Management of chest tubes after pulmonary resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the effect of suction with water seal, compared with water seal alone, applied to intra pleural chest tubes on the duration of air leaks in patients undergoing pulmonary surgery. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to find randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effect of the 2 methods on the duration of air leaks. Trials were systematically assessed for eligibility and validity. Data were extracted in duplicate and pooled across studies using a random-effects model. RESULTS: The search yielded 7 RCTs that met the eligibility criteria. No difference was identified between the 2 methods in duration of air leak (weighted mean difference [WMD] 1.15 days, favours water seal; 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.64 to 2.94), time to discharge (WMD 2.19 d, favours water seal; 95% CI -0.63 to 5.01), duration of chest tubes (WMD 0.96 d, favours water seal; 95% CI -0.12 to 2.05) or incidence of prolonged air leaks (absolute risk reduction [ARR] 0.04, favours water seal; 95% CI -0.01 to 0.09). Water seal was associated with a significantly increased incidence of postoperative pneumothorax (ARR -0.14, 95% CI -0.21 to -0.07). CONCLUSION: No differences were identified in terms of duration of air leak, incidence of prolonged air leak, duration of chest tubes and duration of hospital stay when chest tubes were placed to suction rather than water seal. Chest tube suction appears to be superior to water seal in reducing the incidence of pneumothorax; however, the clinical significance of this finding is unclear.

Better late than never? Impact of local analgesia timing on postoperative pain in laparoscopic surgery: a systematic review and metaanalysis.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to determine the effect of local anesthesia administered before laparoscopic surgery (preemptive anesthesia) on postoperative pain. METHODS: The authors searched Medline, EMBase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, as well as reference lists of textbooks and relevant articles. They contacted experts in the field of anesthesia and laparoscopic surgery for randomized controlled trials comparing preemptive administration of local anesthesia at the incision site or intraperitoneally with postoperative anesthesia administration or placebo. Trials were systematically assessed for eligibility and validity, and data were extracted in duplicate. The data were pooled across studies using a random effects model. RESULTS: The 26 studies that met the inclusion criteria were included in the analysis. Preemptive incisional local anesthetic was superior to placebo in terms of visual analog pain scores (VAS) at 4 h (weighted mean difference [WMD], -9.49 mm; 95% confidence interval [CI], -15.50 to -3.48) and 24 h (WMD, -4.75 mm; 95%CI, -8.90 to 0.60). However, no difference was found between these measures and those for postoperative incision-site infiltration. Preemptive intraperitoneal local anesthetic was superior to placebo in terms of VAS at 4 h (WMD, 5.76 mm; 95%CI, -11.27 to -0.25), 8 h (WMD, -9.64 mm; 95%CI, -13.68 to -5.60), 12 h (WMD, -4.68 mm; 95%CI, -5.86 to -3.49), and 24 h (WMD, -5.57 mm; 95%CI, -8.35 to -2.79), and superior to postoperative anesthesia administration at 8 h (WMD, -7.42; 95%CI, -13.40 to -1.45), 12 h (WMD, -7.27 mm; 95%CI, -10.26 to -4.28), and 24 h (WMD, -7.95 mm; 95%CI, -12.33 to -3.56). CONCLUSION: Preemptive administration of local anesthetic at the incision site reduces postoperative pain compared with placebo but achieves an analgesic effect similar to that of postincisional anesthetic infiltration. Preemptive local anesthetic administered intraperitoneally decreases postoperative pain compared with both placebo and postoperative infiltration. Surgeons should use local analgesia in laparoscopic surgery to decrease postoperative pain, but the timing of administration is significant only for intraperitoneal infiltration.

Systematic recovery and analysis of full-ORF human cDNA clones.

The Mammalian Gene Collection (MGC) consortium (http://mgc.nci.nih.gov) seeks to establish publicly available collections of full-ORF cDNAs for several organisms of significance to biomedical research, including human. To date over 15,200 human cDNA clones containing full-length open reading frames (ORFs) have been identified via systematic expressed sequence tag (EST) analysis of a diverse set of cDNA libraries; however, further systematic EST analysis is no longer an efficient method for identifying new cDNAs. As part of our involvement in the MGC program, we have developed a scalable method for targeted recovery of cDNA clones to facilitate recovery of genes absent from the MGC collection. First, cDNA is synthesized from various RNAs, followed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification of transcripts in 96-well plates using gene-specific primer pairs flanking the ORFs. Amplicons are cloned into a sequencing vector, and full-length sequences are obtained. Sequences are processed and assembled using Phred and Phrap, and analyzed using Consed and a number of bioinformatics methods we have developed. Sequences are compared with the Reference Sequence (RefSeq) database, and validation of sequence discrepancies is attempted using other sequence databases including dbEST and dbSNP. Clones with identical sequence to RefSeq or containing only validated changes will become part of the MGC human gene collection. Clones containing novel splice variants or polymorphisms have also been identified. Our approach to clone recovery, applied at large scale, has the potential to recover many and possibly most of the genes absent from the MGC collection.

The Genome sequence of the SARS-associated coronavirus.

We sequenced the 29,751-base genome of the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-associated coronavirus known as the Tor2 isolate. The genome sequence reveals that this coronavirus is only moderately related to other known coronaviruses, including two human coronaviruses, HCoV-OC43 and HCoV-229E. Phylogenetic analysis of the predicted viral proteins indicates that the virus does not closely resemble any of the three previously known groups of coronaviruses. The genome sequence will aid in the diagnosis of SARS virus infection in humans and potential animal hosts (using polymerase chain reaction and immunological tests), in the development of antivirals (including neutralizing antibodies), and in the identification of putative epitopes for vaccine development.