Background. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is usually carried out under general anesthesia. There were a few studies which have found spinal anesthesia as a safe alternative. We aimed to evaluate the postoperative events between spinal anesthesia and general anesthesia in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Methods. We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library (from inception to January 2016) for eligible studies. The primary outcome was the visual analogue scale score. Secondary outcomes included postoperative nausea and vomiting and urine retention 24 hours postoperatively. We calculated pooled risk ratios and 95% confidence interval using random- or fixed-effects models. Results. Eight trials involving 723 patients were listed. Meta-analysis showed that patients in spinal anesthesia groups have lower visual analogue scale score 24 hours postoperatively. There were significant decreases in the occurrence of postoperative nausea and vomiting in spinal anesthesia group when compared with general anesthesia group (odds ratios: 0.38, 95% confidence interval: 0.19–0.76; P = 0.006) with heterogeneity accepted (I
2 = 13%; P = 0.33), while urine retention rate was increased in patients with spinal anesthesia (odds ratios: 4.95, 95% confidence interval: 1.24–19.71; P = 0.02) without any heterogeneity (I
2 = 0%; P = 0.98). Conclusions. Spinal anesthesia may be associated with less postoperative pain and postoperative nausea and vomiting compared with general anesthesia.
BackgroundDexamethasone is an antiemetic alternative to ondansetron. We aimed to compare the effects of dexamethasone and ondansetron in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, Medline and Cochrane Library (from inception to July 2014) for eligible studies. The primary outcome was the incidence of PONV during the first 24 h after surgery. The secondary outcomes included PONV in the early postoperative stage (0–6 h), PONV in the late postoperative stage (6–24 h), and the postoperative anti-emetics used at both stages. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RR) and 95 % CIs using random- and fixed-effects models.ResultsSeven trials involving 608 patients were included in this meta-analysis, which found that dexamethasone had a comparable effectiveness in preventing PONV (RR, 0.91; 95 % CI, 0.73-1.13; P = 0.39) with that of ondansetron within 24 h of laparoscopic surgery, with no evidence of heterogeneity among the studies (I2 = 0 %; P = 0.71). In the early postoperative stage (0–6 h), ondansetron was better at decreasing PONV than dexamethasone (RR, 1.71; 95 % CI, 1.05-2.77; P = 0.03), while in the late postoperative stage (6–24 h), dexamethasone was more effective in preventing PONV than ondansetron (RR, 0.51; 95 % CI, 0.27-0.93; P = 0.03). There was no significant difference in the postoperative anti-emetics used (RR, 0.90; 95 % CI, 0.67-1.19; P = 0.45).ConclusionsDexamethasone was as effective and as safe as ondansetron in preventing PONV. Dexamethasone should be encouraged as an alternative to ondansetron for preventing PONV in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery.
Background. We undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of preoperative hypertension and preoperative antihypertensive medication to postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Methods. We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library (from inception to March 2016) for eligible studies. The outcomes were the effects of preoperative hypertension, preoperative calcium antagonists regimen, preoperative ACE inhibitors regimen, and preoperative beta blocking agents regimen with POAF. We calculated pooled risk ratios (OR) and 95% CIs using random- or fixed-effects models. Results. Twenty-five trials involving 130087 patients were listed. Meta-analysis showed that the number of preoperative hypertension patients in POAF group was significantly higher (P < 0.05), while we found that there are no significant differences between two groups in Asia patients by subgroup analysis, which is in contrast to other outcomes. Compared with the Non-POAF group, the number of patients who used calcium antagonists and ACE inhibitors preoperatively in POAF group was significantly higher (P < 0.05). And we found that there were no significant differences between two groups of preoperative beta blocking agents used (P = 0.08). Conclusions. Preoperative hypertension and preoperative antihypertensive medication in patients undergoing cardiac operations seem to be associated with higher risk of POAF.
The main therapeutic strategy for metastatic Myxofibrosarcoma (MFS) is palliative chemotherapy. A number of studies have demonstrated that anti-angiogenic therapy and immunotherapy could improve the survival rate of patients with metastases. However, the effectiveness of the combination of anti-angiogenic therapy and immunotherapy for the therapy of MFS is undetermined. The current study reports a case of metastatic myxofibrosarcoma that was treated with combination Nivolumab (monoclonal antibody, PD-1 inhibitor) and Bevacizumab (monoclonal antibody, anti-VEGF) after progression from the single use of Nivolumab. The aim of the current study is to assess the efficacy and safety of Nivolumab and Bevacizumab for metastatic myxofibrosarcoma and to review the literature. Up to the termination of the follow-up, the patient achieved a partial response for 16 months, had an overall survival for over 29 months since the metastasis and demonstrated a sustained benefit from treatment. The most frequent adverse events were fatigue, abnormality of Alanine aminotransferase (ALT), hypertension and proteinuria. Nivolumab and Bevacizumab treatment indicate beneficial clinical effects and are indicated to be safe to use in patients with metastatic myxofibrosarcoma.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.