Interventions for necrotizing soft tissue infections in adults.

BACKGROUND: Necrotizing soft tissue infections (NSTIs) are severe and rapidly spreading soft tissue infections of the subcutaneous tissue, fascia, or muscle, which are mostly caused by bacteria. Associated rates of mortality and morbidity are high, with the former estimated at around 23%, and disability, sequelae, and limb loss occurring in 15% of patients. Standard management includes intravenous empiric antimicrobial therapy, early surgical debridement of necrotic tissues, intensive care support, and adjuvant therapies such as intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG). OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of medical and surgical treatments for necrotizing soft tissue infections (NSTIs) in adults in hospital settings. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to April 2018: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We also searched five trials registers, pharmaceutical company trial results databases, and the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency websites. We checked the reference lists of included studies and reviews for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs conducted in hospital settings, that evaluated any medical or surgical treatment for adults with NSTI were eligible for inclusion. Eligible medical treatments included 1) comparisons between different antimicrobials or with placebo; 2) adjuvant therapies such as intravenous immunoglobulin (IGIV) therapy compared with placebo; no treatment; or other adjuvant therapies. Eligible surgical treatments included surgical debridement compared with amputation, immediate versus delayed intervention, or comparisons of number of interventions.RCTs of hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) therapy for NSTI were ineligible because HBO is the focus of another Cochrane Review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcome measures were 1) mortality within 30 days, and 2) proportion of participants who experience a serious adverse event. Secondary outcomes were 1) survival time, and 2) assessment of long-term morbidity. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included three trials randomising 197 participants (62% men) who had a mean age of 55 years. One trial compared two antibiotic treatments, and two trials compared adjuvant therapies with placebo. In all trials, participants concomitantly received standard interventions, such as intravenous empiric antimicrobial therapy, surgical debridement of necrotic tissues, intensive care support, and adjuvant therapies. All trials were at risk of attrition bias and one trial was not blinded.Moxifloxacin versus amoxicillin-clavulanate One trial included 54 participants who had a NSTI; it compared a third-generation quinolone, moxifloxacin, at a dose of 400 mg given once daily, against a penicillin, amoxicillin-clavulanate, at a dose of 3 g given three times daily for at least three days, followed by 1.5 g three times daily. Duration of treatment varied from 7 to 21 days. We are uncertain of the effects of these treatments on mortality within 30 days (risk ratio (RR) 3.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 23.07) and serious adverse events at 28 days (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.31) because the quality of the evidence is very low.AB103 versus placebo One trial of 43 randomised participants compared two doses, 0.5 mg/kg and 0.25 mg/kg, of an adjuvant drug, a CD28 antagonist receptor (AB103), with placebo. Treatment was given via infusion pump for 10 minutes before, after, or during surgery within six hours after the diagnosis of NSTI. We are uncertain of the effects of AB103 on mortality rate within 30 days (RR of 0.34, 95% CI 0.05 to 2.16) and serious adverse events measured at 28 days (RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.52 to 4.27) because the quality of the evidence is very low.Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) versus placebo One trial of 100 randomised participants assessed IVIG as an adjuvant drug, given at a dose of 25 g/day, compared with placebo, given for three consecutive days. There may be no clear difference between IVIG and placebo in terms of mortality within 30 days (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.42 to 3.23) (low-certainty evidence), nor serious adverse events experienced in the intensive care unit (ICU) (RR 0.73 CI 95% 0.32 to 1.65) (low-certainty evidence).Serious adverse events were only described in one RCT (the IVIG versus placebo trial) and included acute kidney injury, allergic reactions, aseptic meningitis syndrome, haemolytic anaemia, thrombi, and transmissible agents.Only one trial reported assessment of long-term morbidity, but the outcome was not defined in the way we prespecified in our protocol. The trial used the Short Form Health Survey (SF36). Data on survival time were provided upon request for the trials comparing amoxicillin-clavulanate versus moxifloxacin and IVIG versus placebo. However, even with data provided, it was not possible to perform survival analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found very little evidence on the effects of medical and surgical treatments for NSTI. We cannot draw conclusions regarding the relative effects of any of the interventions on 30-day mortality or serious adverse events due to the very low quality of the evidence.The quality of the evidence is limited by the very small number of trials, the small sample sizes, and the risks of bias in the included trials. It is important for future trials to clearly define their inclusion criteria, which will help with the applicability of future trial results to a real-life population.Management of NSTI participants (critically-ill participants) is complex, involving multiple interventions; thus, observational studies and prospective registries might be a better foundation for future research, which should assess empiric antimicrobial therapy, as well as surgical debridement, along with the placebo-controlled comparison of adjuvant therapy. Key outcomes to assess include mortality (in the acute phase of the condition) and long-term functional outcomes, e.g. quality of life (in the chronic phase).

Efficacy of injecting platelet concentrate combined with hyaluronic acid for the treatment of vulvovaginal atrophy in postmenopausal women with history of breast cancer: a phase 2 pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: Approximately 50% to 70% of breast cancer survivors are affected by one or more symptoms of vulvovaginal atrophy (VVA). For those who cannot take hormone therapy, autologous platelet-rich plasma combined with hyaluronic acid (A-PRP-HA) may provide a new alternative therapy for the treatment of VVA in postmenopausal women with history of breast cancer. METHODS: We enrolled 20 postmenopausal breast cancers survivors with VVA and a score of <15 on the Gloria Bachman Vaginal Health Index (VHI) comprised of five items including: vaginal pH, elasticity, fluid volume (secretions), epithelial integrity, and moisture.We administered intramucosal injections of A-PRP combined with HA (Regenkit) and performed clinical evaluations at 0, 1, 3, and 6 months. Primary endpoint: evaluation of vulvovaginal mucosa changes using the VHI; secondary endpoint: evaluation of dyspareunia and sexual dysfunction based on the Female Sexual Distress (FSD) score. RESULTS: All participants (20 women) showed improvement in the clinical symptoms of vaginal dryness and dyspareunia. The VHI score showed a significant increase at 6 months, going from a total baseline score (pretreatment) of 10.7 ±â€Š2.12 to 20.75 ±â€Š4.8 (P < 0.0001) at 6 months. Improvement in hydration and vaginal epithelial integrity was reported. A VHI score of > 15 showed a successful treatment outcome. The FSD score decreased significantly during the study, from a baseline score of 36.35 ±â€Š2.53 pretreatment to 30.15 ±â€Š2.47 6 months after treatment, representing improvement of 17% (P < 0.0001, respectively). No adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The injection of A-PRP-HA appeared to be a promising method to improve the trophicity and hydration of vaginal mucosa for the treatment of VVA in postmenopausal breast cancer survivors with contraindications to hormone therapy.

Current indications of low-level laser therapy in plastic surgery: a review.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this comprehensive review is assess the relevant indications of LLLT in plastic surgery. BACKGROUND DATA: Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) is a safe adjunct treatment for a myriad indications such as pain, musculoskeletal disorders, or oral mucositis in cancer patients. METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed using the automated computerized PubMed search, with the key words low-level laser therapy and plastic surgery. In vivo and in vitro comparative studies conducted in humans or animals were included. A total of 113 articles were retrieved for screening, and 40 articles were analyzed for data extraction: 28 on animals and 12 on humans. RESULTS: Thirteen studies on animals showed that LLLT had efficacy in the improvement of flap survival. LLLT on a single spot over the pedicle area of the flap or near the base of the flap seemed to be superior to multi-irradiation. Also, LLLT seemed to improve chronic burn scars in humans, and acute wound healing in animals. CONCLUSIONS: On the contrary, LLLT cannot be considered as a valid therapeutic option for venous ulcers. The published studies on alopecia did not show that LLLT had efficacy for this indication, and on skin aging only two studies are reported showing that LLLT globally improved aging of skin. No side effects have been reported. More comparative studies are needed to validate and widen the medical indications of LLLT in plastic surgery.

Should we use platelet-rich plasma as an adjunct therapy to treat "acute wounds," "burns," and "laser therapies": A review and a proposal of a quality criteria checklist for further studies.

Platelet-rich plasma seems to help wound healing. The goal of this review is to determine if the adjunction of platelet-rich plasma enhances the clinical outcome of acute wounds, burns, and laser therapies. A PubMed and Cochrane library search was performed by two reviewers with the senior author as a consultant. Medical Subject Headings search terms used were the following: ["Platelet-rich plasma" OR "Platelet gel" OR "Platelet growth factor"] AND ["Acute wound" OR "Wound" OR "Burn" OR "Laser"]. We included controlled studies assessing the clinical outcome of acute wounds, burns, and laser therapies treated by platelet-rich plasma. Nine randomized controlled studies, six prospective controlled studies, and two retrospective controlled studies were included. Regarding acute wounds, three randomized controlled trials found a statistical benefit regarding either the healing time, the return back to work time, the quality of life, or the pain and three prospective controlled studies found a statistical difference regarding the velocity of healing. Platelet-rich plasma decreased the intensity or duration of erythema after laser therapy in four randomized studies. Regarding the long-term outcome of laser therapies, two studies found a statistical benefit and two others did not. Platelet-rich plasma accelerates acute wound healing and decreases erythema after laser therapies. Its use on burns has not been enough studied.