Visual Impairment and Low Vision Aids-A Comparison between Children and Adults.

(1) Background: This study aims to highlight differences in the etiology and fitting of low vision aids in visually impaired children and adolescents in comparison to adults. (2) Methods: A retrospective data collection from visually impaired patients presenting to obtain assistive devices from 1 January 2016 to 30 April 2020 was conducted. A total of 502 patients were included. Inclusion criteria were a minimum age of 4 years and the chart notation of a best-corrected distance visual acuity in the patient record prior to the fitting of magnifying visual aids. (3) Results: Of the 502 patients, 147 (29.3%) were children under the age of 18 years. The most common cause of visual impairment in children was albinism, and in adults, it was age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Children showed better distance visual acuity, with a median of 0.88 logMAR (Logarithm of the Minimum Angle of Resolution) compared to 1.0 in adults (p = 0.001). Near visual acuity was also significantly better, with a median of 0.54 logMAR in children compared to 0.9 in adults (p < 0.001). Near and distance visual acuity were significantly improved by fitting magnifying visual aids (p < 0.001). After fitting, near visual acuity averaged 0.3 logMAR, and distance visual acuity, 0.7. The most commonly prescribed aids were optical vision aids, which 68.5% of the patients received; 43.8% received electronic aids. In children, optical aids were more frequently prescribed, and in adults, electronic and acoustic aids (p < 0.001). (4) Conclusion: Visually impaired patients can regain the ability to read and improve distance vision by using individually adapted and tested magnifying vision aids, often with optical aids alone. Differences between children and adults could be discovered in the etiology and severity of visual impairment, as well as in the provision type of low vision aids.

Elective midline laparotomy closure: the INLINE systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the optimal technique and material for abdominal fascia closure after midline laparotomy, first by means of a precisely defined study population and follow-up period and second by the surgically driven aspects. METHODS: Overview of existing systematic reviews and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. A systematic literature search (Medline, Embase, and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) was performed to identify randomized controlled trials in elective and emergency populations comparing suture techniques (continuous vs. interrupted) and materials (rapidly vs. slowly vs. nonabsorbable). Random effects conventional and cumulative meta-analyses were calculated and presented as odds ratios and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Five systematic reviews and 14 trials including 7711 patients (6752 midline incisions) were analyzed. None of the systematic reviews differentiated elective versus emergency laparotomy. The analysis of available primary studies revealed significant lower hernia rates using a continuous (vs. interrupted) technique (OR: 0.59; P=0.001) with slowly absorbable (vs. rapid-absorbable) suture material (OR: 0.65; P=0.009) in the elective setting, which was in contrast to the conflicting results of existing systematic reviews. No statistical heterogeneity was detected in the elective setting (I=0%). Seven studies incorporating elective and emergency procedures revealed inconclusive and heterogeneous results (I=45%-85%). No studies have evaluated closure methods solely in the emergency setting so far. CONCLUSION: No further trials should be conducted for evaluation of technique and available materials for elective midline abdominal fascial closure, according to the results of our cumulative meta-analysis. Future trials will have to define the optimal closure strategy in the emergency setting and relevance of new suture materials and other strategies such as the use of prophylactic mesh in targeted subpopulations.

Design and current status of CONTINT: continuous versus interrupted abdominal wall closure after emergency midline laparotomy - a randomized controlled multicenter trial [NCT00544583].

BACKGROUND: The optimal strategy for abdominal wall closure has been an issue of ongoing debate. Available studies do not specifically enroll patients who undergo emergency laparotomy and thus do not consider the distinct biological characteristics of these patients. The present randomized controlled trial evaluates the efficacy and safety of two commonly applied abdominal wall closure strategies in patients undergoing primary emergency midline laparotomy. METHODS/DESIGN: The CONTINT trial is a multicenter, open label, randomized controlled trial with a two-group parallel design. Patients undergoing a primary emergency midline laparotomy are enrolled in the trial. The two most commonly applied strategies of abdominal wall closure after midline laparotomy are compared: the continuous, all-layer suture technique using slowly absorbable monofilament material (two Monoplus loops) and the interrupted suture technique using rapidly absorbable braided material (Vicryl sutures). The primary endpoint within the CONTINT trial is an incisional hernia within 12 months or a burst abdomen within 30 days after surgery. As reliable data on this primary endpoint is not available for patients undergoing emergency surgery, an adaptive interim analysis will be conducted after the inclusion of 80 patients, allowing early termination of the trial if necessary or modification of design characteristics such as recalculation of sample size. DISCUSSION: This is a randomized controlled multicenter trial with a two-group parallel design to assess the efficacy and safety of two commonly applied abdominal wall closure strategies in patients undergoing primary emergency midline laparotomy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00544583.

Prevention of abdominal wound infection (PROUD trial, DRKS00000390): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Wound infection affects a considerable portion of patients after abdominal operations, increasing health care costs and postoperative morbidity and affecting quality of life. Antibacterial coating has been suggested as an effective measure to decrease postoperative wound infections after laparotomies. The INLINE metaanalysis has recently shown the superiority of a slowly absorbable continuous suture for abdominal closure; with PDS plus® such a suture has now been made available with triclosan antibacterial coating. METHODS/DESIGN: The PROUD trial is designed as a randomised, controlled, observer, surgeon and patient blinded multicenter superiority trial with two parallel groups and a primary endpoint of wound infection during 30 days after surgery. The intervention group will receive triclosan coated polydioxanone sutures, whereas the control group will receive the standard polydioxanone sutures; abdominal closure will otherwise be standardized in both groups. Statistical analysis is based on intention-to-treat population via binary logistic regression analysis, the total sample size of n=750 is sufficient to ensure alpha=5% and power=80%, an interim analysis will be carried out after data of 375 patients are available. DISCUSSION: The PROUD trial will yield robust data to determine the effectiveness of antibacterial coating in one of the standard sutures for abdominal closure and potentially lead to amendment of current guidelines. The exploration of clinically objective parameters as well as quality of life holds immediate relevance for clinical management and the pragmatic trial design ensures high external validity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial protocol has been registered with the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00000390).