Symptomatic improvement after mesh removal: a prospective longitudinal study of women with urogynaecological mesh complications.

OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical characteristics and outcomes in patients undergoing excision of polypropylene urogynaecological mesh for pain, mesh exposure or both. DESIGN: Prospective, longitudinal cohort. SETTING: Academic tertiary referral centre. POPULATION: Women undergoing complete vaginal mesh excision for mesh exposure and/or pain. METHODS: Clinical and patient-reported outcomes assessing pain (visual analog scale, VAS), bother (Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory, PFDI) and functional impact (Pelvic Functional Impact Questionnaire, PFIQ) were collected at baseline, 6, 12 and 24 months after complete mesh excision. Outcomes were compared by mesh type (sling, prolapse [transvaginal or sacrocolpopexy mesh], both) and complication (pain, exposure, both). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: 'Much better' or 'Very much better' on Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) up to 2 years after removal. RESULTS: Of 173 women, 48 underwent removal for pain, 27 for exposure and 98 for exposure plus pain. 'Moderate to severe' baseline symptoms were reported by 75%; the most prevalent and severe symptom was dyspareunia. Patients with pain alone were most bothered (PFDI median 234.2, interquartile range 83, P = 0.02) and had the highest functional impact (PFIQ median 181, interquartile range 138, P < 0.001). After excision, only 33.3% of women with pain alone reported 'improved' symptoms (PGI-I), versus 73.9% with exposure, 58.3% with exposure plus pain (P = 0.03) with no differences in PGI-I by mesh type. VAS scores decreased in all groups, but PFDI and PFIQ did not improve in pain patients. CONCLUSIONS: In women experiencing a pain complication after urogynaecological mesh insertion, mesh removal often does not improve symptoms. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Only 33% of women with pain complications have improved symptoms after urogynaecological mesh removal.

Drugs for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults after general anaesthesia: an abridged Cochrane network meta-analysis.

Postoperative nausea and vomiting is a common adverse effect of anaesthesia. Although dozens of different anti-emetics are available for clinical practice, there is currently no comparative ranking of efficacy and safety of these drugs to inform clinical practice. We performed a systematic review with network meta-analyses to compare, and rank in terms of efficacy and safety, single anti-emetic drugs and their combinations, including 5-hydroxytryptamine3 , dopamine-2 and neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists; corticosteroids; antihistamines; and anticholinergics used to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults after general anaesthesia. We systematically searched for placebo-controlled and head-to-head randomised controlled trials up to November 2017 (updated in April 2020). We assessed how trustworthy the evidence was using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) and Confidence In Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) approaches for vomiting within 24 h postoperatively, serious adverse events, any adverse event and drug class-specific side-effects. We included 585 trials (97,516 participants, 83% women) testing 44 single drugs and 51 drug combinations. The studies' overall risk of bias was assessed as low in only 27% of the studies. In 282 trials, 29 out of 36 drug combinations and 10 out of 28 single drugs lowered the risk of vomiting at least 20% compared with placebo. In the ranking of treatments, combinations of drugs were generally more effective than single drugs. Single neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists were as effective as other drug combinations. Out of the 10 effective single drugs, certainty of evidence was high for aprepitant, with risk ratio (95%CI) 0.26 (0.18-0.38); ramosetron, 0.44 (0.32-0.59); granisetron, 0.45 (0.38-0.54); dexamethasone, 0.51 (0.44-0.57); and ondansetron, 0.55 (0.51-0.60). It was moderate for fosaprepitant, 0.06 (0.02-0.21) and droperidol, 0.61 (0.54-0.69). Granisetron and amisulpride are likely to have little or no increase in any adverse event compared with placebo, while dimenhydrinate and scopolamine may increase the number of patients with any adverse event compared with placebo. So far, there is no convincing evidence that other single drugs effect the incidence of serious, or any, adverse events when compared with placebo. Among drug class specific side-effects, evidence for single drugs is mostly not convincing. There is convincing evidence regarding the prophylactic effect of at least seven single drugs for postoperative vomiting such that future studies investigating these drugs will probably not change the estimated beneficial effect. However, there is still considerable lack of evidence regarding safety aspects that does warrant investigation.

Bedside tests for predicting difficult airways: an abridged Cochrane diagnostic test accuracy systematic review.

Although bedside screening tests are routinely used to identify people at high risk of having a difficult airway, their clinical utility is unclear. We estimated the diagnostic accuracy of commonly used bedside examination tests for assessing the airway in adult patients without apparent anatomical abnormalities scheduled to undergo general anaesthesia. We searched for studies that reported our pre-specified bedside index screening tests against a reference standard, published in any language, from date of inception to 16 December 2016, in seven bibliographic databases. We included 133 studies (127 cohort type and 6 case-control) involving 844,206 participants. Overall, their methodological quality (according to QUADAS-2, a standard tool for assessing quality of diagnostic accuracy studies) was moderate to high. Our pre-specified tests were: the Mallampati test (6 studies); modified Mallampati test (105 studies); Wilson risk score (6 studies); thyromental distance (52 studies); sternomental distance (18 studies); mouth opening test (34 studies); and the upper lip bite test (30 studies). Difficult facemask ventilation, difficult laryngoscopy, difficult intubation and failed intubation were the reference standards in seven, 92, 50 and two studies, respectively. Across all reference standards, we found all index tests had relatively low sensitivities, with high variability, but specificities were consistently and markedly higher than sensitivities. For difficult laryngoscopy, the sensitivity and specificity (95%CI) of the upper lip bite test were 0.67 (0.45-0.83) and 0.92 (0.86-0.95), respectively; upper lip bite test sensitivity (95%CI) was significantly higher than that for the mouth opening test (0.22, 0.13-0.33; p < 0.001). For difficult tracheal intubation, the modified Mallampati test had a significantly higher sensitivity (95%CI) at 0.51 (0.40-0.61) compared with mouth opening (0.27, 0.16-0.41; p < 0.001) and thyromental distance (0.24, 0.12-0.43; p < 0.001). Although the upper lip bite test showed the most favourable diagnostic test accuracy properties, none of the common bedside screening tests is well suited for detecting unanticipated difficult airways, as many of them are missed.

Systematic review and consensus definitions for standardised endpoints in perioperative medicine: postoperative cancer outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The Standardising Endpoints for Perioperative Medicine group was established to derive an appropriate set of endpoints for use in clinical trials related to anaesthesia and perioperative medicine. Anaesthetic or analgesic technique during cancer surgery with curative intent may influence the risk of recurrence or metastasis. However, given the current equipoise in the existing literature, prospective, randomised, controlled trials are necessary to test this hypothesis. As such, a cancer subgroup was formed to derive endpoints related to research in onco-anaesthesia based on a current evidence base, international consensus and expert guidance. METHODS: We undertook a systematic review to identify measures of oncological outcome used in the oncological, surgical, and wider literature. A multiround Delphi consensus process that included up to 89 clinician-researchers was then used to refine a recommended list of endpoints. RESULTS: We identified 90 studies in a literature search, which were the basis for a preliminary list of nine outcome measures and their definitions. A further two were added during the Delphi process. Response rates for Delphi rounds one, two, and three were 88% (n=9), 82% (n=73), and 100% (n=10), respectively. A final list of 10 defined endpoints was refined and developed, of which six secured approval by ≥70% of the group: cancer health related quality of life, days alive and out of hospital at 90 days, time to tumour progression, disease-free survival, cancer-specific survival, and overall survival (and 5-yr overall survival). CONCLUSION: Standardised endpoints in clinical outcomes studies will support benchmarking and pooling (meta-analysis) of trials. It is therefore recommended that one or more of these consensus-derived endpoints should be considered for inclusion in clinical trials evaluating a causal effect of anaesthesia-analgesia technique on oncological outcomes.

Patient-controlled analgesia with remifentanil vs. alternative parenteral methods for pain management in labour: a Cochrane systematic review.

We aimed to assess the effectiveness of remifentanil used as intravenous patient-controlled analgesia for the pain of labour. We performed a systematic literature search in December 2015 (updated in December 2016). We included randomised, controlled and cluster-randomised trials of women in labour with planned vaginal delivery receiving patient-controlled remifentanil compared principally with other parenteral and patient-controlled opioids, epidural analgesia and continuous remifentanil infusion or placebo. The primary outcomes were patient satisfaction with pain relief and the occurrence of adverse events for mothers and newborns. We assessed risk of bias for each included study and applied the GRADE approach for the quality of evidence. We included total zero event trials, using a constant continuity correction of 0.01 and a random-effect meta-analysis. Twenty studies were included in the qualitative analysis; within these, 3713 participants were randomised and 3569 analysed. Most of our pre-specified outcomes were not studied in the included trials. However, we found evidence that women using patient-controlled remifentanil were more satisfied with pain relief than women receiving parenteral opioids (four trials, 216 patients, very low quality evidence) with a standardised mean difference ([SMD] 95%CI) of 2.11 (0.72-3.49), but were less satisfied than women receiving epidural analgesia (seven trials, 2135 patients, very low quality evidence), -0.22 (-0.40 to -0.04). Data on adverse events were sparse. However, the relative risk (95%CI) for maternal respiratory depression for patient-controlled remifentanil compared with epidural analgesia (three trials, 687 patients, low-quality evidence) was 0.91 (0.51-1.62). Compared with continuous intravenous infusion of remifentanil (two trials, 135 patients, low-quality evidence) no conclusion could be reached as all study arms showed zero events. The relative risk (95%CI) of Apgar scores less than 7 at 5 min after birth compared with epidural analgesia (five trials, 1322 participants, low-quality evidence) was 1.26 (0.62-2.57).