UNASSIGNED: Introducing new procedures and challenging established paradigms requires well-designed randomised controlled trials (RCT). However, RCT in surgery present unique challenges with much of treatment tailored to the individual patient circumstances, refined by experience and limited by organisational factors. There has been considerable debate over the outcomes of arteriovenous grafts (AVG) compared to AVF, but any differences may reflect differing practice and potential variability. It is essential, therefore, when considering an RCT of a novel surgical procedure or device that quality assurance (QA) is defined for both the new approach and the comparator. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the QA standards performed in RCT of AVG using a multi-national, multi-disciplinary approach and propose an approach for future RCT.
UNASSIGNED: The methods of this have been previously registered (PROSPERO: CRD420234284280) and published. In summary, a four-stage review was performed: identification of RCT of AVG, initial review, multidisciplinary appraisal of QA methods and reconciliation. QA measures were sought in four areas - generic, credentialing, standardisation and monitoring, with data abstracted by a multi-national, multi-speciality review body.
UNASSIGNED: QA in RCT involving AVG in all four domains is highly variable, often sub-optimally described and has not improved over the past three decades. Few RCT established or defined a pre-RCT level of experience, none documented a pre-trial education programme, or had minimal standards of peri-operative management, no study had a defined pre-trial monitoring programme, and none assessed technical performance.
UNASSIGNED: QA in RCT is a relatively new area that is expanding to ensure evidence is reliable and reproducible. This review demonstrates that QA has not previously been detailed, but can be measured in surgical RCT of vascular access, and that a four-domain approach can easily be implemented into future RCT.

UNASSIGNED: To review new drugs and devices relevant to otolaryngology approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2022.
UNASSIGNED: Publicly available FDA data on drugs and devices approved in 2022.
UNASSIGNED: A preliminary screen was conducted to identify drugs and devices relevant to otolaryngology. A secondary screen by members of the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery\'s (AAO-HNS) Medical Devices and Drugs Committee differentiated between minor updates and new approvals. The final list of drugs and devices was sent to members of each subspecialty for review and analysis.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 1251 devices and 37 drugs were identified on preliminary screening. Of these, 329 devices and 5 drugs were sent to subspecialists for further review, from which 37 devices and 2 novel drugs were selected for further analysis. The newly approved devices spanned all subspecialties within otolaryngology. Many of the newly approved devices aimed to enhance patient experience, including over-the-counter hearing aids, sleep monitoring devices, and refined CPAP devices. Other advances aimed to improve surgical access, convenience, or comfort in the operating room and clinic.
UNASSIGNED: Many new devices and drugs are approved each year to improve patient care and care delivery. By staying up to date with these advances, otolaryngologists can leverage new innovations to improve the safety and quality of care. Given the recent approval of these devices, further studies are needed to assess long-term impact within the field of otolaryngology.

The occurrence of contrast-induced-nephropathy (CIN) is related to the amount of contrast administration. Any removal of contrast from systemic circulation before reaching the kidneys might be beneficial using a device that removes contrast from a coronary sinus (CS). This manuscript aims to review the available literature regarding contrast removal from CS during coronary angiography or intervention for the prevention of CIN.

UNASSIGNED: Long peripheral catheters are peripheral intravenous catheters of 6-15 cm in length. They are commonly inserted into the forearm, antecubital fossa or upper arm using a direct Seldinger technique. They have proven to be valuable for peripheral intravenous catheters, particularly in patients with difficult intravenous access.
UNASSIGNED: We conducted a systematic review of studies reporting the use of long peripheral catheters. The following keywords were used: \'long\', \'Seldinger\', \'guidewire\', \'peripheral\', \'venous\', \'intravenous\', \'IV\', \'vascular\', \'cannula\' and \'catheter\'.
UNASSIGNED: Three hundred forty-one publications were identified; 16 were included in the systematic review. There were 11 adult studies and 5 paediatric studies documenting 1288 long peripheral catheters in 1271 patients. Majority of studies (12/16) were conducted in acute care settings, (emergency department, n = 6; intensive care unit, n = 3; high dependency unit, n = 1; surgical unit, n = 2). The most frequently studied long peripheral catheter was 8 cm in length and 20 G in size. Nine studies recruited patients with difficult intravenous access; 11 studies used ultrasound guidance. Insertion success rate and mean procedural time ranged between 86% and 100% and 8 and 16.8 minutes, respectively. Average catheter duration ranged between 4 and 14.7 days (mean) and 1.1 and 9 days (median). Catheter failure occurred in 4.3-52.5% of long peripheral catheters, with leakage, infiltration and dislodgement being the most frequent causes of failure. In 3 randomised controlled trials, long peripheral catheters outperformed peripheral intravenous catheters in terms of duration and failure rate.
UNASSIGNED: Long peripheral catheters are safe and reliable in both adults and children. In addition, long peripheral catheters may provide improved quality of care over peripheral intravenous catheters for multi-day intravenous therapy.