To compare the outcomes of low central venous pressure (CVP) to standard CVP during laparoscopic liver resection. The study design was a systematic review following the PRISMA statement standards. The available literature was searched to identify all studies comparing low CVP with standard CVP in patients undergoing laparoscopic liver resection. The outcomes included intraoperative blood loss (primary outcome), need for blood transfusion, mean arterial pressure, operative time, Pringle time, and total complications. Random-effects modelling was applied for analyses. Type I and type II errors were assessed by trial sequential analysis (TSA). A total of 8 studies including 682 patients were included (low CVP group, 342; standard CVP group, 340). Low CVP reduced intraoperative blood loss during laparoscopic liver resection (mean difference [MD], –193.49 mL; 95% confidence interval [CI], –339.86 to –47.12; p = 0.01).However, low CVP did not have any effect on blood transfusion requirement (odds ratio [OR], 0.54; 95% CI, 0.28–1.03; p = 0.06), mean arterial pressure (MD, –1.55 mm Hg; 95% CI, –3.85–0.75; p = 0.19), Pringle time (MD, –0.99 minutes; 95% CI, –5.82–3.84; p = 0.69), operative time (MD, –16.38 minutes; 95% CI, –36.68–3.39; p = 0.11), or total complications (OR, 1.92; 95% CI, 0.97–3.80; p = 0.06). TSA suggested that the meta-analysis for the primary outcome was not subject to type I or II errors. Low CVP may reduce intraoperative blood loss during laparoscopic liver resection (moderate certainty); however, this may not translate into shorter operative time, shorter Pringle time, or less need for blood transfusion. Randomized controlled trials with larger sample sizes will provide more robust evidence.

To compare the outcomes of low central venous pressure (CVP) to standard CVP during laparoscopic liver resection. The study design was a systematic review following the PRISMA statement standards. The available literature was searched to identify all studies comparing low CVP with standard CVP in patients undergoing laparoscopic liver resection. The outcomes included intraoperative blood loss (primary outcome), need for blood transfusion, mean arterial pressure, operative time, Pringle time, and total complications. Random-effects modelling was applied for analyses. Type I and type II errors were assessed by trial sequential analysis (TSA). A total of 8 studies including 682 patients were included (low CVP group, 342; standard CVP group, 340). Low CVP reduced intraoperative blood loss during laparoscopic liver resection (mean difference [MD], –193.49 mL; 95% confidence interval [CI], –339.86 to –47.12; p = 0.01).However, low CVP did not have any effect on blood transfusion requirement (odds ratio [OR], 0.54; 95% CI, 0.28–1.03; p = 0.06), mean arterial pressure (MD, –1.55 mm Hg; 95% CI, –3.85–0.75; p = 0.19), Pringle time (MD, –0.99 minutes; 95% CI, –5.82–3.84; p = 0.69), operative time (MD, –16.38 minutes; 95% CI, –36.68–3.39; p = 0.11), or total complications (OR, 1.92; 95% CI, 0.97–3.80; p = 0.06). TSA suggested that the meta-analysis for the primary outcome was not subject to type I or II errors. Low CVP may reduce intraoperative blood loss during laparoscopic liver resection (moderate certainty); however, this may not translate into shorter operative time, shorter Pringle time, or less need for blood transfusion. Randomized controlled trials with larger sample sizes will provide more robust evidence.

To compare the outcomes of low central venous pressure (CVP) to standard CVP during laparoscopic liver resection. The study design was a systematic review following the PRISMA statement standards. The available literature was searched to identify all studies comparing low CVP with standard CVP in patients undergoing laparoscopic liver resection. The outcomes included intraoperative blood loss (primary outcome), need for blood transfusion, mean arterial pressure, operative time, Pringle time, and total complications. Random-effects modelling was applied for analyses. Type I and type II errors were assessed by trial sequential analysis (TSA). A total of 8 studies including 682 patients were included (low CVP group, 342; standard CVP group, 340). Low CVP reduced intraoperative blood loss during laparoscopic liver resection (mean difference [MD], –193.49 mL; 95% confidence interval [CI], –339.86 to –47.12; p = 0.01).However, low CVP did not have any effect on blood transfusion requirement (odds ratio [OR], 0.54; 95% CI, 0.28–1.03; p = 0.06), mean arterial pressure (MD, –1.55 mm Hg; 95% CI, –3.85–0.75; p = 0.19), Pringle time (MD, –0.99 minutes; 95% CI, –5.82–3.84; p = 0.69), operative time (MD, –16.38 minutes; 95% CI, –36.68–3.39; p = 0.11), or total complications (OR, 1.92; 95% CI, 0.97–3.80; p = 0.06). TSA suggested that the meta-analysis for the primary outcome was not subject to type I or II errors. Low CVP may reduce intraoperative blood loss during laparoscopic liver resection (moderate certainty); however, this may not translate into shorter operative time, shorter Pringle time, or less need for blood transfusion. Randomized controlled trials with larger sample sizes will provide more robust evidence.

To compare the outcomes of low central venous pressure (CVP) to standard CVP during laparoscopic liver resection. The study design was a systematic review following the PRISMA statement standards. The available literature was searched to identify all studies comparing low CVP with standard CVP in patients undergoing laparoscopic liver resection. The outcomes included intraoperative blood loss (primary outcome), need for blood transfusion, mean arterial pressure, operative time, Pringle time, and total complications. Random-effects modelling was applied for analyses. Type I and type II errors were assessed by trial sequential analysis (TSA). A total of 8 studies including 682 patients were included (low CVP group, 342; standard CVP group, 340). Low CVP reduced intraoperative blood loss during laparoscopic liver resection (mean difference [MD], –193.49 mL; 95% confidence interval [CI], –339.86 to –47.12; p = 0.01).However, low CVP did not have any effect on blood transfusion requirement (odds ratio [OR], 0.54; 95% CI, 0.28–1.03; p = 0.06), mean arterial pressure (MD, –1.55 mm Hg; 95% CI, –3.85–0.75; p = 0.19), Pringle time (MD, –0.99 minutes; 95% CI, –5.82–3.84; p = 0.69), operative time (MD, –16.38 minutes; 95% CI, –36.68–3.39; p = 0.11), or total complications (OR, 1.92; 95% CI, 0.97–3.80; p = 0.06). TSA suggested that the meta-analysis for the primary outcome was not subject to type I or II errors. Low CVP may reduce intraoperative blood loss during laparoscopic liver resection (moderate certainty); however, this may not translate into shorter operative time, shorter Pringle time, or less need for blood transfusion. Randomized controlled trials with larger sample sizes will provide more robust evidence.

The aim of the systematic review is to describe clinical features of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in children with a focus on the possible reasons why children are less susceptible to COVID-19 and whether their immune response works better than adults. The three research questions below were determined. (1) Why do pediatric COVID-19 cases have milder clinical symptoms than adults? (2) What are clinical manifestations, diagnosis, and treatment of COVID-19 in children? (3) How long lasts viral shedding after recovery? We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, as well as foreign literature with English translations. Extra information and data have been collected from Google Scholar and the American Society for Microbiology. Information on patients' age, comorbidities, methods of treatment, and effects on mortality and morbidity were extracted. It is concluded that children are less susceptible to COVID-19 than adults and that the symptoms in children are less severe than in adults. A low incidence of COVID-19 in children and milder disease than in adults might be attributed to many theories and reasons; however, the mechanisms involved are not fully understood.
Adult ; COVID-19 ; Child ; Humans ; SARS-CoV-2