Safety and effectiveness of aspirin and enoxaparin for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis after total hip and knee arthroplasty: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are at risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Australian orthopaedic guidelines recommend aspirin and low-molecular-weight heparin (e.g. enoxaparin) for VTE prophylaxis; however, there is debate in the international literature around the use of aspirin as VTE prophylaxis. This review assesses the risks and benefits of aspirin compared to enoxaparin as VTE prophylaxis for patients undergoing THA or TKA. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted to identify relevant randomized controlled trials. Studies comparing enoxaparin, aspirin and/or placebo for VTE prophylaxis in THA or TKA patients were included. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to calculate risk ratios (RRs) and confidence intervals (CIs). Quality appraisal was conducted by assessing risk of bias and the strength of the evidence. RESULTS: Nine randomized controlled trials were eligible for inclusion. The NMA found no statistically significant differences for the investigated outcomes: total DVT rates (RR = 1.21, 95% CI 0.86, 1.72), symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE) rates (RR = 1.02, 95% CI 0.02, 50.86), major haemorrhage (RR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.02, 50.99) and wound complication (RR = 0.73, 95% CI 0.17, 3.20). The occurrence of PE was rare. Due to limited data, sub-group analysis was not possible. The overall quality of evidence in the NMA is considered to be very low. CONCLUSION: This review did not find statistically significant differences between aspirin and enoxaparin. Future studies should identify more evidence, particularly for rare outcomes such as PE, as this might help decision-makers to get consensus on the use of aspirin as VTE prophylaxis.

INAHTA IMPACT STORY: LEGISLATIVE AND ACCREDITATION REQUIREMENTS FOR OFFICE-BASED SURGERY IN AUSTRALIA.

BACKGROUND: There is growing trend for some surgical procedures previously performed in hospitals to be done in alternative settings, including office-based facilities. There has been some safety concerns reported in the media, which document serious adverse events following procedures performed in an office-based setting. To understand the current regulatory oversight of surgery in this setting ASERNIP-S conducted a review of the legislative and accreditation process governing these facilities in Australia. METHODS: Using rapid review methodology, internet searches targeted government Web sites for relevant publicly-available documents. Use of consolidated versions of legislative instruments ensured currency of information. Standards were sourced directly from the issuing authorities or those that oversee the accreditation process. RESULTS: Within Australia, healthcare facilities for surgery and their licensing are defined by each state and territory, which results in significant jurisdictional variation. These variations relate to the need for anesthesia beyond conscious sedation and listing of procedures in legislative instruments. In 2013, Australia adopted National Safety and Quality Health Service standards (NSQHS standards) for the accreditation of hospitals and day surgery centers; however, there is no NSQHS standard for office-based facilities. The main legislative driver for compliance is access to reimbursement schemes for service delivery. CONCLUSIONS: The legislative and accreditation framework creates a situation whereby healthcare facilities that provide services outside the various legal definitions of surgery and those not covered by a reimbursement scheme, can operate without licensing and accreditation oversight. This situation exposes patients to potential increased risk of harm when receiving treatment in such unregulated facilities.

Continuous paravertebral block for post-cardiothoracic surgery analgesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

A continuous paravertebral block is used when pain relief is required beyond the duration of a single-injection paravertebral block. Surgical procedures requiring an incision into the pleural cavity are some of the most painful procedures postoperatively and, if not managed appropriately, can lead to chronic pain. The current gold standard for post-cardiothoracic surgery pain management is epidural analgesia, which has contraindications, a failure rate of up to 12% and risk of complications such as epidural abscess and spinal haematoma. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the use of a continuous paravertebral block for post-cardiothoracic surgery analgesia. Randomized controlled trials evaluating the continuous paravertebral block against epidural analgesia, wound infiltration, placebo or standard care (intravenous opioids) for post-cardiothoracic surgery analgesia were considered for inclusion in the systematic review. PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and the University of York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination databases were searched from inception to 15 September 2014. Risk of bias and generalizability were assessed using a modified Downs and Black checklist. A meta-analysis was conducted on suitable studies comparing the continuous paravertebral nerve block with epidural anaesthesia, with fixed-effects models being used to pool the effects. Twenty-three randomized controlled trials with 1120 participants were included. The continuous paravertebral block was associated with a significant improvement in incidence of nausea and vomiting (odds ratio = 0.29, 95% confidence interval = [0.16, 0.56]), hypotension (odds ratio = 0.16, 95% confidence interval = [0.06, 0.41]) and urinary retention (odds ratio = 0.22, 95% confidence interval = [0.09, 0.52]) compared with the epidural block. No statistically significant difference in pain relief was reported. The continuous paravertebral block has equivalent analgesic effects to epidural analgesia, wound infiltration and standard care, but is associated with a lower incidence of nausea and vomiting, hypotension and urinary retention than epidural analgesia.

Stereotactic anatomical localization in complex sinus surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: It is recognized that stereotactic anatomical localization (SAL) is a useful tool in endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS), but it may be most beneficial for complex rather than routine sinus procedures. This review sought to determine the safety and efficacy of SAL in complex indications for ESS. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, EMBASE, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception up to April 4, 2014. REVIEW METHODS: English studies comparing ESS with and without SAL in complex cases were included. Complex surgery included revision surgery, inverted papilloma, extensive sinus disease, or biopsy of tumors that are not exophytic. Safety outcomes included total, major, minor, orbital, dural, and major hemorrhage complications. Efficacy outcomes included operation completion, revision surgery, and patient-reported outcomes. Meta-analysis generated fixed-effects Mantel-Haenszel odds ratios (OR) and confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: A total of 2,381 studies were identified, of which nine met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analyses indicated a reduction in the likelihood of total (OR = 0.58; 95% CI, 0.37-0.92), major (OR = 0.36; 95% CI, 0.18-0.75), and orbital complications (OR = 0.38; 95% CI, 0.17-0.83). There was no demonstrated benefit of SAL at reducing revision surgery (OR = 0.64; 95% CI, 0.38-1.08), major hemorrhage (OR = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.29-2.06), or minor complications (OR = 0.85; 95% CI, 0.48-1.50). CONCLUSION: Due to the rare outcomes under investigation, the included primary studies largely lacked the power to identify a statistically meaningful effect of SAL in ESS. However, meta-analyses of primary studies demonstrated a decreased likelihood of total, major, and orbital complications in complex ESS with the use of SAL.

Self-Expanding Metallic Stents for the Management of Emergency Malignant Large Bowel Obstruction: a Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: This paper evaluates the safety and effectiveness of self-expanding metallic stents (SEMS) for the management of emergency malignant colorectal obstruction in patients otherwise requiring multi-stage surgery. No systematic review has been conducted comparing SEMS to only multi-stage surgery. METHODS: Bibliographic databases, including Cochrane, PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL, were searched in September 2011 and repeated in November 2013. A pre-determined protocol outlined the study inclusion and appraisal. RESULTS: Forty articles were included, seven compared SEMS to multi-stage surgery. Included studies were of low to moderate quality. Bowel perforation was the most severe stent-related complication, while tumor- and stent-related events occurred most frequently. No significant differences in rates of obstruction relief were reported between treatments, and results regarding relative quality of life were inconclusive. SEMS recipients progressed to elective surgery sooner and required shorter post-procedural hospital stays, but commonly required re-intervention. SEMS provided enduring palliative relief of obstruction, with comparable survival longevity between treatments. Conclusion: SEMS placement is a viable alternative to multi-stage surgery, providing patients with benefits as a bridge-to-surgery and relief of obstruction in a palliative context, with minimal differences in clinical success and safety compared to multi-stage surgery.