Search

Ultrasound measurements of the aorta are typically taken in the axial plane, with the transducer perpendicular to the aorta, and diameter measurements are obtained by placing the callipers from the anterior to the posterior wall and the transverse right to the left side of the aorta. While the ‘conventional’ anteroposterior walls in both sagittal and transverse plains may be suitable for aneurysms with less complicated geometry, there is controversy regarding the suitability of this approach for complicated, particularly tortuous aneurysms, as they may offer a more challenging situation. Previous work undertaken within our research group found that when training inexperienced users of ultrasound, they demonstrated more optimal calliper placement to the abdominal aorta when approached from a decubitus window to obtain a coronal image compared to the traditional ultrasound approach. To observe the level of agreement in real‐world reporting between computed tomography (CT) and ultrasound measurements in three standard planes; transverse AP, sagittal AP and coronal (left to right) infra‐renal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) diameter. This is a retrospective review of the Otago Vascular Diagnostics database for AAA, where ultrasound and CT diameter data, available within 90 days of each other, were compared. In addition to patient demographics, the infrarenal aorta ultrasound diameter measurements in transverse AP and sagittal AP, along with a coronal decubitus image of the aorta was collected. No transverse measurement was performed from the left to the right of the aorta. Three hundred twenty‐five participants (238 males, mean age 76.4 ± 7.5) were included. Mean ultrasound outer to the outer wall, transverse AP and sagittal AP diameters were 48.7 ± 10.5 mm and 48.9 ± 9.9 mm, respectively. The coronal diameter measurement of the aorta from left to right was 53.9 ± 12.8 mm in the left decubitus window. The mean ultrasound max was 54.3 ± 12.6 mm. The mean CT diameter measurement was 55.6 ± 12.7 mm. Correlation between the CT max and ultrasound max was r2= 0.90, and CT with the coronal measurement r2= 0.90, CT and AP transverse was r2=0.80, and CT with AP sagittal measurement was r2= 0.77. The decubitus ultrasound window of the abdominal aorta, with measurement of the coronal plane, is highly correlated and in agreement with CT scanning. This window may offer an alternative approach to measuring the infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm and should be considered when performing surveillance of all infra‐renal AAA.

IMPORTANCE: There are discrepancies in guidelines on preparation for colorectal surgery. While intravenous (IV) antibiotics are usually administered, the use of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP), enemas, and/or oral antibiotics (OA) is controversial. OBJECTIVE: To summarize all data from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that met selection criteria using network meta-analysis (NMA) to determine the ranking of different bowel preparation treatment strategies for their associations with postoperative outcomes. DATA SOURCES: Data sources included MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and Scopus databases with no language constraints, including abstracts and articles published prior to 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized studies of adults undergoing elective colorectal surgery with appropriate aerobic and anaerobic antibiotic cover that reported on incisional surgical site infection (SSI) or anastomotic leak were selected for inclusion in the analysis. These were selected by multiple reviewers and adjudicated by a separate lead investigator. A total of 167 of 6833 screened studies met initial selection criteria. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: NMA was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines. Data were extracted by multiple independent observers and pooled in a random-effects model. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary outcomes were incisional SSI and anastomotic leak. Secondary outcomes included other infections, mortality, ileus, and adverse effects of preparation. RESULTS: A total of 35 RCTs that included 8377 patients were identified. Treatments compared IV antibiotics (2762 patients [33%]), IV antibiotics with enema (222 patients [3%]), IV antibiotics with OA with or without enema (628 patients [7%]), MBP with IV antibiotics (2712 patients [32%]), MBP with IV antibiotics with OA (with good IV antibiotic cover in 925 patients [11%] and with good overall antibiotic cover in 375 patients [4%]), MBP with OA (267 patients [3%]), and OA (486 patients [6%]). The likelihood of incisional SSI was significantly lower for those receiving IV antibiotics with OA with or without enema (rank 1) and MBP with adequate IV antibiotics with OA (rank 2) compared with all other treatment options. The addition of OA to IV antibiotics, both with and without MBP, was associated with a reduction in incisional SSI by greater than 50%. There were minimal differences between treatments in anastomotic leak and in any of the secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This NMA demonstrated that the addition of OA to IV antibiotics were associated with a reduction in incisional SSI by greater than 50%. The results support the addition of OA to IV antibiotics to reduce incisional SSI among patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery.