Safety and Efficacy of Nontherapeutic Male Circumcision: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE We wanted to assess the safety and efficacy of nontherapeutic male circumcision through a systematic review of the literature

Paravertebral block for anesthesia: A systematic review

BACKGROUND: The objective of this review was to assess the safety and efficacy of thoracic and lumbar paravertebral blocks (PVBs) for surgical anesthesia through a systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature. PVBs for surgical anesthesia were compared with general anesthesia (GA) or other regional anesthetic techniques. METHODS: We searched literature databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library up to May 2008. Included studies were limited to eligible randomized controlled trials. Eight randomized controlled trials were included in this review, 6 of which used PVBs for anesthesia during breast surgery, and 2 trials used PVB for anesthesia during herniorrhaphy. RESULTS: The ability to obtain firm conclusions was limited by the diversity of outcomes and how they were measured, which varied across studies. The PVB failure rate was not >13%, and patients were more satisfied with PVB than with GA. There was some indication that PVB could achieve shorter hospital stays than GA. PVB for anesthesia substantially reduces nausea and vomiting in comparison with GA (relative risk: 0.25, 95% CI: 0.13–0.50; P < 0.05), although it does carry a risk of pleural puncture and epidural spread of local anesthetic. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, based on the current evidence, PVBs for surgical anesthesia at the level of the thoracic and lumbar vertebrae are associated with less pain during the immediate postoperative period, as well as less postoperative nausea and vomiting, and greater patient satisfaction compared with GA.Prema Thavaneswaran, Glenda E. Rudkin, Rodney D. Cooter, Donald G. Moyes, Caryn L. Perera, and Guy J. Madder

Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: a systematic review

BackgroundLaparoscopic ventral hernia repair may be an alternative to open mesh repair as it avoids a large abdominal incision, and thus potentially reduces pain and hospital stay. This review aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic ventral hernia repair in comparison with open ventral hernia repair.MethodA systematic review was conducted, with comprehensive searches identifying six randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and eight nonrandomised comparative studies.ResultsThe laparoscopic approach may have a lower recurrence rate than the open approach and required a shorter hospital stay. Five RCTs (Barbaros et al., Hernia 11:51-56, 2007; Misra et al., Surg Endosc 20:1839-1845, 2006; Navarra et al., Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 17:86-90, 2007; Moreno-Egea et al., Arch Surg 137:266-1268, 2002; Carbajo et al., Surg Endosc 13:250-252, 1999) reported no conversion (0%) to open surgery, and four nonrandomised studies reported conversions to open surgery ranging from 0% to 14%. Open approach complications generally were wound related, whereas the laparoscopic approach reported both wound- and procedure-related complications and these appeared to be less frequently reported.ConclusionBased on current evidence, the relative safety and efficacy of the laparoscopic approach in comparison with the open approach remains uncertain. The laparoscopic approach may be more suitable for straightforward hernias, with open repair reserved for the more complex hernias. Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair appears to be an acceptable alternative that can be offered by surgeons proficient in advanced laparoscopic techniques.Clarabelle T. Pham, Caryn L. Perera, D. Scott Watkin, Guy J. Madder