Conectar
Colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is associated with the risk of postoperative wound infections, prompting investigations into effective prophylactic measures. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy of various prophylactic interventions in reducing the incidence of wound infections following EMR. Adhering to PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a comprehensive search across multiple databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies from 2015 to 2022. We included studies that compared the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis and antiseptic measures, with clear data on post-procedure infection rates. Eight studies met our inclusion criteria, and data were extracted for meta-analysis. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The meta-analysis included 3765 patients from eight RCTs. Prophylactic antibiotics (cefixime and cefuroxime) showed moderate to high efficacy, with infection rates as low as 0% and 0.76%. Prophylactic endoscopic closure and clipping showed the highest efficacy, with zero reported infections. The standardized surgical site infection prevention bundle had lower effectiveness, with an infection incidence of 3.83%. The risk of bias assessment indicated potential performance bias due to lack of blinding, but overall evidence quality was upheld by proper random sequence generation and diligent outcome data monitoring. The effectiveness of specific prophylactic measures, notably prophylactic antibiotics and mechanical closure techniques, has been shown in significantly reducing the risk of wound infections following colorectal EMR.
It is still a matter of controversy whether percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy(PEG) should be used prior to the operation for the purpose of feeding the patient with resectable oesophageal carcinoma (EC). Comparison was made between EC and preoperatively treated PEG and non-preoperative PEG. An extensive literature review has been conducted to determine the results about PEG and No-PEG trials. In this paper, we chose 4 papers out of 407 of them through a strict selection process. In this trial, there were 1027 surgical cases of oesophagus carcinoma, 152 with PEG pre-surgery and 875 without PEG. The total sample size ranged from 14 to 657. Two studies showed that there was no statistically significant difference in the occurrence of postoperative wound infection among PEG and No-PEG(OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.38, 2.80 p = 0.96), there was no statistical significance in the likelihood of anastomotic leak among PEG after surgery compared to No-PEG in 4 trials (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.62–2.07 p = 0.69), and there were no statistical differences between PEG and No-PEG before operation on anastomotic stricture for esophagectomy(OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.31–1.56 p = 0.38). No wound or anastomosis complications were observed in the PEG group. Thus, PEG preoperatively is an effective and safe procedure without any harmful influence on gastrointestinal structure or anastomosing. It can be applied to patients with oesophagus carcinoma who have a high risk of undernutrition. Nevertheless, because of the limited number of randomized controlled trials in this meta-analysis, caution should be exercised in their treatment. More high-quality research involving a large sample is required to confirm the findings.
FreshRSS 