participants; MD -0.99 cm; 95% CI -1.10 to -0.88 on a VAS scale of 0 to 10 cm; very low quality evidence) and at nine to 24 hours (29 trials; 1787 participants; MD -0.53 cm; 95% CI -0.62 to -0.44; very low quality evidence). Various subgroup analyses and meta-regressions to investigate the influence of the different local anaesthetic agents, different methods of local anaesthetic instillation, and different controls on the effectiveness of local anaesthetic intraperitoneal instillation were inconsistent.nnnAUTHORS CONCLUSIONSnSerious adverse events were rare in studies evaluating local anaesthetic intraperitoneal instillation (very low quality evidence). There is very low quality evidence that it reduces pain in low anaesthetic risk people undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. However, the clinical importance of this reduction in pain is unknown and likely to be small. Further randomised clinical trials of low risk of systematic and random errors are necessary. Such trials should include important clinical outcomes such as quality of life and time to return to work in their assessment.

Anaesthetic regimens for day‐procedure laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUNDnDay surgery involves admission of selected patients to hospital for a planned surgical procedure with the patients returning home on the same day. An anaesthetic regimen usually involves a combination of an anxiolytic, an induction agent, a maintenance agent, a method of maintaining the airway (laryngeal mask versus endotracheal intubation), and a muscle relaxant. The effect of anaesthesia may continue after the completion of surgery and can delay discharge. Various regimens of anaesthesia have been suggested for day-procedure laparoscopic cholecystectomy.nnnOBJECTIVESnTo compare the benefits and harms of different anaesthetic regimens (risks of mortality and morbidity, measures of recovery after surgery) in patients undergoing day-procedure laparoscopic cholecystectomy.nnnSEARCH METHODSnWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library (Issue 10, 2013), MEDLINE (PubMed) (1987 to November 2013), EMBASE (OvidSP) (1987 to November 2013), Science Citation Index Expanded (ISI Web of Knowledge) (1987 to November 2013), LILACS (Virtual Health Library) (1987 to November 2013), metaRegister of Controlled Trials (http://www.controlled-trials.com/mrct/) (November 2013), World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) portal (November 2013), and ClinicalTrials.gov (November 2013).nnnSELECTION CRITERIAnWe included randomized clinical trials comparing different anaesthetic regimens during elective day-procedure laparoscopic cholecystectomy (irrespective of language or publication status).nnnDATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSISnTwo authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and independently extracted the data. We calculated the risk ratio, rate ratio or mean difference with 95% confidence intervals based on intention-to-treat or available data analysis.nnnMAIN RESULTSnWe included 11 trials involving 1069 participants at low anaesthetic risk. The sample size varied from 40 to 300 participants. We included 23 comparisons. All trials were at a high risk of bias. We were unable to perform a meta-analysis because there were no two trials involving the same comparison. Primary outcomes included perioperative mortality, serious morbidity and proportion of patients who were discharged on the same day. There were no perioperative deaths or serious adverse events in either group in the only trial that reported this information (0/60). There was no clear evidence of a difference in the proportion of patients who were discharged on the same day between any of the comparisons. Overall, 472/554 patients (85%) included in this review were discharged as day-procedure laparoscopic cholecystectomy patients. Secondary outcomes included hospital readmissions, health-related quality of life, pain, return to activity and return to work. There was no clear evidence of a difference in hospital readmissions within 30 days in the only comparison in which this outcome was reported. One readmission was reported in the 60 patients (2%) in whom this outcome was assessed. Quality of life was not reported in any of the trials. There was no clear evidence of a difference in the pain intensity, measured by a visual analogue scale, between comparators in the only trial which reported the pain intensity at between four and eight hours after surgery. Times to return to activity and return to work were not reported in any of the trials.nnnAUTHORS CONCLUSIONSnThere is currently insufficient evidence to conclude that one anaesthetic regimen for day-procedure laparoscopic cholecystectomy is to be preferred over another. However, the data are sparse (that is, there were few trials under each comparison and the trials had few participants) and further well designed randomized trials at low risk of bias and which are powered to measure differences in clinically important outcomes are necessary to determine the optimal anaesthetic regimen for day-procedure laparoscopic cholecystectomy, one of the commonest procedures performed in the western world.

Methods of intraperitoneal local anaesthetic instillation for laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUNDnIntraperitoneal local anaesthetic instillation may decrease pain in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. However, the optimal method to administer the local anaesthetic is unknown.nnnOBJECTIVESnTo determine the optimal local anaesthetic agent, the optimal timing, and the optimal delivery method of the local anaesthetic agent used for intraperitoneal instillation in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.nnnSEARCH METHODSnWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform portal (WHO ICTRP) to March 2013 to identify randomised clinical trials for assessment of benefit and comparative non-randomised studies for the assessment of treatment-related harms.nnnSELECTION CRITERIAnWe considered only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) comparing different methods of local anaesthetic intraperitoneal instillation during laparoscopic cholecystectomy for the review.nnnDATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSISnTwo review authors collected the data independently. We analysed the data with both fixed-effect and random-effects models using Review Manager 5 analysis. For each outcome, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).nnnMAIN RESULTSnWe included 12 trials with 798 participants undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy randomised to different methods of intraperitoneal local anaesthetic instillation. All the trials were at high risk of bias. Most trials included only people with low anaesthetic risk. The comparisons included in the trials that met the eligibility criteria were the following; comparison of one local anaesthetic agent with another local anaesthetic agent (three trials); comparison of timing of delivery (six trials); comparison of different methods of delivery of the anaesthetic agent (two trials); comparison of location of the instillation of the anaesthetic agent (one trial); three trials reported mortality and morbidity.There were no mortalities or serious adverse events in either group in the following comparisons: bupivacaine (0/100 (0%)) versus lignocaine (0/106 (0%)) (one trial; 206 participants); just after creation of pneumoperitoneum (0/55 (0%)) versus end of surgery (0/55 (0%)) (two trials; 110 participants); just after creation of pneumoperitoneum (0/15 (0%)) versus after the end of surgery (0/15 (0%)) (one trial; 30 participants); end of surgery (0/15 (0%)) versus after the end of surgery (0/15 (0%)) (one trial; 30 participants).None of the trials reported quality of life, the time taken to return to normal activity, or the time taken to return to work. The differences in the proportion of people who were discharged as day-surgery and the length of hospital stay were imprecise in all the comparisons included that reported these outcomes (very low quality evidence). There were some differences in the pain scores on the visual analogue scale (1 to 10 cm) but these were neither consistent nor robust to fixed-effect versus random-effects meta-analysis or sensitivity analysis.nnnAUTHORS CONCLUSIONSnThe currently available evidence is inadequate to determine the effects of one method of local anaesthetic intraperitoneal instillation compared with any other method of local anaesthetic intraperitoneal instillation in low anaesthetic risk individuals undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Further randomised clinical trials of low risk of systematic and random errors are necessary. Such trials should include important clinical outcomes such as quality of life and time to return to work in their assessment.

Statin therapy for acute respiratory distress syndrome: an individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials

PurposeWe performed an individual patient data meta-analysis to assess the possible benefits and harms of statin therapy in adults with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and to investigate effects in specific ARDS subgroups.MethodsWe identified randomised clinical trials up to 31 October 2016 that had investigated statin therapy versus placebo in patients with ARDS. Individual patient data from each trial were compiled. Conventional two-stage meta-analyses were performed for primary and secondary outcomes, and one-stage regression models with single treatment–covariate interactions for subgroup analyses. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool.ResultsSix trials with a total of 1755 patients were included. For the primary outcomes, there was no significant effect of statin therapy on 28-day mortality [relative risk (RR) 1.03, 95% CI 0.86–1.23], ventilator-free days (mean difference 0.34xa0days, 95% CI −0.68 to 1.36) or serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.84–1.53). There was a significantly increased incidence of raised serum creatine kinase or transaminase levels with statin therapy (106/879; 12.1%) versus control (78/876; 8.9%) (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.07–1.83, pxa0=xa00.015). There were no significant treatment–covariate interactions in the predefined subgroups investigated.ConclusionsWe found no clinical benefit from initiation of statin therapy in adult patients with ARDS, either overall or in predefined subgroups. While there was an increased incidence of raised serum creatine kinase and transaminase levels, there was no difference in serious adverse events among groups. Therefore, we do not recommend initiation of statin therapy for the treatment of ARDS.