Regenerative Endodontic Procedures for the Treatment of Necrotic Mature Teeth with Apical Periodontitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Introduction: Regenerative endodontic procedures (REPs) are intended to repair and regenerate part of the pulp-dentin complex. The aim of this study was to systematically appraise the existing evidence on the effectiveness of REPs on mature teeth with pulp necrosis and apical periodontitis. Methods: Electronic database and hand searches were performed on 8 databases of published and unpublished literature from inception to January 3, 2021, for the identification of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or prospective clinical trials. The related key words included “regenerative,” “pulp revascularization,” “revitalization procedure,” and “necrotic mature teeth.” A random effects meta-analysis was conducted assessing success as the main outcome treatment. Risk of bias was assessed through the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool, and the quality of the evidence was assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Results: Of the 337 initial hits, 4 RCTs were eligible for inclusion, whereas 3 were included in the quantitative synthesis. Overall, there was no difference in the relative risk for a successful/unsuccessful treatment outcome between REPs or conventional treatment (3 studies, relative risk = 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.92–1.15; P =.61; heterogeneity I2 = 0.0%, P =.53; prediction interval = 0.51–2.09). Risk of bias ranged from low to raising some concerns, whereas the quality of the evidence was graded as moderate. Conclusions: Based on moderate-quality evidence, REPs appear as a viable treatment alternative for mature necrotic teeth with periapical lesions at present. Furthermore, well-designed RCTs might also provide confirmatory evidence in this respect while also framing a backbone for standardization of the therapeutic protocol of REPs. © 2021 American Association of Endodontist

Regenerative Endodontic Procedures for the Treatment of Necrotic Mature Teeth with Apical Periodontitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Introduction Regenerative endodontic procedures (REPs) are intended to repair and regenerate part of the pulp-dentin complex. The aim of this study was to systematically appraise the existing evidence on the effectiveness of REPs on mature teeth with pulp necrosis and apical periodontitis. Methods Electronic database and hand searches were performed on 8 databases of published and unpublished literature from inception to January 3, 2021, for the identification of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or prospective clinical trials. The related key words included “regenerative,” “pulp revascularization,” “revitalization procedure,” and “necrotic mature teeth.” A random effects meta-analysis was conducted assessing success as the main outcome treatment. Risk of bias was assessed through the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool, and the quality of the evidence was assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Results Of the 337 initial hits, 4 RCTs were eligible for inclusion, whereas 3 were included in the quantitative synthesis. Overall, there was no difference in the relative risk for a successful/unsuccessful treatment outcome between REPs or conventional treatment (3 studies, relative risk = 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.92–1.15; P = .61; heterogeneity I2 = 0.0%, P = .53; prediction interval = 0.51–2.09). Risk of bias ranged from low to raising some concerns, whereas the quality of the evidence was graded as moderate. Conclusions Based on moderate-quality evidence, REPs appear as a viable treatment alternative for mature necrotic teeth with periapical lesions at present. Furthermore, well-designed RCTs might also provide confirmatory evidence in this respect while also framing a backbone for standardization of the therapeutic protocol of REPs

Regenerative Endodontic Procedures for the Treatment of Necrotic Mature Teeth with Apical Periodontitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

INTRODUCTION: Regenerative endodontic procedures (REPs) are intended to repair and regenerate part of the pulp-dentin complex. The aim of this study was to systematically appraise the existing evidence on the effectiveness of REPs on mature teeth with pulp necrosis and apical periodontitis. METHODS: Electronic database and hand searches were performed on 8 databases of published and unpublished literature from inception to January 3, 2021, for the identification of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or prospective clinical trials. The related key words included "regenerative," "pulp revascularization," "revitalization procedure," and "necrotic mature teeth." A random effects meta-analysis was conducted assessing success as the main outcome treatment. Risk of bias was assessed through the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool, and the quality of the evidence was assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. RESULTS: Of the 337 initial hits, 4 RCTs were eligible for inclusion, whereas 3 were included in the quantitative synthesis. Overall, there was no difference in the relative risk for a successful/unsuccessful treatment outcome between REPs or conventional treatment (3 studies, relative risk = 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.92-1.15; P = .61; heterogeneity I2 = 0.0%, P = .53; prediction interval = 0.51-2.09). Risk of bias ranged from low to raising some concerns, whereas the quality of the evidence was graded as moderate. CONCLUSIONS: Based on moderate-quality evidence, REPs appear as a viable treatment alternative for mature necrotic teeth with periapical lesions at present. Furthermore, well-designed RCTs might also provide confirmatory evidence in this respect while also framing a backbone for standardization of the therapeutic protocol of REPs

An international assessment of the adoption of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS®) principles across colorectal units in 2019–2020

AimThe Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society guidelines aim to standardize perioperative care in colorectal surgery via 25 principles. We aimed to assess the variation in uptake of these principles across an international network of colorectal units.MethodAn online survey was circulated amongst European Society of Coloproctology members in 2019–2020. For each ERAS principle, respondents were asked to score how frequently the principle was implemented in their hospital, from 1 (‘rarely’) to 4 (‘always’). Respondents were also asked to recall whether practice had changed since 2017. Subgroup analyses based on hospital characteristics were conducted.ResultsOf hospitals approached, 58% responded to the survey (195/335), with 296 individual responses (multiple responses were received from some hospitals). The majority were European (163/195, 83.6%). Overall, respondents indicated they ‘most often’ or ‘always’ adhered to most individual ERAS principles (18/25, 72%). Variability in the uptake of principles was reported, with universal uptake of some principles (e.g., prophylactic antibiotics; early mobilization) and inconsistency from ‘rarely’ to ‘always’ in others (e.g., no nasogastric intubation; no preoperative fasting and carbohydrate drinks). In alignment with 2018 ERAS guideline updates, adherence to principles for prehabilitation, managing anaemia and postoperative nutrition appears to have increased since 2017.ConclusionsUptake of ERAS principles varied across hospitals, and not all 25 principles were equally adhered to. Whilst some principles exhibited a high level of acceptance, others had a wide variability in uptake indicative of controversy or barriers to uptake. Further research into specific principles is required to improve ERAS implementation.AimThe Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society guidelines aim to standardize perioperative care in colorectal surgery via 25 principles. We aimed to assess the variation in uptake of these principles across an international network of colorectal units.MethodAn online survey was circulated amongst European Society of Coloproctology members in 2019–2020. For each ERAS principle, respondents were asked to score how frequently the principle was implemented in their hospital, from 1 (‘rarely’) to 4 (‘always’). Respondents were also asked to recall whether practice had changed since 2017. Subgroup analyses based on hospital characteristics were conducted.ResultsOf hospitals approached, 58% responded to the survey (195/335), with 296 individual responses (multiple responses were received from some hospitals). The majority were European (163/195, 83.6%). Overall, respondents indicated they ‘most often’ or ‘always’ adhered to most individual ERAS principles (18/25, 72%). Variability in the uptake of principles was reported, with universal uptake of some principles (e.g., prophylactic antibiotics; early mobilization) and inconsistency from ‘rarely’ to ‘always’ in others (e.g., no nasogastric intubation; no preoperative fasting and carbohydrate drinks). In alignment with 2018 ERAS guideline updates, adherence to principles for prehabilitation, managing anaemia and postoperative nutrition appears to have increased since 2017.ConclusionsUptake of ERAS principles varied across hospitals, and not all 25 principles were equally adhered to. Whilst some principles exhibited a high level of acceptance, others had a wide variability in uptake indicative of controversy or barriers to uptake. Further research into specific principles is required to improve ERAS implementation.A

An international assessment of the adoption of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS®) principles across colorectal units in 2019–2020

Aim: The Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society guidelines aim to standardize perioperative care in colorectal surgery via 25 principles. We aimed to assess the variation in uptake of these principles across an international network of colorectal units. Method: An online survey was circulated amongst European Society of Coloproctology members in 2019–2020. For each ERAS principle, respondents were asked to score how frequently the principle was implemented in their hospital, from 1 (‘rarely’) to 4 (‘always’). Respondents were also asked to recall whether practice had changed since 2017. Subgroup analyses based on hospital characteristics were conducted. Results: Of hospitals approached, 58% responded to the survey (195/335), with 296 individual responses (multiple responses were received from some hospitals). The majority were European (163/195, 83.6%). Overall, respondents indicated they ‘most often’ or ‘always’ adhered to most individual ERAS principles (18/25, 72%). Variability in the uptake of principles was reported, with universal uptake of some principles (e.g., prophylactic antibiotics; early mobilization) and inconsistency from ‘rarely’ to ‘always’ in others (e.g., no nasogastric intubation; no preoperative fasting and carbohydrate drinks). In alignment with 2018 ERAS guideline updates, adherence to principles for prehabilitation, managing anaemia and postoperative nutrition appears to have increased since 2017. Conclusions: Uptake of ERAS principles varied across hospitals, and not all 25 principles were equally adhered to. Whilst some principles exhibited a high level of acceptance, others had a wide variability in uptake indicative of controversy or barriers to uptake. Further research into specific principles is required to improve ERAS implementation

Association of mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics and anastomotic leak following left sided colorectal resection: an international, multi-centre, prospective audit.

This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: , (2018), Association of mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics and anastomotic leak following left sided colorectal resection: an international, multi‐centre, prospective audit. Colorectal Dis, 20: 15-32. doi:10.1111/codi.14362, which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.14362. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Use of Self-Archived VersionsINTRODUCTION: The optimal bowel preparation strategy to minimise the risk of anastomotic leak is yet to be determined. This study aimed to determine whether oral antibiotics combined with mechanical bowel preparation (MBP+Abx) was associated with a reduced risk of anastomotic leak when compared to mechanical bowel preparation alone (MBP) or no bowel preparation (NBP). METHODS: A pre-planned analysis of the European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP) 2017 Left Sided Colorectal Resection audit was performed. Patients undergoing elective left sided colonic or rectal resection with primary anastomosis between 1 January 2017 and 15 March 2017 by any operative approach were included. The primary outcome measure was anastomotic leak. RESULTS: Of 3676 patients across 343 centres in 47 countries, 618 (16.8%) received MBP+ABx, 1945 MBP (52.9%) and 1099 patients NBP (29.9%). Patients undergoing MBP+ABx had the lowest overall rate of anastomotic leak (6.1%, 9.2%, 8.7% respectively) in unadjusted analysis. After case-mix adjustment using a mixed-effects multivariable regression model, MBP+Abx was associated with a lower risk of anastomotic leak (OR 0.52, 0.30-0.92, P = 0.02) but MBP was not (OR 0.92, 0.63-1.36, P = 0.69) compared to NBP. CONCLUSION: This non-randomised study adds 'real-world', contemporaneous, and prospective evidence of the beneficial effects of combined mechanical bowel preparation and oral antibiotics in the prevention of anastomotic leak following left sided colorectal resection across diverse settings. We have also demonstrated limited uptake of this strategy in current international colorectal practice

An international assessment of the adoption of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS®) principles across colorectal units in 2019–2020

Aim: The Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society guidelines aim to standardize perioperative care in colorectal surgery via 25 principles. We aimed to assess the variation in uptake of these principles across an international network of colorectal units. Method: An online survey was circulated amongst European Society of Coloproctology members in 2019–2020. For each ERAS principle, respondents were asked to score how frequently the principle was implemented in their hospital, from 1 (‘rarely’) to 4 (‘always’). Respondents were also asked to recall whether practice had changed since 2017. Subgroup analyses based on hospital characteristics were conducted. Results: Of hospitals approached, 58% responded to the survey (195/335), with 296 individual responses (multiple responses were received from some hospitals). The majority were European (163/195, 83.6%). Overall, respondents indicated they ‘most often’ or ‘always’ adhered to most individual ERAS principles (18/25, 72%). Variability in the uptake of principles was reported, with universal uptake of some principles (e.g., prophylactic antibiotics; early mobilization) and inconsistency from ‘rarely’ to ‘always’ in others (e.g., no nasogastric intubation; no preoperative fasting and carbohydrate drinks). In alignment with 2018 ERAS guideline updates, adherence to principles for prehabilitation, managing anaemia and postoperative nutrition appears to have increased since 2017. Conclusions: Uptake of ERAS principles varied across hospitals, and not all 25 principles were equally adhered to. Whilst some principles exhibited a high level of acceptance, others had a wide variability in uptake indicative of controversy or barriers to uptake. Further research into specific principles is required to improve ERAS implementation

Safety of primary anastomosis following emergency left sided colorectal resection: an international, multi-centre prospective audit.

This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: group, T. E. S. o. C. c. (2018). "Safety of primary anastomosis following emergency left sided colorectal resection: an international, multi-centre prospective audit." Colorectal Disease 20(S6): 47-57., which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.1437. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Use of Self-Archived VersionsINTRODUCTION: Some evidence suggests that primary anastomosis following left sided colorectal resection in the emergency setting may be safe in selected patients, and confer favourable outcomes to permanent enterostomy. The aim of this study was to compare the major postoperative complication rate in patients undergoing end stoma vs primary anastomosis following emergency left sided colorectal resection. METHODS: A pre-planned analysis of the European Society of Coloproctology 2017 audit. Adult patients (> 16 years) who underwent emergency (unplanned, within 24 h of hospital admission) left sided colonic or rectal resection were included. The primary endpoint was the 30-day major complication rate (Clavien-Dindo grade 3 to 5). RESULTS: From 591 patients, 455 (77%) received an end stoma, 103 a primary anastomosis (17%) and 33 primary anastomosis with defunctioning stoma (6%). In multivariable models, anastomosis was associated with a similar major complication rate to end stoma (adjusted odds ratio for end stoma 1.52, 95%CI 0.83-2.79, P = 0.173). Although a defunctioning stoma was not associated with reduced anastomotic leak (12% defunctioned [4/33] vs 13% not defunctioned [13/97], adjusted odds ratio 2.19, 95%CI 0.43-11.02, P = 0.343), it was associated with less severe complications (75% [3/4] with defunctioning stoma, 86.7% anastomosis only [13/15]), a lower mortality rate (0% [0/4] vs 20% [3/15]), and fewer reoperations (50% [2/4] vs 73% [11/15]) when a leak did occur. CONCLUSIONS: Primary anastomosis in selected patients appears safe after left sided emergency colorectal resection. A defunctioning stoma might mitigate against risk of subsequent complications

The impact of conversion on the risk of major complication following laparoscopic colonic surgery: an international, multicentre prospective audit.

This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: The and E. S. o. C. c. groups (2018). "The impact of conversion on the risk of major complication following laparoscopic colonic surgery: an international, multicentre prospective audit." Colorectal Disease 20(S6): 69-89., which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.14371. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Use of Self-Archived Versions.BACKGROUND: Laparoscopy has now been implemented as a standard of care for elective colonic resection around the world. During the adoption period, studies showed that conversion may be detrimental to patients, with poorer outcomes than both laparoscopic completed or planned open surgery. The primary aim of this study was to determine whether laparoscopic conversion was associated with a higher major complication rate than planned open surgery in contemporary, international practice. METHODS: Combined analysis of the European Society of Coloproctology 2017 and 2015 audits. Patients were included if they underwent elective resection of a colonic segment from the caecum to the rectosigmoid junction with primary anastomosis. The primary outcome measure was the 30-day major complication rate, defined as Clavien-Dindo grade III-V. RESULTS: Of 3980 patients, 64% (2561/3980) underwent laparoscopic surgery and a laparoscopic conversion rate of 14% (359/2561). The major complication rate was highest after open surgery (laparoscopic 7.4%, converted 9.7%, open 11.6%, P < 0.001). After case mix adjustment in a multilevel model, only planned open (and not laparoscopic converted) surgery was associated with increased major complications in comparison to laparoscopic surgery (OR 1.64, 1.27-2.11, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Appropriate laparoscopic conversion should not be considered a treatment failure in modern practice. Conversion does not appear to place patients at increased risk of complications vs planned open surgery, supporting broadening of selection criteria for attempted laparoscopy in elective colonic resection