Safety and feasibility of colonoscopy in nonagenarians: A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression analysis.

AIM: The aim of this work was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of performing colonoscopy in patients aged 90 years or over. METHOD: In compliance with PRISMA statement standards, a systematic review of studies reporting the outcomes of colonoscopy in patients aged ≥90 years was conducted. A proportional meta-analysis model was constructed to quantify the risk of outcomes and a direct comparison meta-analysis model was constructed to compare outcomes between nonagenarians and patients aged between 50 and 89 years via random-effects models. RESULTS: Seven studies enrolling 1304 patients (1342 colonoscopies) were included. Analyses showed that complications related to bowel preparation occurred in 0.7% (95% CI 0.1%-1.6%), procedural complications in 0.6% (0.00%-1.7%), 30-day complications in 1.5% (0.6%-2.7%), procedural mortality in 0.3% (0.0%-1.1%) and 30-day mortality in 1.1% (0.3%-2.2%). Adequate bowel preparation and colonoscopy completion were achieved in 81.3% (73.8%-87.9%) and 92.1% (86.7%-96.3%), respectively. No difference was found in bowel preparation-related complications [risk difference (RD) 0.00, p = 0.78], procedural complications (RD 0.00, p = 0.60), 30-day complications (RD 0.01, p = 0.20), procedural mortality (RD 0.00, p = 1.00) or 30-day mortality (RD 0.01, p = 0.34) between nonagenarians and patients aged between 50 and 89 years. The colorectal cancer detection rate was 14.3% (9.8%-19.5%), resulting in therapeutic intervention in 65.9% (54.5%-76.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Although the evidence is limited to a selected group of nonagenarians, it may be fair to conclude that if a colonoscopy is indicated in a nonagenarian with good performance status (based on initial less-invasive investigations), the level 2 evidence supports its safety and feasibility. Age on its own should not be a reason for failing to offer colonoscopy to a nonagenarian.

Low versus standard central venous pressure during laparoscopic liver resection: A systematic review, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

To compare the outcomes of low central venous pressure (CVP) to standard CVP during laparoscopic liver resection. The study design was a systematic review following the PRISMA statement standards. The available literature was searched to identify all studies comparing low CVP with standard CVP in patients undergoing laparoscopic liver resection. The outcomes included intraoperative blood loss (primary outcome), need for blood transfusion, mean arterial pressure, operative time, Pringle time, and total complications. Random- effects modelling was applied for analyses. Type I and type II errors were assessed by trial sequential analysis (TSA). A total of 8 studies including 682 patients were included (low CVP group, 342; standard CVP group, 340). Low CVP reduced intraoperative blood loss during laparoscopic liver resection (mean difference [MD], -193.49 mL; 95% confidence interval [CI], -339.86 to -47.12; p = 0.01). However, low CVP did not have any effect on blood transfusion requirement (odds ratio [OR], 0.54; 95% CI, 0.28-1.03; p = 0.06), mean arterial pressure (MD, -1.55 mm Hg; 95% CI, -3.85-0.75; p = 0.19), Pringle time (MD, -0.99 minutes; 95% CI, -5.82-3.84; p = 0.69), operative time (MD, -16.38 minutes; 95% CI, -36.68-3.39; p = 0.11), or total complications (OR, 1.92; 95% CI, 0.97-3.80; p = 0.06). TSA suggested that the meta-analysis for the primary outcome was not subject to type I or II errors. Low CVP may reduce intraoperative blood loss during laparoscopic liver resection (moderate certainty); however, this may not translate into shorter operative time, shorter Pringle time, or less need for blood transfusion. Randomized controlled trials with larger sample sizes will provide more robust evidence.

In Vivo Randomized Controlled Study of the Bone Response of All-Suture Anchors and Biocomposite Anchors.

BACKGROUND: Suture anchors are widely used for labral reconstruction surgery. However, there has been some concern over the development of osteolysis around the anchor. This has been reported for both biocomposite and all-suture anchors, but they have not been compared directly in vivo. PURPOSE: To compare the bone response to 2 common suture anchors: a traditional biocomposite push-fit anchor and an all-suture anchor. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 2. METHODS: Included in this study were 17 patients with a total of 37 unique suture anchors. Magnetic resonance imaging scans were performed at 3 weeks and 6 months postoperatively. A total of 38 senior radiologists and shoulder surgeons evaluated the images using a previously validated system for grading the bone response around suture anchors. The mean difference in grading at 3 weeks and 6 months was calculated using unpaired t tests, and the interrater reliability was evaluated with an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: At 3 weeks, there was no statistically significant difference in the degree of osteolysis surrounding each suture anchor type (P = .258), with little bone response. However, on the 6-month scans, there was a significantly lower level of osteolysis seen in the all-suture anchors compared with the biocomposite anchors (P = .040). Interrater reliability was excellent, with an ICC value of 0.975 (95% CI, 0.962-0.985). CONCLUSION: All-suture anchors cause significantly less osteolysis in glenoid bone at 6 months compared with biocomposite anchors.