Toric intraocular lens versus limbal relaxing incisions for corneal astigmatism after phacoemulsification.

BACKGROUND: Cataract is the leading cause of blindness in the world, and clinically significant astigmatism may affect up to approximately 20% of people undergoing cataract surgery. Pre-existing astigmatism in people undergoing cataract surgery may be treated, among other techniques, by placing corneal incisions near the limbus (limbal relaxing incisions or LRIs) or by toric intraocular lens (IOLs) specially designed to reduce or treat the effect of corneal astigmatism on unaided visual acuity. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of toric IOLs compared with LRIs in the management of astigmatism during phacoemulsification cataract surgery. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2019, Issue 9); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase and four other databases. The date of the search was 27 September 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing toric IOLs with LRIs during phacoemulsification cataract surgery.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methods expected by Cochrane. We graded the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. Our primary outcome was the proportion of participants with postoperative residual refractive astigmatism of less than 0.50 dioptres (D) six months or more after surgery. We also collected data on mean residual refractive astigmatism. Secondary outcomes included: uncorrected distance visual acuity, vision-related quality of life, spectacle independence and adverse effects including postoperative lens rotation requiring re-alignment. To supplement the main systematic review assessing the effects of toric IOLs compared with LRIs in the management of astigmatism during phacoemulsification cataract surgery, we sought to identify economic evaluations on the subject. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 10 relevant studies including 517 people (626 eyes). These studies took place in China (three studies), UK (three), Brazil (one), India (one), Italy (one) and Spain (one). The median age of participants was 71 years. The level of corneal astigmatism specified in the inclusion criteria of these studies ranged from 0.75 D to 3 D. A variety of toric IOLs were used in these studies, in all but one study, these were monofocal. Studies used three different nomograms to determine the size and placement of the LRI. Two studies did not specify this. None of the studies were at low risk of bias in all domains, but two studies were at low risk of bias in all domains except selective outcome reporting, which was unclear. The remaining studies were at a mixture of low, unclear or high risk of bias. People receiving toric IOLs were probably more likely to achieve a postoperative residual refractive astigmatism of less than 0.5 D six months or more after surgery (risk ratio (RR) 1.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10 to 1.78; 5 RCTs, 262 eyes). We judged this to be moderate-certainty evidence, downgrading for risk of bias. In the included studies, approximately 500 eyes per 1000 achieved postoperative astigmatism less than 0.5 D in the LRI group compared with 700 per 1000 in the toric IOLs group. There was a small difference in residual astigmatism between the two groups, favouring toric IOLs (mean difference (MD) -0.32 D, 95% CI -0.48 to -0.15 D; 10 RCTs, 620 eyes). Although all studies favoured toric IOLs, the results of individual studies were inconsistent (range of effects -0.02 D to -0.71 D; I² = 89%). We considered this to be low-certainty evidence, downgrading for risk of bias and inconsistency. People receiving a toric IOL probably have a small improvement in visual acuity at six months or more after surgery compared to people receiving LRI, but the difference is small and probably clinically insignificant (MD -0.04 logMAR, 95% CI -0.07 to -0.02; 8 RCTs, 474 eyes; moderate-certainty evidence). Low-certainty evidence from one study of 40 people suggested little difference in vision-related quality of life measured using the Visual Function Index (VF-14) (MD -3.01, 95% CI -8.56 to 2.54). Two studies reported spectacle independence and suggested that people receiving toric IOLs may be more likely to be spectacle independent (RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.15; 100 people; low-certainty evidence). There were no cases of lens rotation requiring surgery (very low-certainty evidence). Five studies (320 eyes) commented on a range of other adverse effects including corneal oedema, endophthalmitis and corneal ectasia. All these studies reported that there were no adverse events with the exception of one study (40 eyes) where one participant in the LRI group had a central de-epithelisation which recovered over 10 days. We found no economic studies that compared toric IOLs with LRIs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Toric IOLs probably provide a higher chance of achieving astigmatism within 0.5 D after cataract surgery compared with LRIs. There may be a small mean difference in postoperative astigmatism, favouring toric IOLs, but this difference is likely to be clinically unimportant. There was no evidence of an important difference in postoperative visual acuity or quality of life between the techniques. Evidence on adverse effects was uncertain. The apparent shortage of relevant economic evaluations indicates that economic evidence regarding the costs and consequence of these two procedures is currently lacking.

Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation for prevention of complications after pulmonary resection in lung cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary complications are often seen during the postoperative period following lung resection for patients with lung cancer. Some situations such as intubation, a long stay in the intensive care unit, the high cost of antibiotics and mortality may be avoided with the prevention of postoperative pulmonary complications. Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) is widely used in hospitals, and is thought to reduce the number of pulmonary complications and mortality after this type of surgery. Therefore, a systematic review is needed to critically assess the benefits and harms of NIPPV for patients undergoing lung resection. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2015. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of NIPPV for preventing complications in patients following pulmonary resection for lung cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and PEDro until 21 December 2018, to identify potentially eligible trials. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches. We searched the reference lists of relevant papers and contacted experts in the field for information about additional published and unpublished studies. We also searched the Register of Controlled Trials (www.controlled-trials.com) and ClinicalTrials.gov (clinicaltrials.gov) to identify ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered randomised or quasi-randomised clinical trials that compared NIPPV in the immediate postoperative period after pulmonary resection with no intervention or conventional respiratory therapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors collected data and assessed trial risk of bias. Where possible, we pooled data from the individual studies using a fixed-effect model (quantitative synthesis), but where this was not possible we tabulated or presented the data in the main text (qualitative synthesis). Where substantial heterogeneity existed, we applied a random-effects model. MAIN RESULTS: Of the 190 references retrieved from the searches, 7 randomised clinical trials (RCTs) (1 identified with the new search) and 1 quasi-randomised trial fulfilled the eligibility criteria for this review, including a total of 486 patients. Five studies described quantitative measures of pulmonary complications, with pooled data showing no difference between NIPPV compared with no intervention (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.47). Three studies reported intubation rates and there was no significant difference between the intervention and control groups (RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.25 to 1.20). Five studies reported measures of mortality on completion of the intervention period. There was no statistical difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 0.60; 95% CI 0.24 to 1.53). Similar results were observed in the subgroup analysis considering ventilatory mode (bi-level versus continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). No study evaluated the postoperative use of antibiotics. Two studies reported the length of intensive care unit stay and there was no significant difference between the intervention and control groups (MD -0.75; 95% CI -3.93 to 2.43). Four studies reported the length of hospital stay and there was no significant difference between the intervention and control groups (MD -0.12; 95% CI -6.15 to 5.90). None of the studies described any complications related to NIPPV. Of the seven included studies, four studies were considered as 'low risk of bias' in all domains, two studies were considered 'high risk of bias' for the allocation concealment domain, and one of these was also considered 'high risk of bias' for random sequence generation. One other study was considered 'high risk of bias' for including participants with more severe disease. The new study identified could not be included in the meta-analysis as its intervention differed from the other studies (use of pre and postoperative NIPPV in the same population). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review demonstrated that there was no additional benefit of using NIPPV in the postoperative period after pulmonary resection for all outcomes analysed (pulmonary complications, rate of intubation, mortality, postoperative consumption of antibiotics, length of intensive care unit stay, length of hospital stay and adverse effects related to NIPPV). However, the quality of evidence is 'very low', 'low' and 'moderate' since there were few studies, with small sample size and low frequency of outcomes. New well-designed and well-conducted randomised trials are needed to answer the questions of this review with greater certainty.

Chewing gum for enhancing early recovery of bowel function after caesarean section.

BACKGROUND: Caesarean sections (CS) are the most frequent major surgery in the world. A transient impairment of bowel motility is expected after CS. Although this usually resolves spontaneously within a few days, it can cause considerable discomfort, require symptomatic medication and delay hospital discharge, thus increasing costs. Chewing gum in the immediate postoperative period is a simple intervention that may be effective in enhancing recovery of bowel function in other types of abdominal surgeries. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of chewing gum to reduce the duration of postoperative ileus and to enhance postoperative recovery after a CS. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (20 June 2016), LILACs (20 June 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov (20 June 2016), WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (20 June 2016) and the reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials comparing chewing gum versus usual care, for women in the first 24 hours after a CS. We included studies published in abstract form only.Quasi-randomised, cross-over or cluster-randomised trials were not eligible for inclusion in this review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected the studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias following standard Cochrane methods. We present dichotomous outcome results as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and continuous outcome results as mean differences (MD) and 95% CI. We pooled the results of similar studies using a random-effects model in case of important heterogeneity. We used the GRADE approach to assess the overall quality of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 randomised trials (3149 participants) conducted in nine different countries. Seven studies (1325 women) recruited exclusively women undergoing elective CS and five studies (833 women) only included women having a primary CS. Ten studies (1731 women) used conventional feeding protocols (nil by mouth until the return of intestinal function). The gum-chewing regimen varied among studies, in relation to its initiation (immediately after CS, up to 12 hours later), duration of each session (from 15 to 60 minutes) and number of sessions per day (three to more than six). All the studies were classified as having a high risk of bias due to the nature of the intervention, women could not be blinded and most of the outcomes were self-reported.Primary outcomes of this review: for the women that chewed gum, the time to passage of first flatus was seven hours shorter than those women in the 'usual care' control group (MD -7.09 hours, 95% CI -9.27 to -4.91 hours; 2399 women; 13 studies; random-effects Tau² = 14.63, I² = 95%, very low-quality evidence). This effect was consistent in all subgroup analyses (primary and repeat CS, time spent chewing gum per day, early and conventional feeding protocols, elective and non-elective CS and time after CS when gum-chewing was initiated). The rate of ileus was on average over 60% lower in the chewing-gum group compared to the control (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.80; 1139 participants; four studies; I² = 39%, low-quality evidence). Tolerance to gum-chewing appeared to be high. Three women in one study complained about the chewing gum (but no further information was provided) and none of the studies reported adverse effects (eight studies, 925 women, low-quality evidence).Secondary outcomes of this review: the time to passage of faeces occurred on average nine hours earlier in the intervention group (MD -9.22 hours, 95% CI -11.49 to -6.95 hours; 2016 participants; 11 studies; random-effects Tau² = 12.53, I² = 93%, very low-quality evidence). The average duration of hospital stay was shorter in the intervention compared to the control group (MD -0.36 days, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.18 days; 1489 participants; seven studies; random-effects Tau² = 0.04, I² = 92%). The first intestinal sounds were heard earlier in the intervention than in the control group (MD -4.56 hours, 95% CI -6.18 to -2.93 hours; 1729 participants; nine studies; random-effects Tau² = 5.41, I² = 96%). None of the studies assessed women's satisfaction in relation to having to chew gum. The need for analgesia or antiemetic agents did not differ between the intervention and control groups (average RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.13; 726 participants; three studies; random-effects Tau² = 0.79, I² = 69%). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review found 17 randomised controlled trials (involving 3149 women). We downgraded the quality of the evidence for time to first passage of flatus and of faeces and for adverse effects/intolerance to gum chewing because of the high risk of bias of the studies (due to lack of blinding and self-report). For time to first flatus and faeces, we downgraded the quality of the evidence further because of the high heterogeneity in these meta-analyses and the potential for publication bias based on the visual inspection of the funnel plots. The quality of the evidence for adverse effects/tolerance to gum chewing and for ileus was downgraded because of the small number of events. The quality of the evidence for ileus was further downgraded due to the unclear risk of bias for the assessors evaluating this outcome.The available evidence suggests that gum chewing in the immediate postoperative period after a CS is a well tolerated intervention that enhances early recovery of bowel function. However the overall quality of the evidence is very low to low.Further research is necessary to establish the optimal regimen of gum-chewing (initiation, number and duration of sessions per day) to enhance bowel function recovery and to assess potential adverse effects of and women's satisfaction with this intervention. New studies also need to assess the compliance of the participants to the recommended gum-chewing instructions. Future large, well designed and conducted studies, with better methodological and reporting quality, will help to inform future updates of this review and enhance the body of evidence for this intervention.