Search

Background: Robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery (RVATS) is a relatively new technique applied for thymectomies. Only few studies directly compare RVATS to the mainstay therapy, open surgery (sternotomy)., Methods: A systematic search of the literature was performed in October 2016. The meta-analysis includes studies comparing robotassisted and open thymectomy regarding operation time, length of hospitalization, intraoperative blood loss, and chest-in-tube days, postoperative complications, reoperation, arrhythmic events, pleural effusion, and postoperative bleeding., Results: Of 626 studies preliminary screened, 7 articles were included. There were no significant differences in comparison of operation time (-3.19 minutes [95% confidence interval, 95% CI -112.43 to 106.05]; P = .94), but patients undergoing RVATS spent significantly less time in hospital (-4.06 days [95% CI -7.98 to -0.13], P = .046). There were fewer chests-in-tube days (-2.50 days [95% CI -15.01 to 10.01]; P = .24) and less intraoperative blood loss (-256.84 mL [95% CI -627.47 to 113.80]; P = .10) observed in the RVATS group; due to a small number of studies, these results were not statistically significant. There were also less post-operative complications in the RVATS group (12 complications in 209 patients vs 51 complications in 259 patients); however, this difference was not statistical significant (odds ratio 0.27, 95% CI 0.07-1.12; P = .06)., Conclusions: Patients undergoing RVATS spent less time in hospital than patients treated by open surgery (sternotomy). These patients tended to have less postoperative complications, less intraoperative blood loss, and fewer chest-in-tube days. We found evidence for the safety and feasibility of RVATS compared with open surgery, which has to be further confirmed in randomised controlled trials.

Background: This review is an update of a previously published review in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Issue 1, 2010) on 'Vitamin D for the treatment of chronic painful conditions in adults'.Vitamin D is produced in the skin after exposure to sunlight and can be obtained through food. Vitamin D deficiency has been linked with a range of conditions, including chronic pain. Observational and circumstantial evidence suggests that there may be a role for vitamin D deficiency in the aetiology of chronic painful conditions., Objectives: To assess the efficacy and safety of vitamin D supplementation in chronic painful conditions when tested against placebo or against active comparators., Search Methods: For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE to February 2015. This was supplemented by searching the reference lists of retrieved articles, reviews in the field, and online trial registries., Selection Criteria: We included studies if they were randomised double-blind trials of vitamin D supplementation compared with placebo or with active comparators for the treatment of chronic painful conditions in adults., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently selected the studies for inclusion, assessed methodological quality, and extracted data. We did not undertake pooled analysis due to the heterogeneity of the data. Primary outcomes of interest were pain responder outcomes, and secondary outcomes were treatment group average pain outcomes and adverse events., Main Results: We included six new studies (517 participants) in this review update, bringing the total of included studies to 10 (811 participants). The studies were heterogeneous with regard to study quality, the chronic painful conditions that were investigated, the dose of vitamin D given, co-interventions, and the outcome measures reported. Only two studies reported responder pain outcomes; the other studies reported treatment group average outcomes only. Overall, there was no consistent pattern that vitamin D treatment was associated with greater efficacy than placebo in any chronic painful condition (low quality evidence). Adverse events and withdrawals were comparatively infrequent, with no consistent difference between vitamin D and placebo (good quality evidence)., Authors' Conclusions: The evidence addressing the use of vitamin D for chronic pain now contains more than twice as many studies and participants than were included in the original version of this review. Based on this evidence, a large beneficial effect of vitamin D across different chronic painful conditions is unlikely. Whether vitamin D can have beneficial effects in specific chronic painful conditions needs further investigation.

Background: Pain is very common in patients with cancer. Opioid analgesics, including codeine, play a significant role in major guidelines on the management of cancer pain, particularly for mild to moderate pain. Codeine is widely available and inexpensive, which may make it a good choice, especially in low-resource settings. Its use is controversial, in part because codeine is not effective in a minority of patients who cannot convert it to its active metabolite (morphine), and also because of concerns about potential abuse, and safety in children., Objectives: To determine the efficacy and safety of codeine used alone or in combination with paracetamol for relieving cancer pain., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 2), MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to 5 March 2014, supplemented by searches of clinical trial registries and screening of the reference lists of the identified studies and reviews in the field., Selection Criteria: We sought randomised, double-blind, controlled trials using single or multiple doses of codeine, with or without paracetamol, for the treatment of cancer pain. Trials could have either parallel or cross-over design, with at least 10 participants per treatment group. Studies in children or adults reporting on any type, grade, and stage of cancer were eligible. We accepted any formulation, dosage regimen, and route of administration of codeine, and both placebo and active controls., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently read the titles and abstracts of all studies identified by the searches and excluded those that clearly did not meet the inclusion criteria. For the remaining studies, two authors read the full manuscripts and assessed them for inclusion. We resolved discrepancies between review authors by discussion. Included studies were described qualitatively, since no meta-analysis was possible because of the small amount of data identified, and clinical and methodological between-study heterogeneity., Main Results: We included 15 studies including 721 participants with cancer pain due to diverse types of malignancy. All studies were performed on adults; there were no studies on children. The included studies were of adequate methodological quality, but all except for one were judged to be at a high risk of bias because of small study size, and six because of methods used to deal with missing data or high withdrawal rates. Three studies used a parallel group design; the remainder were cross-over trials in which there was an adequate washout period, but only one reported results for treatment periods separately.Twelve studies used codeine as a single agent and three combined it with paracetamol. Ten studies included a placebo arm, and 14 included one or more of 16 different active drug comparators or compared different routes of administration. Most studies investigated the effect of a single dose of medication, while five used treatment periods of one, seven or 21 days. Most studies used codeine at doses of 30 mg to 120 mg.There were insufficient data for any pooled analysis. Only two studies reported our preferred responder outcome of 'participants with at least 50% reduction in pain' and two reported 'participants with no worse than mild pain'. Eleven studies reported treatment group mean measures of pain intensity or pain relief; overall for these outcome measures, codeine or codeine plus paracetamol was numerically superior to placebo and equivalent to the active comparators.Adverse event reporting was poor: only two studies reported the number of participants with any adverse event specified by treatment group and only one reported the number of participants with any serious adverse event. In multiple-dose studies nausea, vomiting and constipation were common, with somnolence and dizziness frequent in the 21-day study. Withdrawal from the studies, where reported, was less than 10% except in two studies. There were three deaths, in all cases due to the underlying cancer., Authors' Conclusions: We identified only a small amount of data in studies that were both randomised and double-blind. Studies were small, of short duration, and most had significant shortcomings in reporting. The available evidence indicates that codeine is more effective against cancer pain than placebo, but with increased risk of nausea, vomiting, and constipation. Uncertainty remains as to the magnitude and time-course of the analgesic effect and the safety and tolerability in longer-term use. There were no data for children.