A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Perianastomotic pH Monitoring for Early Detection of Anastomotic Leaks in Gastrointestinal Surgery: A Systematic Review of the Literature. | LitMetric

Introduction: Anastomotic leak (AL) represents a significant complication following gastrointestinal (GI) surgery, contributing to increased morbidity and mortality. pH monitoring has emerged as a potential diagnostic tool for the early detection of AL, but its effectiveness and clinical utility remain to be fully elucidated. This review aims to summarise the evidence regarding perianastomotic pH monitoring for AL detection.

Methods: A systematic search of relevant databases was conducted to identify pre-clinical and clinical studies investigating pH monitoring for AL detection following GI surgery. Studies were screened by two independent reviewers based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data were extracted and presented as a narrative synthesis.

Results: A total of 10 studies were included in the review, comprising animal studies (n = 2), and human studies in upper GI (n = 3) and colorectal (n = 5) patients. Consistent findings of lower pH values in patients with AL across various postoperative time points were demonstrated. There was diversity in the pH detection method, in addition to variable frequency and timing of pH monitoring. Four studies reported a shorter time for AL detection with pH monitoring vs conventional methods, although no statistical comparisons were used. No standard pH cut-off value for AL detection was identified.

Conclusion: pH monitoring shows potential as a diagnostic tool for the early detection of AL following GI surgery. While the existing evidence supports its potential utility, further research is required to establish standardised protocols and assess its clinical impact.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/15533506241313168DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

early detection
12
perianastomotic monitoring
8
gastrointestinal surgery
8
potential diagnostic
8
diagnostic tool
8
tool early
8
detection surgery
8
detection
7
monitoring
6
studies
6

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!