The protective effect of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction on articular cartilage: a systematic review of animal studies.

OBJECTIVE: It is unclear if anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction can prevent the onset of degenerative changes in the knee. Previous studies were inconclusive on this subject. The aim of this study was to systematically review all studies on the effect of ACL reconstruction on articular cartilage in animals. DESIGN: Pubmed and Embase were searched to identify all original articles concerning the effect of ACL reconstruction on articular cartilage compared with both its positive (ACL transection) and negative (sham and/or non-operated) control in animals. Subsequently a Risk of bias and meta analysis was conducted based on five outcomes (gross macroscopic assessment, medical imaging, histological histochemical grading, histomophometrics and biomechanical characterization) related to articular cartilage. RESULTS: From the 19 included studies, 29 independent comparisons could be identified which underwent ACL reconstruction with an average timing of data collection of 23 weeks (range 1-104 weeks). Due to limited data availability meta-analysis could only be conducted for gross macroscopic damage. ACL reconstruction caused significant gross macroscopic damage compared with intact controls (SMD 2.0 [0.88; 3.13]). These findings were supported by individual studies reporting on histomorphometrics, histology and imaging. No significant gross macroscopic damage was found when ACL reconstruction was compared with ACL transection (SMD -0.64 [-1.85; 0.57]). CONCLUSION: This systematic review with an average follow up of included studies of 23 weeks (range 1-104 weeks) demonstrates that, in animals, ACL reconstruction does not protect articular cartilage from degenerative changes. The consistency of the direction of effect, provides some reassurance that the direction of effect in humans might be the same.

Remote Ischemic Preconditioning To Reduce Contrast-Induced Nephropathy: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite the increasing use of pre- and post-hydration protocols and low osmolar instead of high osmolar iodine containing contrast media, the incidence of contrast induced nephropathy (CIN) is still significant. There is evidence that contrast media cause ischemia reperfusion injury of the renal medulla. Remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) is a non-invasive, safe, and low cost method to reduce ischemia reperfusion injury. The aim of this study is to investigate whether RIPC, as an adjunct to standard preventive measures, reduces contrast induced acute kidney injury in patients at risk of CIN. METHODS: The RIPCIN study is a multicenter, single blinded, randomized controlled trial in which 76 patients at risk of CIN received standard hydration combined with RIPC or hydration with sham preconditioning. RIPC was applied by four cycles of 5 min ischemia and 5 min reperfusion of the forearm. The primary outcome measure was the change in serum creatinine from baseline to 48 to 72 hours after contrast administration. RESULTS: With regard to the primary endpoint, no significant effect of RIPC was found. CIN occurred in four patients (2 sham and 2 RIPC). A pre-defined subgroup analysis of patients with a Mehran risk score ≥11, showed a significantly reduced change in serum creatinine from baseline to 48 to 72 hours in patients allocated to the RIPC group (Δ creatinine -3.3 ± 9.8 µmol/L) compared with the sham group (Δ creatinine +17.8 ± 20.1 µmol/L). CONCLUSION: RIPC, as an adjunct to standard preventive measures, does not improve serum creatinine levels after contrast administration in patients at risk of CIN according to the Dutch guideline. However, the present data indicate that RIPC might have beneficial effects in patients at a high or very high risk of CIN (Mehran score ≥ 11). The RIPCIN study is registered at: http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN76496973.

Systematic review of experimental studies on intestinal anastomosis.

BACKGROUND: The contribution of animal research to a reduction in clinical intestinal anastomotic leakage is unknown, despite numerous experimental studies. In view of the current societal call to replace, reduce and refine animal experiments, this study examined the quality of animal research related to anastomotic healing and leakage. METHODS: Animal studies on intestinal anastomotic healing were retrieved systematically from PubMed and Embase. Study objective, conclusion and animal model were recorded. Reporting quality and internal validity (reporting of randomization and blinding) were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 1342 studies were identified, with a rising publication rate. The objectives of most studies were therapeutic interventions (64·8 per cent) and identification of risk factors (27·5 per cent). Of 350 articles studying experimental therapies, 298 (85·1 per cent) reported a positive effect on anastomotic healing. On average, 44·7 per cent of relevant study characteristics were not reported, in particular details on anastomotic complications (31·6 per cent), use of antibiotics (75·7 per cent), sterile surgery (83·4 per cent) and postoperative analgesia (91·4 per cent). The proportion of studies with randomization, blinding of surgery and blinding of primary outcome assessment has increased in the past two decades but remains insufficient, being included in only 62·4, 4·9 and 8·5 per cent of publications respectively. Animal models varied widely in terms of species, method to compromise healing, intestinal segment and outcome measures used. CONCLUSION: Animal research on anastomotic leakage is of poor quality and still increasing, contrary to societal aims. Reporting and study quality must improve if results are to impact on patients.

Low-pressure pneumoperitoneum during laparoscopic donor nephrectomy to optimize live donors' comfort.

Nowadays, laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) has become the gold standard to procure live donor kidneys. As the relationship between donor and recipient loosens, it becomes of even greater importance to optimize safety and comfort of the surgical procedure. Low-pressure pneumoperitoneum has been shown to reduce pain scores after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Live kidney donors may also benefit from the use of low pressure during LDN. To evaluate feasibility and efficacy to reduce post-operative pain, we performed a randomized blinded study. Twenty donors were randomly assigned to standard (14 mmHg) or low (7 mmHg) pressure during LDN. One conversion from low to standard pressure was indicated by protocol due to lack of progression. Intention-to-treat analysis showed that low pressure resulted in a significantly longer skin-to-skin time (149 ± 86 vs. 111 ± 19 min), higher urine output during pneumoperitoneum (23 ± 35 vs. 11 ± 20 mL/h), lower cumulative overall pain score after 72 h (9.4 ± 3.2 vs. 13.5 ± 4.5), lower deep intra-abdominal pain score (11 ± 3.3 vs. 7.5 ± 3.1), and a lower cumulative overall referred pain score (1.8 ± 1.9 vs. 4.2 ± 3). Donor serum creatinine levels, complications, and quality of life dimensions were not significantly different. Our data show that low-pressure pneumoperitoneum during LDN is feasible and may contribute to increase live donors' comfort during the early post-operative phase.