Appendectomy versus antibiotic treatment for acute appendicitis.

BACKGROUND: Acute appendicitis is one of the most common emergency general surgical conditions worldwide. Uncomplicated/simple appendicitis can be treated with appendectomy or antibiotics. Some studies have suggested possible benefits with antibiotics with reduced complications, length of hospital stay, and the number of days off work. However, surgery may improve success of treatment as antibiotic treatment is associated with recurrence and future need for surgery. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of antibiotic treatment for uncomplicated/simple acute appendicitis compared with appendectomy for resolution of symptoms and complications. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trial registers (World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov) on 19 July 2022. We also searched for unpublished studies in conference proceedings together with reference checking and citation search. There were no restrictions on date, publication status, or language of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) only. We included studies where most participants were adults with uncomplicated/simple appendicitis. Interventions included antibiotics (by any route) compared with appendectomy (open or laparoscopic). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodology expected by Cochrane. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. Primary outcomes included mortality and success of treatment, and secondary outcomes included number of participants requiring appendectomy in the antibiotic group, complications, pain, length of hospital stay, sick leave, malignancy in the antibiotic group, negative appendectomy rate, and quality of life. Success of treatment definitions were heterogeneous although mainly based on resolution of symptoms rather than incorporation of long-term recurrence or need for surgery in the antibiotic group. MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 studies in the review covering 1675 participants randomised to antibiotics and 1683 participants randomised to appendectomy. One study was unpublished. All were conducted in secondary care and two studies received pharmaceutical funding. All studies used broad-spectrum antibiotic regimens expected to cover gastrointestinal bacteria. Most studies used predominantly laparoscopic surgery, but some included mainly open procedures. Six studies included adults and children. Almost all studies aimed to exclude participants with complicated appendicitis prior to randomisation, although one study included 12% with perforation. The diagnostic technique was clinical assessment and imaging in most studies. Only one study limited inclusion by sex (male only). Follow-up ranged from hospital admission only to seven years. Certainty of evidence was mainly affected by risk of bias (due to lack of blinding and loss to follow-up) and imprecision. Primary outcomes It is uncertain whether there was any difference in mortality due to the very low-certainty evidence (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 4.95; 1 study, 492 participants). There may be 76 more people per 1000 having unsuccessful treatment in the antibiotic group compared with surgery, which did not reach our predefined level for clinical significance (risk ratio (RR) 0.91, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.96; I2 = 69%; 7 studies, 2471 participants; low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes At one year, 30.7% (95% CI 24.0 to 37.8; I2 = 80%; 9 studies, 1396 participants) of participants in the antibiotic group required appendectomy or, alternatively, more than two-thirds of antibiotic-treated participants avoided surgery in the first year, but the evidence is very uncertain. Regarding complications, it is uncertain whether there is any difference in episodes of Clostridium difficile diarrhoea due to very low-certainty evidence (Peto OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.24 to 3.89; 1 study, 1332 participants). There may be a clinically significant reduction in wound infections with antibiotics (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.68; I2 = 16%; 9 studies, 2606 participants; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether antibiotics affect the incidence of intra-abdominal abscess or collection (RR 1.58, 95% CI 0.61 to 4.07; I2 = 19%; 6 studies, 1831 participants), or reoperation (Peto OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.16; 1 study, 492 participants) due to very low-certainty evidence, mainly due to rare events causing imprecision and risk of bias. It is uncertain if antibiotics prolonged length of hospital stay by half a day due to the very low-certainty evidence (MD 0.54, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.01; I2 = 97%; 11 studies, 3192 participants). The incidence of malignancy was 0.3% (95% CI 0 to 1.5; 5 studies, 403 participants) in the antibiotic group although follow-up was variable. Antibiotics probably increased the number of negative appendectomies at surgery (RR 3.16, 95% CI 1.54 to 6.49; I2 = 17%; 5 studies, 707 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotics may be associated with higher rates of unsuccessful treatment for 76 per 1000 people, although differences may not be clinically significant. It is uncertain if antibiotics increase length of hospital stay by half a day. Antibiotics may reduce wound infections. A third of the participants initially treated with antibiotics required subsequent appendectomy or two-thirds avoided surgery within one year, but the evidence is very uncertain. There were too few data from the included studies to comment on major complications.

Non-opioid analgesics for the prevention of chronic postsurgical pain: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Chronic postsurgical pain is common after surgery. Identification of non-opioid analgesics with potential for preventing chronic postsurgical pain is important, although trials are often underpowered. Network meta-analysis offers an opportunity to improve power and to identify the most promising therapy for clinical use and future studies. METHODS: We conducted a PRISMA-NMA-compliant systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of non-opioid analgesics for chronic postsurgical pain. Outcomes included incidence and severity of chronic postsurgical pain, serious adverse events, and chronic opioid use. RESULTS: We included 132 randomised controlled trials with 23 902 participants. In order of efficacy, i.v. lidocaine (odds ratio [OR] 0.32; 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.17-0.58), ketamine (OR 0.64; 95% CrI 0.44-0.92), gabapentinoids (OR 0.67; 95% CrI 0.47-0.92), and possibly dexmedetomidine (OR 0.36; 95% CrI 0.12-1.00) reduced the incidence of chronic postsurgical pain at ≤6 months. There was little available evidence for chronic postsurgical pain at >6 months, combinations agents, chronic opioid use, and serious adverse events. Variable baseline risk was identified as a potential violation to the network meta-analysis transitivity assumption, so results are reported from a fixed value of this, with analgesics more effective at higher baseline risk. The confidence in these findings was low because of problems with risk of bias and imprecision. CONCLUSIONS: Lidocaine (most effective), ketamine, and gabapentinoids could be effective in reducing chronic postsurgical pain ≤6 months although confidence is low. Moreover, variable baseline risk might violate transitivity in network meta-analysis of analgesics; this recommends use of our methods in future network meta-analyses. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL: PROSPERO CRD42021269642.

Dressings and topical agents for the management of open wounds after surgical treatment for sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus.

BACKGROUND: Sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus disease is a common debilitating condition that predominantly affects young adults, with a profound impact on their activities of daily living. The condition is treated surgically, and in some cases the wound in the natal cleft is left open to heal by itself. Many dressings and topical agents are available to aid healing of these wounds. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of dressings and topical agents for the management of open wounds following surgical treatment for sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus in any care setting. SEARCH METHODS: In March 2021, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and we scanned reference lists of included studies, reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) only. We included studies with participants who had undergone any type of sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus disease surgery and were left with an open wound. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 RCTs comprising 932 participants. Two studies compared topical negative pressure wound therapy (TNPWT) with conventional open wound healing, two studies compared platelet-rich plasma with sterile absorbent gauze, and the other seven studies compared various dressings and topical agents. All studies were at high risk of bias in at least one domain, whilst one study was judged to be at low risk of bias in all but one domain. All studies were conducted in secondary care. Mean participant ages were between 20 and 30 years, and nearly 80% of participants were male. No studies provided data on quality of life, cost-effectiveness, pain at first dressing change or proportion of wounds healed at 6 or 12 months, and very few adverse effects were recorded in any study. It is unclear whether TNPWT reduces time to wound healing compared with conventional open wound healing (comparison 1), as the certainty of evidence is very low. The two studies provided conflicting results, with one study showing benefit (mean difference (MD) -24.01 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -35.65 to -12.37; 19 participants), whilst the other reported no difference. It is also unclear whether TNPWT has any effect on the proportion of wounds healed by 30 days (risk ratio (RR) 3.60, 95% CI 0.49 to 26.54; 19 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Limited data were available for our secondary outcomes time to return to normal daily activities and recurrence rate; we do not know whether TNPWT has any effect on these outcomes. Lietofix cream may increase the proportion of wounds that heal by 30 days compared with an iodine dressing (comparison 4; RR 8.06, 95% CI 1.05 to 61.68; 205 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence). The study did not provide data on time to wound healing. We do not know whether hydrogel dressings reduce time to wound healing compared with wound cleaning with 10% povidone iodine (comparison 5; MD -24.54 days, 95% CI -47.72 to -1.36; 31 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not provide data on the proportion of wounds healed. It is unclear whether hydrogel dressings have any effect on adverse effects as the certainty of the evidence is very low. Platelet-rich plasma may reduce time to wound healing compared with sterile absorbent gauze (comparison 6; MD -19.63 days, 95% CI -34.69 to -4.57; 210 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). No studies provided data on the proportion of wounds healed. Platelet-rich plasma may reduce time to return to normal daily activities (MD -15.49, 95% CI -28.95 to -2.02; 210 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). Zinc oxide mesh may make little or no difference to time to wound healing compared with placebo (comparison 2; median 54 days in the zinc oxide mesh group versus 62 days in the placebo mesh group; low-certainty evidence). We do not know whether zinc oxide mesh has an effect on the proportion of wounds healed by 30 days as the certainty of the evidence is very low (RR 2.35, 95% CI 0.49 to 11.23). It is unclear whether gentamicin-impregnated collagen sponge reduces time to wound healing compared with no dressing (comparison 7; MD -1.40 days, 95% CI -5.05 to 2.25; 50 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not provide data on the proportion of wounds healed. Dialkylcarbamoyl chloride (DACC)-coated dressings may make little or no difference to time to wound healing compared with alginate dressings (comparison 8; median 69 (95% CI 62 to 72) days in the DACC group versus 71 (95% CI 69 to 85) days in the alginate group; 1 study, 246 participants; low-certainty evidence). One study compared a polyurethane foam hydrophilic dressing with an alginate dressing (comparison 3) whilst another study compared a hydrocolloid dressing with an iodine dressing (comparison 9). It is unclear whether either intervention has any effect on time to wound healing as the certainty of evidence is very low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: At present, the evidence that any of the dressings or topical agents contained in this review have a benefit on time to wound healing, the proportion of wounds that heal at a specific time point or on any of the secondary outcomes of our review ranges from low certainty to very low certainty. There is low-certainty evidence on the benefit on wound healing of platelet-rich plasma from two studies and of Lietofix cream and hydrogel dressings from single studies. Further studies are required to investigate these interventions further.

Pre-emptive and preventive NSAIDs for postoperative pain in adults undergoing all types of surgery.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pain is a common consequence of surgery and can have many negative perioperative effects. It has been suggested that the administration of analgesia before a painful stimulus may improve pain control. We defined pre-emptive nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs) as those given before surgery but not continued afterwards and preventive NSAIDs as those given before surgery and continued afterwards. These were compared to a control group given the NSAIDs after surgery instead of before surgery. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of preventive and pre-emptive NSAIDs for reducing postoperative pain in adults undergoing all types of surgery. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED and CINAHL (up to June 2020). In addition, we searched for unpublished studies in three clinical trial databases, conference proceedings, grey literature databases, and reference lists of retrieved articles. We did not apply any restrictions on language or date of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel-group randomized controlled trials (RCTs) only. We included adult participants undergoing any type of surgery. We defined pre-emptive NSAIDs as those given before surgery but not continued afterwards and preventive NSAIDs as those given before surgery and continued afterwards. These were compared to a control group given the NSAIDs after surgery instead of before surgery. We included studies that gave the medication by any route but not given on the skin. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methods expected by Cochrane, as well as a novel publication bias test developed by our research group. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. Outcomes included acute postoperative pain (minimal clinically important difference (MCID): 1.5 on a 0-10 scale), adverse events of NSAIDs, nausea and vomiting, 24-hour morphine consumption (MCID: 10 mg reduction), time to analgesic request (MCID: one hour), pruritus, sedation, patient satisfaction, chronic pain and time to first bowel movement (MCID: 12 hours). MAIN RESULTS: We included 71 RCTs. Seven studies are awaiting classification. We included 45 studies that evaluated pre-emptive NSAIDs and 26 studies that evaluated preventive NSAIDs. We considered only four studies to be at low risk of bias for most domains. The operations and NSAIDs used varied, although most studies were conducted in abdominal, orthopaedic and dental surgery. Most studies were conducted in secondary care and in low-risk participants. Common exclusions were participants on analgesic medications prior to surgery and those with chronic pain. Pre-emptive NSAIDs compared to post-incision NSAIDs For pre-emptive NSAIDs, there is probably a decrease in early acute postoperative pain (MD -0.69, 95% CI -0.97 to -0.41; studies = 36; participants = 2032; I2 = 96%; moderate-certainty evidence). None of the included studies that reported on acute postoperative pain reported adverse events as an outcome. There may be little or no difference between the groups in short-term (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.94; studies = 2; participants = 100; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence) or long-term nausea and vomiting (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.38; studies = 5; participants = 228; I2 = 29%; low-certainty evidence). There may be a reduction in late acute postoperative pain (MD -0.22, 95% CI -0.44 to 0.00; studies = 28; participants = 1645; I2 = 97%; low-certainty evidence). There may be a reduction in 24-hour morphine consumption with pre-emptive NSAIDs (MD -5.62 mg, 95% CI -9.00 mg to -2.24 mg; studies = 16; participants = 854; I2 = 99%; low-certainty evidence) and an increase in the time to analgesic request (MD 17.04 minutes, 95% CI 3.77 minutes to 30.31 minutes; studies = 18; participants = 975; I2 = 95%; low-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in opioid adverse events such as pruritus (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.76; studies = 4; participants = 254; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence) or sedation (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.68; studies = 4; participants = 281; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence), although the number of included studies for these outcomes was small. No study reported patient satisfaction, chronic pain or time to first bowel movement for pre-emptive NSAIDs. Preventive NSAIDs compared to post-incision NSAIDs For preventive NSAIDs, there may be little or no difference in early acute postoperative pain (MD -0.14, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.12; studies = 18; participants = 1140; I2 = 75%; low-certainty evidence). One study reported adverse events from NSAIDs (reoperation for bleeding) although the events were low which did not allow any meaningful conclusions to be drawn (RR 1.95; 95% CI 0.18 to 20.68). There may be little or no difference in rates of short-term (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.49 to 3.30; studies = 1; participants = 76; low-certainty evidence) or long-term (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.38; studies = 5; participants = 456; I2 = 29%; low-certainty evidence) nausea and vomiting. There may be a reduction in late acute postoperative pain (MD -0.33, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.07; studies = 21; participants = 1441; I2 = 81%; low-certainty evidence). There is probably a reduction in 24-hour morphine consumption (MD -1.93 mg, 95% CI -3.55 mg to -0.32 mg; studies = 16; participants = 1323; I2 = 49%; moderate-certainty evidence). It is uncertain if there is any difference in time to analgesic request (MD 8.51 minutes, 95% CI -31.24 minutes to 48.27 minutes; studies = 8; participants = 410; I2 = 98%; very low-certainty evidence). As with pre-emptive NSAIDs, there may be little or no difference in other opioid adverse events such as pruritus (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.09 to 3.35; studies = 3; participants = 211; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence) and sedation (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.63; studies = 5; participants = 497; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference in patient satisfaction (MD -0.42; 95% CI -1.09 to 0.25; studies = 1; participants = 72; moderate-certainty evidence). No study reported on chronic pain. There is probably little or no difference in time to first bowel movement (MD 0.00; 95% CI -15.99 to 15.99; studies = 1; participants = 76; moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was some evidence that pre-emptive and preventive NSAIDs reduce both pain and morphine consumption, although this was not universal for all pain and morphine consumption outcomes. Any differences found were not clinically significant, although we cannot exclude this in more painful operations. Moreover, without any evidence of reductions in opioid adverse effects, the clinical significance of these results is questionable although few studies reported these outcomes. Only one study reported clinically significant adverse events from NSAIDs administered before surgery and, therefore, we have very few data to assess the safety of either pre-emptive or preventive NSAIDs. Therefore, future research should aim to adhere to the highest methodology and be adequately powered to assess serious adverse events of NSAIDs and reductions in opioid adverse events.

Prophylactic antibiotics for penetrating abdominal trauma: duration of use and antibiotic choice.

BACKGROUND: Penetrating abdominal trauma (PAT) is a common type of trauma leading to admission to hospital, which often progresses to septic complications. Antibiotics are commonly administered as prophylaxis prior to laparotomy for PAT. However, an earlier Cochrane Review intending to compare antibiotics with placebo identified no relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Despite this, many RCTs have been carried out that compare different agents and durations of antibiotic therapy. To date, no systematic review of these trials has been performed. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of antibiotics in penetrating abdominal trauma, with respect to the type of agent administered and the duration of therapy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases for relevant randomised controlled trials, from database inception to 23 July 2019; Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, MEDLINE Ovid In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, MEDLINE Ovid Daily and Ovid OLDMEDLINE, Embase Classic + Embase Ovid, ISI Web of Science (SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, CPCI-S & CPSI-SSH), and two clinical trials registers. We also searched reference lists from included studies. We applied no restrictions on language or date of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs only. We included studies involving participants of all ages, which were conducted in secondary care hospitals only. We included studies of participants who had an isolated penetrating abdominal wound that breached the peritoneum, who were not already taking antibiotics. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two study authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We used standard Cochrane methods. We aggregated study results using a random-effects model. We also conducted trial sequential analysis (TSA) to help reduce type I and II errors in our analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We included 29 RCTs, involving a total of 4458 participants. We deemed 23 trials to be at high risk of bias in at least one domain. We are uncertain of the effect of a long course of antibiotic prophylaxis (> 24 hours) compared to a short course (≤ 24 hours) on abdominal surgical site infection (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.23; I² = 0%; 7 studies, 1261 participants; very low-quality evidence), mortality (Peto OR 1.67, 95% CI 0.73 to 3.82; I² = 8%; 7 studies, 1261 participants; very low-quality evidence), or intra-abdominal infection (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.80; I² = 0%; 6 studies, 111 participants; very-low quality evidence). Based on very low-quality evidence from fifteen studies, involving 2020 participants, which compared different drug regimens with activity against three classes of gastrointestinal flora (gram positive, gram negative, anaerobic), we are uncertain whether there is a benefit of one regimen over another. TSA showed the majority of comparisons did not cross the alpha adjusted boundary for benefit or harm, or reached the required information size, indicating that further studies are required for these analyses. However, in the three analyses which crossed the boundary for futility, further studies are unlikely to show benefit or harm. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Very low-quality evidence means that we are uncertain about the effect of either the duration of antibiotic prophylaxis, or the superiority of one drug regimen over another for penetrating abdominal trauma on abdominal surgical site infection rates, mortality, or intra-abdominal infections. Future RCTs should be adequately powered, test currently used antibiotics, known to be effective against gut flora, use methodology to minimise the risk of bias, and adequately report the level of peritoneal contamination encountered at laparotomy.

Pre-emptive and preventive opioids for postoperative pain in adults undergoing all types of surgery.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pain is a common consequence of surgery and can have deleterious effects. It has been suggested that the administration of opioid analgesia before a painful stimulus may improve pain control. This can be done in two ways. We defined 'preventive opioids' as opioids administered before incision and continued postoperatively, and 'pre-emptive opioids' as opioids given before incision but not continued postoperatively. Both pre-emptive and preventive analgesia involve the initiation of an analgesic agent prior to surgical incision with the aim of reducing intraoperative nociception and therefore postoperative pain. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of preventive and pre-emptive opioids for reducing postoperative pain in adults undergoing all types of surgery. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, and CINAHL (up to 18 March 2018). In addition, we searched for unpublished studies in three clinical trial databases, conference proceedings, grey literature databases, and reference lists of retrieved articles. We did not apply any restrictions on language or date of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel-group randomized controlled trials (RCTs) only. We included participants aged over 15 years old undergoing any type of surgery. We defined postincision opioids as the same intervention administered after incision whether single dose (as comparator with pre-emptive analgesia) or continued postoperatively (as comparator with preventive analgesia) (control group). We considered studies that did and did not use a double-dummy placebo (e.g. intervention group received active drug before incision and placebo after incision; control group received placebo before incision and active drug after incision). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were: early acute postoperative pain (measured within six hours and reported on a 0-to-10 scale) and respiratory depression. Our secondary outcomes included: late acute postoperative pain (24 to 48 hours and reported on a 0-to-10 scale), 24-hour morphine consumption, and adverse events (intraoperative bradycardia and hypotension). We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included 20 RCTs, including one unpublished study with 1343 participants. Two studies were awaiting classification as the full text for these studies was not available. One study evaluated pre-emptive opioids, and 19 studies evaluated preventive opioids. We considered only one study to be at low risk of bias for most domains. The surgeries and opioids used varied, although roughly half of the included studies were conducted in abdominal hysterectomy, and around a quarter used morphine as the intervention. All studies were conducted in secondary care.Pre-emptive opioids compared to postincision opioidsFor pre-emptive opioids in dental surgery, there may be a reduction in early acute postoperative pain (mean difference (MD) -1.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.75 to -0.65; 40 participants; 1 study; low-quality evidence). This study did not report on adverse events (respiratory depression, bradycardia, or hypotension). There may be a reduction in late acute postoperative pain (MD -2.10, 95% CI -2.57 to -1.63; 40 participants; 1 study; low-quality evidence). This study did not report 24-hour morphine consumption.Preventive opioids compared to postincision opioidsFor preventive opioids, there was probably no reduction in early acute postoperative pain (MD 0.11, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.53; 706 participants; 10 studies; I2 = 61%; moderate-quality evidence). There were no events of respiratory depression in four studies (433 participants). There was no important reduction in late acute postoperative pain (MD -0.06, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.01; 668 participants; 9 studies; I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). There may be a small reduction in 24-hour morphine consumption (MD -4.91 mg, 95% CI -9.39 mg to -0.44 mg; 526 participants; 11 studies; I2 = 82%; very low-quality evidence). There may be similar rates of bradycardia (risk ratio (RR) 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.88; 112 participants; 2 studies; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence) and hypotension (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.25 to 4.73; 88 participants; 2 studies; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Due to the low quality of the evidence, we are uncertain whether pre-emptive opioids reduce postoperative pain. Based on the trials conducted thus far, there was no clear evidence that preventive opioids result in reductions in pain scores. It was unclear if there was a reduction in morphine consumption due to very low-quality of evidence. Too few studies reported adverse events to be able to draw any definitive conclusions. Once assessed, the two studies awaiting classification may alter the conclusions of the review.

Exploring the utility of bedside tests for predicting cardiorespiratory fitness in older adults.

Objectives: Cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) declines with advancing and has also, independent of age, been shown to be predictive of all-cause mortality, morbidity, and poor clinical outcomes. In relation to the older patient, there is a particular wealth of evidence highlighting the relationship between low CRF and poor surgical outcomes. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) is accepted as the gold-standard measure of CRF. However, this form of assessment has significant personnel and equipment demands and is not feasible for those with certain age-associated physical limitations, including joint and cardiovascular comorbidities. As such, alternative ways to assess the CRF of older patients are very much needed. Methods: Sixty-four participants (45% female) with a median age of 74 (65-90) years were recruited to this study via community-based advertisements. All participants completed three tests of physical function: (1) a step-box test; (2) handgrip strength dynamometry; and (3) a CPET on a cycle ergometer; and also had their muscle architecture (vastus lateralis) assessed by B-mode ultrasonography to provide measures of muscle thickness, pennation angle, and fascicle length. Multivariate linear regression was then used to ascertain bedside predictors of CPET parameters from the alternative measures of physical function and demographic (age, gender, body mass index (BMI)) data. Results: There was no significant association between ultrasound-assessed parameters of muscle architecture and measures of CRF. VO2peak was predicted to some extent from fast step time during the step-box test, gender, and BMI, leading to a model that achieved an R 2 of 0.40 (p < 0.001). Further, in aiming to develop a model with minimal assessment demands (i.e., using handgrip dynamometry rather than the step-box test), replacing fast step time with non-dominant HGS led to a model which achieved an R 2 of 0.36 (p < 0.001). Non-dominant handgrip strength combined with the step-box test parameter of fast step time and BMI delivered the most predictive model for VO2peak with an R 2 of 0.45 (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Our findings show that simple-to-ascertain patient characteristics and bedside assessments of physical function are able to predict CPET-derived CRF. Combined with gender and BMI, both handgrip strength and fast step time during a step-box test were predictive for VO2peak. Future work should apply this model to a clinical population to determine its utility in this setting and to explore if simple bedside tests are predictive of important clinical outcomes in older adults (i.e., post-surgical complications).

The false dichotomy of surgical futility in the emergency laparotomy setting: scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Futile is defined as 'the fact of having no effect or of achieving nothing'. Futility in medicine has been defined through seven guiding principles, which in the context of emergency surgery, have been relatively unexplored. This scoping review aimed to identify key concepts around surgical futility as it relates to emergency laparotomy. METHODS: Using the Arksey and O'Malley framework, a scoping review was conducted. A search of the Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, and Embase was performed up until 1 November 2021 to identify literature relevant to the topic of futility in emergency laparotomy. RESULTS: Three cohort studies were included in the analysis. A total of 105 157 patients were included, with 1114 patients reported as futile. All studies were recent (2019 to 2020) and focused on the principle of quantitative futility (assessment of the probability of death after surgery) within a timeline after surgery: two defining futility as death within 48 hours of surgery and one as death within 72 hours. In all cases this was derived from a survival histogram. Predictors of defined futile procedures included age, level of independence prior to admission, surgical pathology, serum creatinine, arterial lactate, and pH. CONCLUSION: There remains a paucity of research defining, exploring, and analysing futile surgery in patients undergoing emergency laparotomy. With limited published work focusing on quantitative futility and the binary outcome of death, research is urgently needed to explore all principles of futility, including the wishes of patients and their families.

Short-Term, Equipment-Free High Intensity Interval Training Elicits Significant Improvements in Cardiorespiratory Fitness Irrespective of Supervision in Early Adulthood.

Introduction: Serious health implications from having low levels of cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) and being overweight in young adulthood are carried forward into later life. High-intensity interval training (HIIT) is a time-effective, potent stimulus for improving CRF and indices of cardiometabolic health. To date, few studies have investigated the use of equipment-free HIIT or the impact of supervision for improving CRF via HIIT. Methods: Thirty healthy young adults (18-30 y) were randomised to 4 weeks (12 sessions) equipment-free, bodyweight based supervised laboratory HIIT (L-HIIT), unsupervised home HIIT (H-HIIT) or no-intervention (CON). Utilised exercises were star jumps, squats and standing sprints. Measurements of CRF (anaerobic threshold (AT) and VO2peak), blood pressure (BP), body mass index (BMI), blood glucose and plasma insulin by oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), and muscle architecture were performed at baseline and after the intervention. Results: When compared to the control group, both HIIT protocols improved CRF (AT: L-HIIT mean difference compared to the control group (MD) +2.1 (95% CI: 0.34-4.03) ml/kg/min; p = 0.02; H-HIIT MD +3.01 (1.17-4.85) ml/kg/min; p = 0.002), VO2peak: L-HIIT (MD +2.94 (0.64-5.25) ml/kg/min; p = 0.01; H-HIIT MD +2.55 (0.34-4.76) ml/kg/min; p = 0.03), BMI (L-HIIT MD -0.43 (-0.86 to 0.00) kg/m2; p = 0.05; H-HIIT: MD -0.51 (-0.95 to -0.07) kg/m2; p = 0.03) and m. vastus lateralis pennation angle (L-HIIT MD 0.2 (0.13-0.27)°; p < 0.001; H-HIIT MD 0.17 (0.09 to 0.24)°; p < 0.001). There was no significant change in BP, blood glucose or plasma insulin in any of the groups. Conclusions: Four weeks time-efficient, equipment-free, bodyweight-based HIIT is able to elicit improvements in CRF irrespective of supervision status. Unsupervised HIIT may be a useful tool for counteracting the rise of sedentary behaviours and consequent cardiometabolic disorders in young adults.

Creatinine and myoglobin are poor predictors of anaerobic threshold in colorectal cancer and health.

AIMS: Myoglobin is a haem protein produced in skeletal muscles. Serum concentrations of myoglobin have been proposed as a surrogate marker of muscle mass and function in both cachectic cancer patients and healthy non-cancer individuals. Creatinine, a metabolite of creatine phosphate, an energy store found in skeletal muscle, is produced at a constant rate from skeletal muscle. Urinary and plasma creatinine have been used in clinical practice as indicators of skeletal muscle mass in health and disease. Our study aimed to test the hypothesis that plasma myoglobin and creatinine concentration could accurately predict skeletal muscle mass and aerobic capacity in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients and matched healthy controls and thereby an indicative of aerobic performance. METHODS: We recruited 47 patients with CRC and matching number of healthy volunteers for this study. All participants had their body composition measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scan, aerobic capacity measured to anaerobic threshold (AT) by cardiopulmonary exercise testing and filled in objective questionnaires to assess the qualitative functions. This study was carried out in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, after approval by the local National Health Service (NHS) Research Ethics Committee. RESULTS: Age-matched groups had similar serum myoglobin and creatinine concentrations in spite of differences in their aerobic capacity. AT was significantly lower in the CRC group compared with matched controls (1.18 ± 0.44 vs. 1.41 ± 0.71 L/min; P < 0.01). AT had significant correlation with lean muscle mass (LMM) among these groups, but myoglobin and creatinine had poor correlation with LMM and AT. CONCLUSIONS: Serum myoglobin is a poor predictor of muscle mass, and serum myoglobin and creatinine concentrations do not predict aerobic performance in CRC patients or healthy matched controls.

Surgical endoscopy training: the Joint Advisory Group on gastrointestinal endoscopy national review.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopy performance is dependent on the technical ability and experience of the operator. There is anxiety among surgical trainees that certification to perform independent endoscopy to agreed national standards by the date of award of certificate of completion of training is not achievable. The aim of this study was to evaluate the delivery of endoscopy training to UK-based general surgery trainees. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic survey of general surgery trainees holding a national training number or in a locum appointment to training post between July and September 2010 was undertaken. RESULTS: Two hundred and thirty-three trainees responded from all UK training regions. Stated subspeciality interests included coloproctology (47%), oesophagogastric/bariatric (22%) and hepatobiliary/pancreatic (10%) general surgery. 92% of trainees were training or planned to train in endoscopy, 62% of whom had registered with the Joint Advisory Group (JAG). Thirteen trainees had JAG certification in diagnostic upper GI endoscopy and eight in colonoscopy. There were high rates of dissatisfaction with endoscopy training nationally. Two thirds of trainees had no scheduled training lists. Conflicting elective/emergency commitments, competition and absence of training lists were the most common reasons for a failure to access endoscopy training. CONCLUSIONS: Higher surgical trainees are failing to achieve national standards for endoscopy practice. There is an urgent need to address the deficiencies in endoscopy training to ensure a competent cohort of surgical endoscopists.