Commentary on the NICE guideline on renal replacement therapy and conservative management.

BACKGROUND: NICE Guideline NG107, "Renal replacement therapy and conservative management" (Renal replacement therapy and conservative management (NG107); 2018:1-33) was published in October 2018 and replaced the existing NICE guideline CG125, "Chronic Kidney Disease (Stage 5): peritoneal dialysis" (Chronic kidney disease (stage 5): peritoneal dialysis | Guidance | NICE; 2011) and NICE Technology Appraisal TA48, "Guidance on home compared with hospital haemodialysis for patients with end-stage renal failure"(Guidance on home compared with hospital haemodialysis for patients with end-stage renal failure (Technology appraisal guideline TA48); 2002) The aim of the NICE guideline (NG107) was to provide guidance on renal replacement therapy (RRT), including dialysis, transplant and conservative care, for adults and children with CKD Stages 4 and 5. The guideline is extremely welcomed by the Renal Association and it offers huge value to patients, clinicians, commissioners and key stakeholders. It overlaps and enhances current guidance published by the Renal Association including "Haemodialysis" (Clinical practice guideline: Haemodialysis; 2019) which was updated in 2019 after the publication of the NICE guideline, "Peritoneal Dialysis in Adults and Children" (Clinical practice guideline: peritoneal Dialysis in adults and children; 2017) and "Planning, Initiation & withdrawal of Renal Replacement Therapy" (Clinical practice guideline: planning, initiation and withdrawal of renal replacement therapy; 2014) (at present there are no plans to update this guideline). There are several strengths to NICE guideline NG107 and we agree with and support the vast majority of recommendation statements in the guideline. This summary from the Renal Association discusses some of the key highlights, controversies, gaps in knowledge and challenges in implementation. Where there is disagreement with a NICE guideline statement, we have highlighted this and a new suggested statement has been written.

Network meta-analysis of short-term effects of different strategies in the conservative treatment of AIS.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the short-term effects of different conservative treatments on in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. METHODS: By searching the relevant literature of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis, the curative effects of the three regimens of bracing therapy combined with scoliosis-specific exercises, simple treatment with brace and simple scoliosis-specific exercises were compared. Review manager 5.3, Stata MP16 and Network software packages were used for Reticular Meta-analysis of Cobb's angles before and after treatment. RESULTS: A total of 364 patients were included in four clinical studies. Reticular meta-analysis showed that the short-term effect of bracing treatment combined with scoliosis-specific exercises was better than that of treatment with brace and scoliosis-specific exercises, with effects of 2.71(95% CI 0.83-4.58) and 3.67(95% CI 1.21-6.14), respectively. There was no statistical difference between simple bracing therapy and scoliosis-specific exercises. CONCLUSION: Among the three common conservative treatments of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis, the short-term effect of bracing treatment combined with scoliosis-specific exercises is better than that of bracing treatment or scoliosis-specific exercises.

Surgery in soft tissue sarcoma: the thin line between a surgical or more conservative approach.

Surgery is the primary treatment for localized, clinically resectable soft tissue sarcoma (STS). Chemotherapy and radiotherapy, administered in the pre- or post-operative settings, have important ancillary roles in the multimodal management of primary STS. Some sarcoma centers also employ locoregional therapies such as isolated limb perfusion and deep wave hyperthermia in multimodal therapy. In advanced or metastatic STS, surgery is recommended when complete resection is feasible. Nevertheless, in certain situations there is thin line between a surgical or non-surgical approach, generally related to STS histological type/subtype, disease stage and technical considerations. In advanced STS, factors favoring surgery are isolated oligometastatic disease, long disease-free interval, suitable histology, response to chemotherapy and high probability of a complete resection.

Don't mess with the pancreas! A multicenter analysis of the management of low-grade pancreatic injuries.

INTRODUCTION: Current guidelines recommend nonoperative management (NOM) of low-grade (American Association for the Surgery of Trauma-Organ Injury Scale Grade I-II) pancreatic injuries (LGPIs), and drainage rather than resection for those undergoing operative management, but they are based on low-quality evidence. The purpose of this study was to review the contemporary management and outcomes of LGPIs and identify risk factors for morbidity. METHODS: Multicenter retrospective review of diagnosis, management, and outcomes of adult pancreatic injuries from 2010 to 2018. The primary outcome was pancreas-related complications (PRCs). Predictors of PRCs were analyzed using multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Twenty-nine centers submitted data on 728 patients with LGPI (76% men; mean age, 38 years; 37% penetrating; 51% Grade I; median Injury Severity Score, 24). Among 24-hour survivors, definitive management was NOM in 31%, surgical drainage alone in 54%, resection in 10%, and pancreatic debridement or suturing in 5%. The incidence of PRCs was 21% overall and was 42% after resection, 26% after drainage, and 4% after NOM. On multivariate analysis, independent risk factors for PRC were other intra-abdominal injury (odds ratio [OR], 2.30; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.16-15.28), low volume (OR, 2.88; 1.65, 5.06), and penetrating injury (OR, 3.42; 95% CI, 1.80-6.58). Resection was very close to significance (OR, 2.06; 95% CI, 0.97-4.34) (p = 0.0584). CONCLUSION: The incidence of PRCs is significant after LGPIs. Patients who undergo pancreatic resection have PRC rates equivalent to patients resected for high-grade pancreatic injuries. Those who underwent surgical drainage had slightly lower PRC rate, but only 4% of those who underwent NOM had PRCs. In patients with LGPIs, resection should be avoided. The NOM strategy should be used whenever possible and studied prospectively, particularly in penetrating trauma. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Study, level IV.

Should we perform cervix removal during hysterectomy for benign uterine disease? Clinical practice guidelines from the French College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians (CNGOF).

OBJECTIVE: To provide guidelines from the French College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (CNGOF), based on the best evidence available, concerning subtotal or total hysterectomy, for benign disease. METHODS: The CNGOF has decided to adopt the AGREE II and GRADE systems for grading scientific evidence. Each recommendation for practice was allocated a grade, which depends on the quality of evidence (QE) (clinical practice guidelines). RESULTS: Conservation of the uterine cervix is associated with an increased risk of cervical cancer (0.05 to 0.27%) and an increased risk of reoperation for cervical bleeding (QE: high). Uterine cervix removal is associated with a moderate (about 11 min) increase in operative time when hysterectomy is performed by the open abdominal route (laparotomy), but is not associated with longer operative time when the hysterectomy is performed by laparoscopy (QE: moderate). Removal of the uterine cervix is not associated with increased prevalence of short-term follow-up complications (blood transfusion, ureteral or bladder injury) (QE: low) or of long-term follow-up complications (pelvic organ prolapse, sexual disorders, urinary incontinence (QE: moderate). CONCLUSION: Removal of the uterine cervix is recommended for hysterectomy in women presenting with benign uterine disease (Recommendation: STRONG [GRADE 1-]; the level of evidence was considered to be sufficient and the risk-benefit balance was considered to be favorable).

[Guideline 'Ingrown toenails']. / Richtlijn 'Ingegroeide teennagel'.

Ingrown toenails (also called unguis incarnatus) are a common problem in the general population. In early 2020, the medical specialists' guideline "Ingrown toenail" was published in which the various treatment options are compared. Conservative treatment can be considered for stage I ingrown toenails. In stage II-III ingrown toenails and failing conservative treatment, operative treatment is recommended consisting of partial nail extraction from the ingrown nail edge in combination with destruction of the corresponding part of the matrix. There doesn't seem to be any reason to deviate from the advice in the case of a recurring ingrown toenail or an ingrown toenail in a patient with expected wound healing problems. A detailed elaboration of the guideline, which also contains a step-by-step operative approach, can be found on the Guidelines database (https://richtlijnendatabase.nl/).

Availability, Accessibility, and Quality of Conservative Kidney Management Worldwide.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: People with kidney failure typically receive KRT in the form of dialysis or transplantation. However, studies have suggested that not all patients with kidney failure are best suited for KRT. Additionally, KRT is costly and not always accessible in resource-restricted settings. Conservative kidney management is an alternate kidney failure therapy that focuses on symptom management, psychologic health, spiritual care, and family and social support. Despite the importance of conservative kidney management in kidney failure care, several barriers exist that affect its uptake and quality. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: The Global Kidney Health Atlas is an ongoing initiative of the International Society of Nephrology that aims to monitor and evaluate the status of global kidney care worldwide. This study reports on findings from the 2018 Global Kidney Health Atlas survey, specifically addressing the availability, accessibility, and quality of conservative kidney management. RESULTS: Respondents from 160 countries completed the survey, and 154 answered questions pertaining to conservative kidney management. Of these, 124 (81%) stated that conservative kidney management was available. Accessibility was low worldwide, particularly in low-income countries. Less than half of countries utilized multidisciplinary teams (46%); utilized shared decision making (32%); or provided psychologic, cultural, or spiritual support (36%). One-quarter provided relevant health care providers with training on conservative kidney management delivery. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, conservative kidney management is available in most countries; however, it is not optimally accessible or of the highest quality.

Sacroiliac joint fusion VS conservative management for chronic low back pain attributed to the sacroiliac joint: A protocol for systematic review and meta analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Low back pain (LBP) is high prevalent and it is the leading cause of years lived with disability in both developed and developing countries. The sacroiliac joint (SIJ) is a common reason that caused LBP. At present, the treatment of chronic LBP attributed to SIJ is mainly conservative treatment and surgical treatment. However, there are still controversies between the 2 treating methods, and there is no recognized standard of treatment or surgical indications. Recent publications indicated that minimally invasive sacroiliac joint arthrodesis was safe and more effective improving pain, disability, and quality of life compared with conservative management in 2 years follow-up, which re-raise the focus of sacroiliac joints fusion. This paper will systematically review the available evidence, comparing the effectiveness of sacroiliac joint fusion and conservative therapy for the treatment of gait retraining for patients suffered from LBP attributed to the sacroiliac joint. METHOD AND ANALYSIS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of relevant studies in Pubmed, Embase, SCOPUS, and Cochrane Library will be synthesized. Inclusion criteria will be studies evaluating clinical outcomes (i.e., changes to pain and/or function) comparing sacroiliac joint fusion and conservative therapy in populations sacroiliac join related LBP; studies with less than 10 participants in total will be excluded. The primary outcomes measured will be pain score, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and adverse events during treatment. Review Manager (Revman; Version 5.3) software will be used for data synthesis, sensitivity analysis, meta-regression, subgroup analysis, and risk of bias assessment. A funnel plot will be developed to evaluate reporting bias and Begg and Egger tests will be used to assess funnel plot symmetries. We will use the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system to assess the quality of evidence. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Our aim is to publish this systematic review and meta-analysis in a peer-reviewed journal. Our findings will provide information comparing the efficacy and safety comparing sacroiliac joint fusion and non-surgical treatment for patients with LBP attributed to the sacroiliac joint. This review will not require ethical approval as there are no issues about participant privacy.

Optimal treatments for hepato-pancreato-biliary trauma in severely injured patients: a narrative scoping review.

SUMMARY: Hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) injuries can be extremely challenging to manage. This scoping review (8438 citations) offers a number of recommendations. If diagnosis and therapy are rapid, patients with major hepatic injuries who present in physiologic extremis have high survival rates despite prolonged hospital stays. Nonoperative management of major liver injuries, as diagnosed using computed tomography, is typically successful. Adjuncts (e.g., angioembolization, laparoscopic washouts, biliary stents) are essential in managing high-grade injuries. Injury to the extrahepatic biliary tree is rare. Cholecystectomy is indicated for all gallbladder trauma. Full-thickness common bile duct injuries require a hepaticojejunostomy, although damage control remains closed suction drainage. Injuries to the pancreatic head often involve concurrent trauma to regional vasculature. Damage control necessitates drainage after stopping hemorrhage. Injury to the left pancreas commonly requires a distal pancreatectomy. Outcomes for high-grade pancreatic and liver injuries are improved by involving an HPB team. Complications are multidisciplinary and should be managed without delay.

HMB in the Adolescent: A Review of the Modern Approach to Diagnosis and Management.

Heavy menstrual bleeding in the adolescent is a cause for concern whether occurring acutely or chronically. There are a number of important considerations during the initial presentation that will help guide the practitioner during workup, which ultimately guides management strategies. The cornerstone of management in the adolescent is that of medical therapy (hormonal and nonhormonal), with avoidance of invasive and irreversible measures, as maintenance of fertility is paramount. Ultimately, the majority of adolescents can be successfully managed in the acute setting and transitioned to maintenance therapy for long-term control of heavy menses. Here, we will review the modern approach to this condition as well as tips and tricks for the practitioner.

To treat or not to treat? An evidence-based practice guide for the management of endometrial polyps.

Endometrial polyps are a common finding, with a prevalence of about 40%, and are usually diagnosed incidentally as most are asymptomatic. Symptomatic polyps usually present with abnormal uterine bleeding and/or sub-fertility. About 25% of polyps resolve spontaneously if managed conservatively. The usual management of endometrial polyps, symptomatic or asymptomatic, is polypectomy, performed primarily to exclude malignancy within the polyp despite the overall risk of malignancy being low (about 3%). The main risk factors for malignancy are menopause and abnormal uterine bleeding, with hypertension, obesity, diabetes mellitus, and tamoxifen use thought to play a lesser role. Transvaginal ultrasonography is the primary diagnostic tool for endometrial polyps although visualization by hysteroscopy is the gold standard for diagnosis. There is no proven preventative or medical treatment, with complete polyp removal under hysteroscopic guidance the recommended surgical treatment. Some women may decline surgical endometrial polyp management due to the small inherent risks. Conservative management is an option for asymptomatic premenopausal and postmenopausal women, whilst polypectomy is recommended for all women with abnormal uterine bleeding. Management should be individualized and made in consultation with the patient.

The Evolution of Nonoperative Management of Abdominal Gunshot Wounds in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Surgical exploration for gunshot wounds to the abdomen has been a surgical standard for the greater part of the past century. Recently, nonoperative management (NOM) has been deemed as a safe option for abdominal gunshot wounds (AGWs). The aim of this analysis was to review the utilization of NOM and mortality after AGWs. METHODS: We performed a 2010-2014 retrospective analysis of the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality and Improvement Program. We included all adult (aged 18 and older) patients with AGWs. NOM was defined as nonsurgical intervention within the first 6 h. Outcome measures were trends of utilization of NOM and mortality. Cochrane-Armitage trend analysis was performed. RESULTS: A total of 808,272 trauma patients were identified, and 16,866 patients with AGWs were included. During the study period, the incidence of AGWs increased, whereas the proportion of bowel injury (P = 0.75) and solid organ injury (P = 0.44) did not change. The NOM rate of AGW increased (2010: 19.5% versus 2014: 27%, P < 0.001). This was accompanied by a decrease in mortality rate (11% versus 9.4%, P = 0.01). Likewise, there was an increase in the use of angiography (7.5% versus 27%, P < 0.001) and laparoscopy (0.9% versus 2.6%, P < 0.001). Overall, 9.8% of the patients had failed NOM. There was no difference in mortality in patients who were managed successfully or failed NOM (5% versus 4.6%, P = 0.45). CONCLUSIONS: NOM of AGW is more prevalent and is associated with a decrease in mortality rate. Selective NOM may be practiced safely after AGWs.

Closing the gap in care of blunt solid organ injury in children.

INTRODUCTION: Cross-sectional data of pediatric blunt solid organ injury demonstrates higher rates of nonoperative management and shorter lengths of stay (LOSs) in pediatric trauma centers (PTCs) versus adult trauma centers (ATCs) or dual trauma centers (DTCs). Recent iterations of guidelines (McVay 2008, J Pediatr Surg 2008;43(6):1072-1076 J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2015;79(4):683-693) have emphasized physiologic parameters rather than injury grade in clinical decision making, improving resource allocation and decreasing LOS. We sought to evaluate how these guidelines have influenced care. METHODS: The National Trauma Data Bank (2007-2016) was queried for isolated spleen and liver injuries in patients younger than 19 years. Linear regression, odds ratio (OR), and χ test were used to determine significance between operative intervention or LOS among different trauma center types and grade of injury. RESULT: A total of 55,036 blunt spleen or liver injuries were identified. Although operative rates decreased in ATCs over time (p = 0.037), patients treated at ATCs or DTCs continued to demonstrate higher ORs of operative intervention (OR, 4.43 and 2.88, respectively) compared with PTCs. Mean LOS decreased by 1.52 (p < 0.001), 0.49 (p = 0.26), and 1.31 (p = 0.05) days at ATC, DTC, and PTC to 6.43, 6.68, and 5.16 days. Improvement in LOS for ATCs was distributed across injury Grades I, II, and IV, while there was no correlation among PTCs for injury grade. CONCLUSION: Despite more than a decade of guidelines in pediatric solid organ injury supporting nonoperative management and accelerated discharge pathways based on physiologic parameters, rates of operative intervention remain much higher in ATCs versus PTCs, and all centers appear to fall short of consensus guidelines for discharge. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Care management study, level IV.