Is restrictive fluid resuscitation beneficial not only for hemorrhagic shock but also for septic shock?: A meta-analysis
BACKGROUND Whether to use limited fluid resuscitation (LFR) in patients with hemorrhagic shock or septic shock remains controversial. This research was aimed to assess the pros and cons of utilizing LFR in hemorrhagic shock or septic shock patients. METHODS PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of science, CNKI, VIP, and Wan Fang database searches included for articles published before December 15, 2020. Randomized controlled trials of LFR or adequate fluid resuscitation in hemorrhagic shock or septic shock patients were selected. RESULT This meta-analysis including 28 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and registered 3288 patients. The 7 of 27 RCTs were the patients with septic shock. Others were traumatic hemorrhagic shock patients. Comparing LFR or adequate fluid resuscitation in hemorrhagic shock or septic shock patients, the summary odds ratio (OR) was 0.50 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.42-0.60, P < .00001) for mortality, 0.46 (95% CI 0.31-0.70, P = .0002) for multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS), 0.35 (95% CI 0.25-0.47) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and 0.33 (95% CI 0.20-0.56) for disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC). CONCLUSION Limited fluid resuscitation is the benefit of both traumatic hemorrhagic shock patients and septic shock patients.
Hemostasis effect of compression dressing therapy after total hip arthroplasty
Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi = Zhongguo Xiufu Chongjian Waike Zazhi = Chinese Journal of Reparative and Reconstructive Surgery. 2016;30((4)):416-20.
OBJECTIVE To investigate the hemostasis effect of compression dressing therapy after total hip arthroplasty (THA). METHODS Thirty-four patients undergding unilateral THA between December 2014 and March 2015 were randomly divided into observation group (compression dressing group, n = 17) and control group (ordinary dressing group, n = 17). There was no significant difference in gender, age, height, weight, lesion hips, pathogeny, disease duration, and preoperative hemoglobin between 2 groups (P > 0.05). The total blood loss theoretical value, the postoperative drainage volume, the visible blood loss, the hidden blood loss, the total blood transfusion volume, the number of patients receiving blood transfusion, and the related complications were compared between 2 groups. RESULTS No significant difference was found in operation time and hospitalization time between 2 groups (t = 0.337, P = 0.738; t = 0.140, P = 0.889). The incisions healed by first intention in all patients. Six cases had incision subcutaneous hematoma in the control group, no incision subcutaneous hematoma occurred in the observation group (chi(2) = 7.286, P = 0.018). No postoperative complications of wound superficial infection and venous thrombosis occurred in 2 groups. After operation, blood transfusion was given in 1 case of observation group and 7 cases of control group, showing significant difference (chi(2) = 5.885, P = 0.039), and the total blood transfusion volume was 600 mL and 3 200 mL, respectively. There was no significant difference in preoperative blood volume and intraoperative blood loss between 2 groups (P>0.05), but the total blood loss theoretical value, the postoperative drainage volume, the visible blood loss, and the hidden blood loss in observation group were significantly less than those in control group (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION The compression dressing should be performed after THA because it can effectively reduce postoperative blood loss and the incidence of wound hematoma.