Search

In the management of small and diminutive polyps, cold polypectomy is favored over electrocautery polypectomy. However, the optimal cold polypectomy technique is still controversial. Hence, this review aims to investigate the most effective cold technique for small and diminutive colorectal polyps. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis synthesizing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which were retrieved by systematically searching PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, SCOPUS, and Cochrane through 10 February 2023. R software, (R version 4.2.0) and meta-insight software were used to pool dichotomous outcomes using risk ratio (RR) presented with the corresponding confidence interval (CI). Our protocol was prospectively published in PROSPERO with ID: CRD42022345619. Nineteen RCTs with 3649 patients and 4800 polyps were included in our analysis. Cold techniques (cold forceps polypectomy (CFP), jumbo forceps polypectomy (JFP), dedicated cold snare polypectomy (D-CSP), conventional cold snare polypectomy (C-CSP), underwater cold snare polypectomy (U-CSP), and cold snare endoscopic mucosal resection (CS-EMR) were included in our comparative analysis. CFP was less effective in achieving complete histological resection than C-CSP (RR: 1.10 with 95% CI [1.03–1.18]), CS-EMR (RR: 1.12 with 95% CI [1.02–1.23]), D-CSP (RR: 1.17 with 95% CI [1.04–1.32]), and U-CSP (RR: 1.21 with 95% CI [1.07–1.38]). However, the rest of the comparisons showed no difference. CFP is the least effective method for small and diminutive polyps' removal, and any snare polypectomy technique will achieve better results, warranting more large-scale RCTs to investigate the most effective snare polypectomy technique. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Chronic constipation is a challenging functional gastrointestinal disorder that remains a global burden. Pharmacologic therapy, including laxatives and dietary fibers, are suggested as lines of treatment. Recent trials introduced an orally ingested vibrating capsule (VC) as an eligible option for chronic constipation management. We conducted a literature search in English on electronic databases CENTRAL, PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and WOS until February 27th, 2023. RevMan was used to perform the meta-analysis. The results were reported as risk ratios (RRs), mean differences (MDs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO with ID: (CRD42023409422). Three RCTs with a total of 601 patients were included in our analysis. There was no difference between the VC and placebo in responder rate (RR: 1.37 with 95% CI [0.82, 2.28], p =.22), CSBM change from baseline (MD: 0.21 with 95% CI [−0.26, 0.69], p =.38), SBM change from baseline (MD: 0.14 with 95% CI [−0.22, 0.49], p =.46), and the incidence of any adverse event (RR: 1.45 with a 95% CI of [0.79, 2.63], p =.23). However, VC was associated with increased vibration sensation (RR: 17.23, 95% CI [3.29, 90.20], p =.0008). VC was not effective to improve bowel movement in patients with functional constipation with no difference in response rate. However, evidence is still uncertain, with only three small RCTs that yielded heterogenous findings, mainly due to the different vibration protocols. Also, our findings suggest that VC is safe and well-tolerated, with no significant harmful effects observed. Therefore, more large-scale RCTs are needed to confirm the efficacy and safety of VC in patients with functional constipation, determining the most effective dose, frequency, and duration of treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Colonoscopy is the gold standard method for colorectal cancer screening. Looping occurs in 91% of cases undergoing colonoscopy and can cause patient discomfort, prolonged cecal intubation time (CIT), and colon perforation. This meta-analysis investigates the impact of abdominal compression devices (ACD) on colonoscopy outcomes. A systematic review and meta-analysis synthesizing randomized controlled trials (RCTs), retrieved by systematically searching: PubMed, EMBASE, WOS, SCOPUS, and Cochrane through February 2nd, 2023. Continuous and dichotomous outcomes were pooled using mean difference (MD) and risk ratio (RR) along with confidence interval (CI) using Revman. Our review protocol was prospectively published on PROSPERO with ID: CRD42023397344. We included eight RCTs with a total of 1,889 patients. ACD was effective to decrease CIT (MD: −2.15 with a 95% CI [−3.49, −0.80], p =.002), postural change (RR: 0.57 with 95% CI [0.49, 0.66], p =.00001), and VAS pain score (MD: −1.49 with 95% CI [−1.81, −1.17], p =.0001). However, there was no difference between ACD and control groups regarding manual compression (RR: 0.65 with 95% CI [0.42, 1.00], p =.05), complete colonoscopy rate (CCR) (RR: 1.01 with 95% CI [0.99, 1.04], p =.31), and cecal intubation length (CIL) (MD: −2.25 with 95% CI [−7.64, 3.14], p =.41). ACD during colonoscopy may enhance patient comfort by reducing CIT, pain, and postural changes. Nevertheless, additional RCTs are necessary to validate these results and determine the most suitable approach to utilize ACD for colonoscopy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Post-orthopaedic operative pain is a serious concern that often requires the administration of analgesics; however, the optimal time of analgesic administration is still inconclusive. Perioperative analgesia is administrating pre-emptive analgesia before and during the surgery followed by postoperative analgesia to decrease the procedure associated nociceptive response. We aim to assess perioperative meloxicam versus postoperative meloxicam for pain control after orthopaedic operations. A systematic review and meta-analysis involving randomized controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, Scopus, WOS, and Cochrane until 28th May 2022. We pooled dichotomous outcomes using risk ratio (RR) presented with a 95% confidence interval (CI) and continuous outcomes using mean difference (MD) with 95% CI. We registered our protocol in PROSPERO with ID: CRD42022336046. We included five RCTs with 964 patients. All the included trials showed high risk of performance and detection biases because of lack of blinding. Pooled analysis favored perioperative meloxicam in reducing pain score after six hours (MD: −0.42 with 95% CI [−0.63, −0.21], p =.0001), 12 h (MD: −0.54 with 95% CI [−0.69, −0.39], p =.00001), and 24 h (MD: −0.23 with 95% CI [−0.36, −0.10]. Pooled analysis favored perioperative meloxicam in improving patient global assessment scale after 12 h (MD: −0.66 with 95% CI [−0.86, −0.46], p =.00001), 24 h (MD: −0.30 with 95% CI [−0.49, −0.11, p =.002), and 48 h (MD: −0.17 with 95% CI [−0.33, −0.01], p =.04). Pooled analysis favored perioperative meloxicam in reducing patient-controlled analgesia (MD: −4.25 with 95% CI [−5.96, −2.54], p =.00001). Short-term pain management after orthopaedic procedures is better accomplished with perioperative meloxicam than postoperative meloxicam. Before recommending perioperative meloxicam for pain control following orthopaedic surgeries, further multicentre trials are still warranted to examine the impact of perioperative meloxicam in different orthopaedic procedures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]