Reactive air surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers.

BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers (also known as pressure injuries, pressure sores, decubitus ulcers and bed sores) are localised injuries to the skin or underlying soft tissue, or both, caused by unrelieved pressure, shear or friction. Reactive air surfaces (beds, mattresses or overlays) can be used for preventing pressure ulcers. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of reactive air beds, mattresses or overlays compared with any support surface on the incidence of pressure ulcers in any population in any setting. SEARCH METHODS: In November 2019, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that allocated participants of any age to reactive air beds, overlays or mattresses. Comparators were any beds, overlays or mattresses that were applied for preventing pressure ulcers. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently assessed studies using predetermined inclusion criteria. We carried out data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and the certainty of the evidence assessment according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology. If a reactive air surface was compared with surfaces that were not clearly specified, then we recorded and described the concerned study but did not included it in further data analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 studies (2604 participants) in this review. Most studies were small (median study sample size: 83 participants). The average participant age ranged from 56 to 87 years (median: 72 years). Participants were recruited from a wide range of care settings with the majority being acute care settings. Almost all studies were conducted in the regions of Europe and America. Of the 17 included studies, two (223 participants) compared reactive air surfaces with surfaces that were not well described and therefore could not be classified. We analysed data for five comparisons: reactive air surfaces compared with (1) alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (seven studies with 1728 participants), (2) foam surfaces (four studies with 229 participants), (3) reactive water surfaces (one study with 37 participants), (4) reactive gel surfaces (one study with 66 participants), and (5) another type of reactive air surface (two studies with 223 participants). Of the 17 studies, seven (41.2%) presented findings which were considered at high overall risk of bias. PRIMARY OUTCOME: Pressure ulcer incidence Reactive air surfaces may reduce the proportion of participants developing a new pressure ulcer compared with foam surfaces (risk ratio (RR) 0.42; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18 to 0.96; I2 = 25%; 4 studies, 229 participants; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain if there is a difference in the proportions of participants developing a new pressure ulcer on reactive air surfaces compared with: alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (6 studies, 1648 participants); reactive water surfaces (1 study, 37 participants); reactive gel surfaces (1 study, 66 participants), or another type of reactive air surface (2 studies, 223 participants). Evidence for all these comparisons is of very low certainty. Included studies have data on time to pressure ulcer incidence for two comparisons. When time to pressure ulcer incidence is considered using a hazard ratio (HR), low-certainty evidence suggests that in the nursing home setting, people on reactive air surfaces may be less likely to develop a new pressure ulcer over 14 days' of follow-up than people on alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (HR 0.44; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.96; 1 study, 308 participants). It is uncertain if there is a difference in the hazard of developing new pressure ulcers between two types of reactive air surfaces (1 study, 123 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes Support-surface-associated patient comfort: the included studies have data on this outcome for three comparisons. We could not pool any data as comfort outcome measures differed between included studies; therefore a narrative summary is provided. It is uncertain if there is a difference in patient comfort responses between reactive air surfaces and foam surfaces over the top of an alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (1 study, 72 participants), and between those using reactive air surfaces and those using alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (4 studies, 1364 participants). Evidence for these two comparisons is of very low certainty. It is also uncertain if there is a difference in patient comfort responses between two types of reactive air surfaces (1 study, 84 participants; low-certainty evidence). All reported adverse events: there were data on this outcome for one comparison: it is uncertain if there is a difference in adverse events between reactive air surfaces and foam surfaces (1 study, 72 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The included studies have no data for health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness for all five comparisons. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence is uncertain regarding any differences in the relative effects of reactive air surfaces on ulcer incidence and patient comfort, when compared with reactive water surfaces, reactive gel surfaces, or another type of reactive air surface. Using reactive air surfaces may reduce the risk of developing new pressure ulcers compared with using foam surfaces. Also, using reactive air surfaces may reduce the risk of developing new pressure ulcers within 14 days compared with alternating pressure (active) air surfaces in people in a nursing home setting. Future research in this area should consider evaluation of the most important support surfaces from the perspective of decision-makers. Time-to-event outcomes, careful assessment of adverse events and trial-level cost-effectiveness evaluation should be considered in future studies. Trials should be designed to minimise the risk of detection bias; for example, by using digital photography and adjudicators of the photographs being blinded to group allocation. Further review using network meta-analysis will add to the findings reported here.

ANTECEDENTES: Las úlceras por presión (también conocidas como escaras o úlceras de decúbito) son lesiones localizadas en la piel o en los tejidos blandos subyacentes, o en ambos, causadas por la presión, el roce o la fricción no aliviados. Las superficies de aire estáticas (camas, colchones o sobrecolchones) se pueden utilizar para prevenir las úlceras por presión. OBJETIVOS: Evaluar los efectos de las camas, los colchones o los sobrecolchones de aire estáticos en comparación con cualquier superficie especial para el manejo de la presión (SEMP) sobre la incidencia de las úlceras por presión en cualquier población y en cualquier ámbito. MÉTODOS DE BÚSQUEDA: En noviembre de 2019 se hicieron búsquedas en el Registro especializado del Grupo Cochrane de Heridas (Cochrane Wounds), en el Registro Cochrane central de ensayos controlados (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (incluido In­Process & Other Non­Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase y EBSCO CINAHL Plus. También se buscaron estudios en curso y no publicados en los registros de ensayos clínicos, y se examinaron las listas de referencias de los estudios incluidos pertinentes, así como de las revisiones, los metanálisis y los informes de tecnología sanitaria para identificar estudios adicionales. No hubo restricciones en cuanto al idioma, la fecha de publicación ni el contexto de los estudios. CRITERIOS DE SELECCIÓN: Se incluyeron los ensayos controlados aleatorizados que asignaron a participantes de cualquier edad a camas, colchones o sobrecolchones de aire estáticos. Los comparadores fueron cualquier cama, colchón o sobrecolchón utilizados para prevenir las úlceras por presión. OBTENCIÓN Y ANÁLISIS DE LOS DATOS: Al menos dos autores de la revisión evaluaron de forma independiente los ensayos según criterios de inclusión predeterminados. Se realizó la extracción de los datos, la evaluación del riesgo de sesgo mediante la herramienta Cochrane "Risk of bias" y la evaluación de la certeza de la evidencia según el método Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations. Si se comparaba una superficie de aire estática con superficies que no estaban claramente especificadas, se registraba y describía el estudio en cuestión pero no se incluía en análisis de datos adicionales. RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES: En esta revisión se incluyeron 17 estudios (2604 participantes). La mayoría de los estudios eran pequeños (mediana del tamaño muestral de los estudios: 83 participantes). La media de edad de los participantes varió entre 56 y 87 años (mediana: 72 años). Los participantes fueron reclutados en una amplia variedad de ámbitos asistenciales, siendo la mayoría de ellos ámbitos de cuidados intensivos y de agudos. Casi todos los estudios se realizaron en las regiones de Europa y América. De los 17 estudios incluidos, dos (223 participantes) compararon superficies de aire estáticas con superficies que no estaban bien descritas y, por tanto, no pudieron clasificarse. Se analizaron los datos de cinco comparaciones: superficies de aire estáticas comparadas con (1) superficies de aire de presión alternante (activas) (siete estudios con 1728 participantes), (2) superficies de espuma (cuatro estudios con 229 participantes), (3) superficies de agua estáticas (un estudio con 37 participantes), (4) superficies de gel estáticas (un estudio con 66 participantes) y (5) otro tipo de superficies de aire estáticas (dos estudios con 223 participantes). De los 17 estudios incluidos, siete (41,2%) presentaron resultados que se consideraron con alto riesgo general de sesgo. Desenlace principal: incidencia de úlceras por presión Las superficies de aire estáticas podrían reducir la proporción de participantes que desarrollan nuevas úlceras por presión en comparación con las superficies de espuma (razón de riesgos [RR] 0,42; intervalo de confianza [IC] del 95%: 0,18 a 0,96; I2 = 25%; cuatro estudios, 229 participantes; evidencia de certeza baja). No se sabe si existe una diferencia en las proporciones de participantes que desarrollan una nueva úlcera por presión en superficies de aire estáticas en comparación con: superficies de aire de presión alternante (activas) (seis estudios, 1648 participantes); superficies de agua estáticas (un estudio, 37 participantes); superficies de gel estáticas (un estudio, 66 participantes) u otro tipo de superficies de aire estáticas (dos estudios, 223 participantes). La evidencia para todas estas comparaciones es de certeza muy baja. Los estudios incluidos cuentan con datos sobre el tiempo hasta la incidencia de úlceras por presión para dos comparaciones. Cuando el tiempo hasta la incidencia de la úlcera por presión se considera con el cociente de riesgos instantáneos (CRI), la evidencia de certeza baja indica que en el ámbito de las residencia de ancianos, las personas sobre superficies de aire estáticas podrían tener menos probabilidades de presentar una nueva úlcera por presión a lo largo de 14 días de seguimiento que las personas sobre superficies de aire de presión alternante (activas) (CRI 0,44; IC del 95%: 0,21 a 0,96; un estudio, 308 participantes). No se sabe si hay una diferencia en el riesgo de presentar nuevas úlceras por presión entre dos tipos de superficies de aire estáticas (un estudio, 123 participantes; evidencia de certeza muy baja). Desenlaces secundarios Comodidad del paciente asociada con la SEMP: los estudios incluidos contienen datos de tres comparaciones para este desenlace. No fue posible agrupar los datos puesto que las medidas de desenlace de comodidad difirieron entre los estudios incluidos; por lo tanto, se proporciona un resumen narrativo. No se sabe si existe una diferencia en las respuestas de comodidad del paciente entre las superficies de espuma y las superficies de aire estáticas sobre superficies de aire de presión alternante (activas) (un estudio, 72 participantes) ni entre aquellos que utilizaron superficies de aire estáticas y los que utilizaron superficies de aire de presión alternante (activas) (cuatro estudios, 1364 participantes). La evidencia para estas dos comparaciones es de certeza muy baja. Tampoco se sabe si hay una diferencia en las respuestas de comodidad de los pacientes entre dos tipos de superficies de aire estáticas (un estudio, 84 participantes; evidencia de certeza baja). Todos los eventos adversos notificados: hubo datos sobre este desenlace para una comparación: no se sabe si existe una diferencia en los eventos adversos entre las superficies de aire estáticas y las superficies de espuma (un estudio, 72 participantes; evidencia de certeza muy baja). Los estudios incluidos no tienen datos sobre la calidad de vida relacionada con la salud y la coste­efectividad para ninguna de las cinco comparaciones. CONCLUSIONES DE LOS AUTORES: La evidencia actual es incierta en cuanto a las diferencias en los efectos relativos de las superficies de aire estáticas sobre la incidencia de úlceras y la comodidad del paciente, cuando se compararon con las superficies de agua estáticas, las superficies de gel estáticas u otro tipo de superficies de aire estáticas. El uso de superficies de aire estáticas podría reducir el riesgo de aparición de nuevas úlceras por presión en comparación con el uso de superficies de espuma. Además, el uso de superficies de aire estáticas podría reducir el riesgo de aparición de nuevas úlceras por presión en los 14 días siguientes en comparación las superficies de aire de presión alternante (activas) en personas en una residencia de ancianos. Los estudios de investigación futuros en este campo deberían considerar la evaluación de las SEMP más importantes desde la perspectiva de aquellos que toman decisiones. En los estudios futuros se deben considerar los desenlaces de tiempo hasta el evento, la evaluación cuidadosa de los eventos adversos y la evaluación de la coste­efectividad a nivel de ensayo. Los ensayos deben estar diseñados para minimizar el riesgo de sesgo de detección; por ejemplo, con el uso de fotografía digital y el cegamiento de los adjudicatarios de las fotografías a la asignación a los grupos. Una revisión posterior mediante metanálisis en red ampliará los resultados aquí proporcionados.

Interventions for recurrent corneal erosions.

BACKGROUND: Recurrent corneal erosion is a common cause of disabling ocular symptoms and predisposes the cornea to infection. It may follow corneal trauma. Measures to prevent the development of recurrent corneal erosion following corneal trauma have not been firmly established. Once recurrent corneal erosion develops, simple medical therapy (standard treatment) may lead to resolution of the episode. However, some people continue to suffer when such therapy fails and repeated episodes of erosion develop. A number of treatment and prophylactic options are then available but there is no agreement as to the best option. This review version is an update to the original version published in 2007 and a previous update published in 2012. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and adverse effects of regimens for the prophylaxis of further recurrent corneal erosion episodes, the treatment of recurrent corneal erosion and prophylaxis of the development of recurrent corneal erosion following trauma. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; MEDLINE; Embase; LILACS; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the ICTRP. The date of the search was 14 December 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised trials that compared a prophylactic or treatment regimen with another prophylaxis/treatment or no prophylaxis/treatment for people with recurrent corneal erosion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methods expected by Cochrane. Two authors independently screened search results, extracted data and assessed risk of bias in the included studies using the Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias. We considered the following outcome measures: resolution of symptoms after treatment; recurrence after complete or partial resolution; symptoms (pain); adverse effects (corneal haze, astigmatism). We graded the certainty of the evidence using GRADE for the three most clinically relevant comparisons. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight randomised and two quasi-randomised controlled trials in the review, encompassing 505 participants. Seven studies were from Europe (Germany, Sweden and the UK), two from East Asia (Hong Kong and Japan) and one from Australia. Nine of the studies examined treatments for episodes of recurrent corneal erosions and one study considered prophylaxis to prevent development of recurrent corneal erosions after injury. Two of the nine treatment studies also enrolled participants in a study of prophylaxis to prevent further episodes of recurrent corneal erosions. The studies were poorly reported; we judged only one study low risk of bias on all domains.Two studies compared therapeutic contact lens with topical lubrication but one of these studies was published over 30 years ago and used a therapeutic contact lens that is no longer in common use. The more recent study was a two-centre UK study with 29 participants. It provided low-certainty evidence on resolution of symptoms after treatment with similar number of participants in both groups experiencing resolution of symptoms at four months (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 1.53). There was very low-certainty evidence on recurrence after partial or total resolution at seven months' follow-up (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.54). There was no evidence of an important difference in pain score (score of 3 in the contact lens group and score of 2 in the topical lubrication group, low-certainty evidence) and no adverse effects were reported. The older study, using a contact lens no longer in common use, found an increased risk of pain and complications with the contact lens compared with hypromellose drops and paraffin ointment at night.A single-centre, Australian study, with 33 participants, provided low-certainty evidence of an increased risk of recurrence with phototherapeutic keratectomy compared with alcohol delamination but with wide confidence intervals, compatible with increased or decreased risk (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.48 to 3.37). Time to recurrence was similar in both groups (6.5 and 6 months, low-certainty evidence). On average people receiving phototherapeutic keratectomy reported less pain but confidence intervals included no difference or greater pain (mean difference (MD) -0.70, 95% CI -2.23 to 0.83, low-certainty evidence). No adverse effects were reported.A 48-participant study in Hong Kong found recurrences were less common in people given diamond burr superficial keratectomy after epithelial debridement compared with sham diamond burr treatment after epithelial debridement (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.50, moderate-certainty evidence). The study did not report pain scores but adverse effects such as corneal haze (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.06 to 13.87, low-certainty evidence) and astigmatism (0.88 versus 0.44 dioptres, moderate-certainty evidence) were similar between the groups.A study comparing transepithelial versus subepithelial excimer laser ablation in 100 people found low-certainty evidence of a small increased risk of recurrence of corneal erosion at one-year follow-up in people given the transepithelial compared with subepithelial technique, however, the confidence intervals were wide and compatible with increased or decreased risk (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.48, low-certainty evidence). Other outcomes were not reported.Other treatment comparisons included in this review were only addressed by studies published two decades or more ago. The results of these studies were inconclusive: excimer laser ablation (after epithelial debridement) versus no excimer laser ablation (after epithelial debridement), epithelial debridement versus anterior stromal puncture, anterior stromal puncture versus therapeutic contact lens, oral oxytetracycline and topical prednisolone (in addition to 'standard therapy') versus oral oxytetracycline (in addition to 'standard therapy') versus 'standard therapy'. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Well-designed, masked, randomised controlled trials using standardised methods are needed to establish the benefits of new and existing prophylactic and treatment regimes for recurrent corneal erosion. Studies included in this review have been of insufficient size and quality to provide firm evidence to inform the development of management guidelines. International consensus is also needed to progress research efforts towards evaluation of the major effective treatments for recurrent corneal erosions.

Support surfaces for treating pressure ulcers.

BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers are treated by reducing pressure on the areas of damaged skin. Special support surfaces (including beds, mattresses and cushions) designed to redistribute pressure, are widely used as treatments. The relative effects of different support surfaces are unclear. This is an update of an existing review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of pressure-relieving support surfaces in the treatment of pressure ulcers. SEARCH METHODS: In September 2017 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs), that assessed the effects of support surfaces for treating pressure ulcers, in any participant group or setting. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data extraction, assessment of 'Risk of bias' and GRADE assessments were performed independently by two review authors. Trials with similar participants, comparisons and outcomes were considered for meta-analysis. Where meta-analysis was inappropriate, we reported the results of the trials narratively. Where possible, we planned to report data as either risk ratio or mean difference as appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: For this update we identified one new trial of support surfaces for pressure ulcer treatment, bringing the total to 19 trials involving 3241 participants. Most trials were small, with sample sizes ranging from 20 to 1971, and were generally at high or unclear risk of bias. PRIMARY OUTCOME: healing of existing pressure ulcersLow-tech constant pressure support surfacesIt is uncertain whether profiling beds increase the proportion of pressure ulcer which heal compared with standard hospital beds as the evidence is of very low certainty: (RR 3.96, 95% CI 1.28 to 12.24), downgraded for serious risk of bias, serious imprecision and indirectness (1 study; 70 participants).There is currently no clear difference in ulcer healing between water-filled support surfaces and foam replacement mattresses: (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.37); low-certainty evidence downgraded for serious risk of bias and serious imprecision (1 study; 120 participants).Further analysis could not be performed for polyester overlays versus gel overlays (1 study; 72 participants), non-powered mattresses versus low-air-loss mattresses (1 study; 20 participants) or standard hospital mattresses with sheepskin overlays versus standard hospital mattresses (1 study; 36 participants).High-tech pressure support surfacesIt is currently unclear whether high-tech pressure support surfaces (such as low-air-loss beds, air suspension beds, and alternating pressure surfaces) improve the healing of pressure ulcers (14 studies; 2923 participants) or which intervention may be more effective. The certainty of the evidence is generally low, downgraded mostly for risk of bias, indirectness and imprecision.Secondary outcomesNo analyses were undertaken with respect to secondary outcomes including participant comfort and surface reliability and acceptability as reporting of these within the included trials was very limited.Overall, the evidence is of low to very low certainty and was primarily downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision with some indirectness. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the current evidence, it is unclear whether any particular type of low- or high-tech support surface is more effective at healing pressure ulcers than standard support surfaces.

Metastasis to the extraocular muscles: a case report, literature review and pooled data analysis.

Metastasis to the extraocular muscles (EOM) is rare. The existing literature comprises only of isolated case reports therefore a summative description of these lesions is lacking. This study presents a case of bilateral rectus muscle metastasis from malignant melanoma. Furthermore a literature review and pooled data analysis is undertaken with 43 articles encompassing 77 patients and 101 eyes. Mean age was 53 years, 54% were male, 66% had unilateral involvement and 34% had bilateral involvement. The primary malignancies were melanoma (n = 17, 22%), breast (n = 15, 15%) and carcinoid (n = 11, 14%). A single muscle was involved in 56 eyes (67%) and multiple muscles in 27 eyes (33%). Lateral rectus was most commonly affected (n = 44, 53%). Presenting symptoms included restricted eye movements (n = 48, 62%), proptosis (n = 45, 58%), diplopia (n = 27, 35%) and pain (n = 18, 23%). Scattered case reports have previously made it difficult to characterise this phenomenon thus a pooled data analysis is presented.

Orbital Apex Syndrome in Pseudomonas Sinusitis After Functional Endoscopic Sinus Surgery.

Sinusitis complicated by orbital apex syndrome is rare. The majority of cases are due to mucormycosis in immunocompromised patients. The authors report a case of orbital apex syndrome secondary to Pseudomonas sinusitis. The patient was a 79-year-old Type 2 diabetic woman who underwent left-sided functional endoscopic sinus surgery. Three months postprocedure, she presented with a 3-week history of gradual vision loss and constant temporal headache on the ipsilateral side. Examination revealed light perception vision, a relative afferent pupillary defect, absent corneal reflex, and disc pallor. Imaging revealed opacification of the posterior ethmoidal air cells extending to involve the orbital apex. Urgent orbital and sinonasal decompression was performed. Intraoperative specimens grew Pseudomonas aeruginosa. The patient was treated with liposomal amphotericin B, posaconazole, and piperacillin/tazobactam. The patient recovered with no visual sequelae. Pseudomonas is an important mimicker to consider in sinusitis causing orbital apex syndrome, and it may occur following functional endoscopic sinus surgery.

Laminectomy and fusion vs laminoplasty for multi-level cervical myelopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Surgical approaches for multi-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) include posterior cervical surgery via laminectomy and fusion (LF) or expansive laminoplasty (EL). The relative benefits and risks of either approach in terms of clinical outcomes and complications are not well established. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to address this topic. METHODS: Electronic searches were performed using six databases from their inception to January 2016, identifying all relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs comparing LF vs EL for multi-level cervical myelopathy. Data was extracted and analyzed according to predefined endpoints. RESULTS: From 10 included studies, there were 335 patients who underwent LF compared to 320 patients who underwent EL. There was no significant difference found postoperatively between LF and EL groups in terms of postoperative JOA (P = 0.39), VAS neck pain (P = 0.93), postoperative CCI (P = 0.32) and Nurich grade (P = 0.42). The total complication rate was higher for LF compared to EL (26.4 vs 15.4 %, RR 1.77, 95 % CI 1.10, 2.85, I 2 = 34 %, P = 0.02). Reoperation rate was found to be similar between LF and EL groups (P = 0.52). A significantly higher pooled rate of nerve palsies was found in the LF group compared to EL (9.9 vs 3.7 %, RR 2.76, P = 0.03). No significant difference was found in terms of operative time and intraoperative blood loss. CONCLUSIONS: From the available low-quality evidence, LF and EL approaches for CSM demonstrates similar clinical improvement and loss of lordosis. However, a higher complication rate was found in LF group, including significantly higher nerve palsy complications. This requires further validation and investigation in larger sample-size prospective and randomized studies.

Transcatheter, sutureless and conventional aortic-valve replacement: a network meta-analysis of 16,432 patients.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive surgical techniques pose alternatives to conventional surgery for the treatment of aortic stenosis (AS). We present a Bayesian network analysis comparing Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 clinical outcomes between transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), sutureless (SL-AVR) and conventional aortic valve replacement (CAVR). METHODS: Electronic searches of databases were conducted and seven two-arm randomized-controlled trials and 25 propensity-score-matched studies comparing clinical outcomes of TAVI, SL-AVR and CAVR for treatment of AS were identified. Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo modelling was used to analyze clinical outcomes. RESULTS: The analysis included 16,432 patients who underwent TAVI [7,056], SL-AVR [1,238] or CAVR [8,138]. Compared to CAVR, TAVI and SL-AVR were associated with reduced postoperative major bleeding of 59% (OR 0.41, 95% CI: 0.28-0.59) and 44% (OR 0.56, 95% CI: 0.30-0.99) respectively. TAVI had a 41% reduction in postoperative myocardial infarction (OR 0.59, 95% CI: 0.40-0.86) and SL-AVR had a 40% reduction in postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) (OR 0.62, 95% CI: 0.42-0.86). Compared to TAVI, CAVR and SL-AVR had a reduction in moderate/severe paravalvular regurgitation of 89% (OR 0.11, 95% CI: 0.07-0.16) and 92% (OR 0.08, 95% CI: 0.03-0.17). CAVR had a 67% decreased postoperative permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation compared to TAVI (OR 0.33, 95% CI: 0.24-0.45) and a 63% reduction compared to SL-AVR (OR 0.37, 95% CI: 0.22-0.61). There were no differences in 30-day mortality or postoperative stroke between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: In selected patients, minimally invasive surgical interventions including TAVI and SL-AVR for severe AS are viable alternatives to conventional surgery. However, TAVI is associated with increased paravalvular regurgitation, whereas TAVI and SL-AVR are associated with increased conduction disturbances compared to CAVR.

Intraocular bleeding in patients managed with novel oral anticoagulation and traditional anticoagulation: a network meta-analysis and systematic review.

BACKGROUND/AIM: To clarify the nature of the relationship between novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) and traditional anticoagulation in respect to intraocular bleeding. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search up to October 2017 yielded 12 randomised controlled trials. Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo analysis was employed to investigate the relationship across multiple trials with varying NOACs. Random effects (informative priors) ORs were applied for the risk of intraocular bleeding due to various treatment measures. Mantel-Haenszel pairwise analyses were also performed. A total of 102 617 participants from 12 different randomised controlled trials. 11 746 received apixaban, 16 074 received dabigatran, 18 132 received edoxaban, 11 893 received rivaroxaban and 44 764 received warfarin. RESULTS: Edoxaban was significantly associated with a reduced risk of intraocular bleeding in comparison to warfarin (OR 0.59; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.98). All other findings were non-significant; however, apixaban was the only NOAC to trend with an increased event rate against warfarin. The Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo modelling indicated that edoxaban had the greatest chance of producing the lowest rate of bleeding (surface under the cumulative ranking curve 0.8642). Pooled pairwise analysis supported the network analysis results favouring edoxaban against warfarin (OR 0.59; 95% CI 0.39 to 0.90; p=0.02) as well as subgroup analysis of low-dose edoxaban versus warfarin (OR 0.43; 95% CI 0.24 to 0.78). CONCLUSION: The analysis suggests that edoxaban may be the paramount agent in reducing intraocular bleeding rates. Given a paucity of reporting data for this rare event, future research and confirmation is strongly recommended.

Cerebellar and hindbrain motion in Chiari malformation with and without syringomyelia.

OBJECTIVE: The pathogenesis of syringomyelia associated with Chiari malformation type I (CM-I) is unclear. Theories of pathogenesis suggest the cerebellar tonsils may obstruct CSF flow or alter pressure gradients, or their motion might act as a piston to increase CSF pressure in the spinal subarachnoid space. This study was performed to measure cerebellar tonsillar and hindbrain motion in CM-I and assess the potential contributions to syrinx formation. METHODS: Sixty-four CM-I patients and 25 controls were retrospectively selected from a clinical database, and all subjects had undergone cardiac-gated cine balanced fast-field echo MRI. There were a total of 36 preoperative CM-I scans, which consisted of 15 patients with and 21 patients without syringomyelia. Nineteen patients underwent paired pre- and postoperative imaging. Anteroposterior (AP) and superoinferior (SI) movements of the tip of the cerebellar tonsils, obex, fastigium of the fourth ventricle, pontomedullary junction, and cervicomedullary junction were measured. The distance between the fastigium and tip of the tonsils was used to calculate tonsillar tissue strain (Δi/i0). RESULTS: CM-I patients had significantly greater cerebellar tonsillar motion in both the AP and SI directions than controls (AP +0.34 mm [+136%], p < 0.001; SI +0.49 mm [+163%], p < 0.001). This motion decreased after posterior fossa decompression (AP -0.20 mm [-33%], p = 0.001; SI -0.29 mm [-36%]; p < 0.001), but remained elevated above control levels (AP +56%, p = 0.021; SI +67%, p = 0.015). Similar trends were seen for all other tracked landmarks. There were no significant differences in the magnitude or timing of motion throughout the hindbrain between CM-I patients with and without syringomyelia. Increased tonsillar tissue strain correlated with Valsalva headaches (p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Cerebellar tonsillar motion may be a potential marker of CM-I and may have use in tailoring surgical procedures. The lack of association with syringomyelia suggests that tonsillar motion alone is not the driver of syrinx formation. Tonsillar tissue strain may play a part in the pathophysiology of Valsalva headaches.

Bilateral versus unilateral instrumentation in spinal surgery: Systematic review and trial sequential analysis of prospective studies.

Lumbar fusion surgical intervention is often followed by bilateral pedicle screw fixation. There has been increasing support for unilateral pedicle screw fixation in an attempt to reduce complications and costs. The following study assesses the efficacy and complications of bilateral versus unilateral pedicle screw fixation in open and minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion techniques. A systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and recommendations. In comparison with existing meta-analyses, trial sequential analysis was implemented to reduce the potential for type I error. Of the 1310 citations screened, four observational studies and 13 randomised controlled trials were used comprising 574 bilateral cases and 549 unilateral cases. Statistical analysis showed no difference in fusion rates, total complications, dural tear rates, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score for back pain, VAS for leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index scores, and length of stay between bilateral and unilateral instrumentation. Unilateral instrumentation was significantly shorter in duration (P<0.00001) and led to significantly lower blood volume loss (P=0.0002). These results were the same for both open and minimally invasive surgical approaches. Unilateral pedicle screw fixation appears to have similar post-operative outcomes as bilateral fixation and improved efficacy in regards to procedure duration and blood volume loss.

Orbital Approaches for Treatment of Carotid Cavernous Fistulas: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Carotid cavernous fistulas (CCFs) are abnormal connections between the carotid arteries and the cavernous sinus. CCFs often present with double vision, reduced visual acuity, and conjunctivitis. Deteriorating ocular symptoms caused by abnormal fistula drainage can cause permanent blindness, and so urgent interventional treatment is necessary. Transvenous embolization of the fistula is the primary treatment option for most patients with symptomatic CCFs. Orbital approaches are considered to be risky compared with the traditional approach via the inferior petrosal sinus and are thus used as a secondary option. These approaches include embolization via the superior ophthalmic vein, inferior ophthalmic vein, and medial ophthalmic vein and direct transorbital puncture. This study aims to assess the merits and risks of orbital approaches in transvenous embolization of CCFs. METHODS: A systematic review of 30 studies assessing the radiographic and clinical outcomes of this approach was conducted. Outcomes of interest included successful fistula closure, postoperative improvement of ocular symptoms, and complications from the procedure. Weighted averages were calculated for all outcomes. RESULTS: Transvenous embolization via an orbital approach had a high success rate (89.9%). Improvement in visual acuity and proptosis was found in 93.4% and 88.1% of patients, respectively. There were no major complications. Minor complications found included subconjunctival hemorrhage (n = 4), intraorbital hemorrhage (n = 1), eyelid hematoma (n = 1), and foreign-body granuloma (n = 3). CONCLUSIONS: All orbital approaches for transvenous embolization of CCFs are effective and safe.