Starting position during colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Traditional teaching has been to place patients in the left lateral decubitus starting position for colonoscopies. Recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have compared left lateral decubitus starting position to other approaches. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare different starting positions for colonoscopies and their effect on cecal intubation. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched from inception to July 2023. Articles were eligible for inclusion if they were RCTs comparing at least two different starting positions for adults undergoing colonoscopy. The main outcome was cecal intubation time. Meta-analysis used an inverse variance random effects model. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Tool for RCTs 2.0. RESULTS: After screening 1523 citations, 14 RCTs were included. Four studies compared left lateral decubitus to right lateral decubitus, four studies compared left lateral decubitus to left lateral tilt-down, three studies compared left lateral decubitus to prone, and three studies compared left lateral decubitus to supine. There were no statistically significant differences in cecal intubation time in seconds across all comparisons: left lateral decubitus vs. right lateral decubitus (MD 14.9, 95% CI - 111.8 to 141.6, p = 0.82, I2 = 85%); left lateral decubitus vs. left lateral tilt-down (MD - 31.3, 95% CI - 70.8 to 8.3, p = 0.12, I2 = 82%); left lateral decubitus vs. prone (MD 17.2, 95% CI - 174.9 to 209.4, p = 0.86, I2 = 94%); left lateral decubitus vs. supine (MD - 149.9, 95% CI - 443.6 to 143.9, p = 0.32, I2 = 89%). CONCLUSION: The starting position for colonoscopies likely does not influence cecal intubation time. This study was limited by heterogeneity.

The modified frailty index predicts postoperative morbidity in elective hernia repair patients: analysis of the national inpatient sample 2015-2019.

PURPOSE: Frailty has shown promise in predicting postoperative morbidity and mortality following hernia surgery. This study aims to evaluate the predictive capacity of the 11-item modified frailty index (mFI) in estimating postoperative outcomes following elective hernia surgery using the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the NIS from 2015 to 2019 was performed including adult patients who underwent elective hernia repair. The mFI was used to stratify patients as either frail (mFI ≥ 0.27) or robust (mFI < 0.27). The primary outcomes were in-hospital postoperative morbidity and mortality. The secondary outcomes were system-specific morbidity, length of stay (LOS), total in-hospital healthcare cost, and discharge disposition. Univariable and multivariable regressions were utilized. RESULTS: In total, 14,125 robust patients and 1704 frail patients were included. Frailty was associated with an increased age (mean age 66.4 years vs. 52.6 years, p < 0.001) and prevalence of ventral hernias (51.9% vs. 44.4%, p < 0.001). Adjusted analyses demonstrated that frail patients had increased in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 3.89, 95% CI 1.50, 10.11, p = 0.005), postoperative overall morbidity (aOR 1.98, 95% CI 1.72, 2.29, p < 0.001), postoperative LOS (adjusted mean difference (aMD) 0.78 days, 95% CI 0.51, 1.06, p < 0.001), total in-hospital healthcare costs (aMD $7562 95% CI 3292, 11,832, p = 0.001), and were less likely to be discharged home (aOR 0.61, 95% CI 0.53, 0.69, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The mFI may be a reliable predictor of postoperative morbidity and mortality in elective hernia surgery. Utilizing this tool can aid in patient education and identifying high-risk patients who may benefit from tailored prehabilitation.

Revised recommendations from the CSO-HNS taskforce on performance of tracheotomy during the COVID-19 pandemic - what a difference a year makes.

BACKGROUND: During the early part of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Canadian Society of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery (CSO-HNS) task force published recommendations on performance of tracheotomy. Since then, our understanding of the virus has evolved with ongoing intensive research efforts. New literature has helped us better understand various aspects including patient outcomes and health care worker (HCW) risks associated with tracheotomy during the COVID-19 pandemic. Accordingly, the task force has re-evaluated and revised some of the previous recommendations. MAIN BODY: Based on recent evidence, a negative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) COVID-19 swab status is no longer the main deciding factor in the timing of tracheotomy. Instead, tracheotomy may be considered as soon as COVID-19 swab positive patients are greater than 20 days beyond initial symptoms and 2 weeks of mechanical ventilation. Furthermore, both open and percutaneous surgical techniques may be considered with both techniques showing similar safety and outcome profiles. Additional recommendations with discussion of current evidence are presented. CONCLUSION: These revised recommendations apply new evidence in optimizing patient and health care system outcomes as well as minimizing risks of COVID-19 transmission during aerosol-generating tracheotomy procedures. As previously noted, additional evidence may lead to further evolution of these and other similar recommendations.

Recommendations from the CSO-HNS taskforce on performance of tracheotomy during the COVID-19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: The performance of tracheotomy is a common procedural request by critical care departments to the surgical services of general surgery, thoracic surgery and otolaryngology - head & neck surgery. A Canadian Society of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery (CSO-HNS) task force was convened with multi-specialty involvement from otolaryngology-head & neck surgery, general surgery, critical care and anesthesiology to develop a set of recommendations for the performance of tracheotomies during the COVID-19 pandemic. MAIN BODY: The tracheotomy procedure is highly aerosol generating and directly exposes the entire surgical team to the viral aerosol plume and secretions, thereby increasing the risk of transmission to healthcare providers. As such, we believe extended endotracheal intubation should be the standard of care for the entire duration of ventilation in the vast majority of patients. Pre-operative COVID-19 testing is highly recommended for any non-emergent procedure. CONCLUSION: The set of recommendations in this document highlight the importance of avoiding tracheotomy procedures in patients who are COVID-19 positive if at all possible. Recommendations for appropriate PPE and environment are made for COVID-19 positive, negative and unknown patients requiring consideration of tracheotomy. The safety of healthcare professionals who care for ill patients and who keep critical infrastructure operating is paramount.

Local breast cancer recurrence after mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction for invasive cancer: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The main priorities in the surgical treatment of patients with breast cancer are to achieve cure, local control and prevent recurrence. It is increasingly important to address quality of life and self-image with women undergoing surgical intervention for breast cancer. There is a lack of consensus as to the oncologic safety of immediate breast reconstruction (IBR). The purpose of this paper is to systematically review the literature and compare the frequency of recurrence in patients with and without IBR following mastectomy for breast cancer. METHODS: Two independent investigators searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane database using predefined search terms. After application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, 10 articles remained. Each article was assessed for quality. Relevant data was collected including recurrence rates, cancer stage, type of mastectomy and reconstruction, adjuvant treatments, and duration of follow-up. RESULTS: Inter-rater reliability was good at 74% (95% CI: 0, 93%). There was no evidence of study heterogeneity (p for Q-statistic=0.34 and I(2)=12%). The OR ratio for recurrence of breast cancer for mastectomy with IBR as compared to mastectomy alone was 0.98 (95% CI: 0.62, 1.54). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis demonstrated no evidence for increased frequency of local breast cancer recurrence with IBR compared with mastectomy alone.