To evaluate the current state of the evidence regarding the association of silicone breast implantation with the onset of connective tissue diseases, constitutional symptoms, and rheumatic serological profile in adult women. A comprehensive search was carried out using MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and Scopus, from inception to September 2, 2020. Cohort studies assessing the clinical and serological profile of women with cosmetic breast implants were included. Meta-analyses were conducted using risk ratios. A total of 10 cohorts with overall moderate quality of evidence were included in this systematic review. Exposure to silicone breast implants was slightly associated with the development of rheumatoid arthritis [RR: 1.35; (95% CI 1.08 to 1.68); P = .008; I2 = 0%]. However, no significant differences were exhibited between the breast implant-exposed population and controls regarding the rest of the outcomes. In adult women, exposure to silicone breast implantation is not associated with the onset of constitutional symptoms and most connective tissue diseases. A marginal association with rheumatoid arthritis was exhibited, but the certainty of this result is jeopardized by the significant amount of self-reported data for this outcome. Further research is required to adequately explore the clinical significance of these results.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to answer the following question: Are antibiotic-impregnated shunts (AISs) superior to standard shunts (SSs) at reducing the risk of shunt infection in pediatric patients with hydrocephalus?
METHODS: Both the US National Library of Medicine PubMed/MEDLINE database and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were queried using MeSH headings and key words relevant to AIS use in children. Abstracts were reviewed, after which studies meeting the inclusion criteria were selected. An evidentiary table was assembled summarizing the studies and the quality of their evidence (Classes I-III). A meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model to calculate a cumulative estimate of treatment effect using risk ratio (RR). Heterogeneity was assessed using the chi-square and I(2) statistics. Based on the quality of the literature and the result of the meta-analysis, a recommendation was rendered (Level I, II, or III).
RESULTS: Six studies, all Class III, met our inclusion criteria. All but one study focused on a retrospective cohort and all but one were conducted at a single institution. Four of the studies failed to demonstrate a lowered infection rate with the use of an AIS. However, when the data from individual studies were pooled together, the infection rate in the AIS group was 5.5% compared with 8.6% in the SS group. Using a random-effects model, the cumulative RR was 0.51 (95% CI 0.29-0.89, p < 0.001), indicating that a shunt infection was 1.96 times more likely in patients who received an SS.
CONCLUSIONS: We recommend AIS tubing because of the associated lower risk of shunt infection compared to the use of conventional silicone hardware (quality of evidence: Class III; strength of recommendation: Level III).
CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotic-impregnated shunt (AIS) tubing may be associated with a lower risk of shunt infection compared with conventional silicone hardware and thus is an option for children who require placement of a shunt.
METHODS: Level III, unclear degree of clinical certainty.

Hypertrophic scars and keloids resulting from surgery, burns, trauma and infection can be associated with substantial physical and psychological distress. Various non-invasive and invasive options are currently available for the prevention and treatment of these scars. Recently, an international multidisciplinary group of 24 experts on scar management (dermatologists; plastic and reconstructive surgeons; general surgeons; physical medicine, rehabilitation and burns specialists; psychosocial and behavioural researchers; epidemiologists; beauticians) convened to update a set of practical guidelines for the prevention and treatment of hypertrophic and keloid scars on the basis of the latest published clinical evidence on existing scar management options. Silicone-based products such as sheets and gels are recommended as the gold standard, first-line, non-invasive option for both the prevention and treatment of scars. Other general scar preventative measures include avoiding sun exposure, compression therapy, taping and the use of moisturisers. Invasive treatment options include intralesional injections of corticosteroids and/or 5-fluorouracil, cryotherapy, radiotherapy, laser therapy and surgical excision. All of these options may be used alone or as part of combination therapy. Of utmost importance is the regular re-evaluation of patients every four to eight weeks to evaluate whether additional treatment is warranted. The amount of scar management measures that are applied to each wound depends on the patient\'s risk of developing a scar and their level of concern about the scar\'s appearance. The practical advice presented in the current guidelines should be combined with clinical judgement when deciding on the most appropriate scar management measures for an individual patient.

Hypertrophic scars and keloids can be aesthetically displeasing and lead to severe psychosocial impairment. Many invasive and non-invasive options are available for the plastic (and any other) surgeon both to prevent and to treat abnormal scar formation. Recently, an updated set of practical evidence-based guidelines for the management of hypertrophic scars and keloids was developed by an international group of 24 experts from a wide range of specialities. An initial set of strategies to minimize the risk of scar formation is applicable to all types of scars and is indicated before, during and immediately after surgery. In addition to optimal surgical management, this includes measures to reduce skin tension, and to provide taping, hydration and ultraviolet (UV) protection of the early scar tissue. Silicone sheeting or gel is universally considered as the first-line prophylactic and treatment option for hypertrophic scars and keloids. The efficacy and safety of this gold-standard, non-invasive therapy has been demonstrated in many clinical studies. Other (more specialized) scar treatment options are available for high-risk patients and/or scars. Pressure garments may be indicated for more widespread scarring, especially after burns. At a later stage, more invasive or surgical procedures may be necessary for the correction of permanent unaesthetic scars and can be combined with adjuvant measures to achieve optimal outcomes. The choice of scar management measures for a particular patient should be based on the newly updated evidence-based recommendations taking individual patient and wound characteristics into consideration.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。