Amoebic liver abscess is a common disease, especially in endemic areas, but it is a rare cause of inferior vena cava (IVC) obstruction, with only a few cases appearing in the literature. We report three cases of amoebic liver abscess complicated with obstruction of the IVC and which responded to conservative treatment or radiological intervention.
Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use ; Antibodies, Protozoan/analysis ; Entamoeba/immunology/isolation & purification ; Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay ; Humans ; Liver Abscess, Amebic/complications/*diagnosis/ultrasonography ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Thrombosis/diagnosis/etiology ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed ; Vascular Diseases/*etiology ; *Vena Cava, Inferior ; Young Adult

Background: The objective of this study is to summarize the evidence in Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews, the effects, and the benefits of monitoring intracranial pressure (ICP) in patients with head trauma with an indication of ICP monitoring Methods: The process of preparing this overview followed the guidelines established by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) for umbrella reviews. Two independent reviewers evaluated the quality of reporting, bias risk, methodologies, and evidence using three different tools: the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) instrument, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), and A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2). Results: A total of five papers met the criteria for inclusion in the study. These papers consisted of 49 primary research studies and 19 unique primary research studies. One of the SRs indicated that using intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring led to a reduction in mortality. Two of the SRs had mixed results with temporal variation, while two found no significant difference in mortality with ICP monitoring. It is important to note that the quality of the SRs varied, with some being of higher quality than others. Conclusion There was no conclusive evidence that ICP monitoring reduces mortality in TBI patients. There was high heterogeneity in included primary research studies. Future research should aim to address the limitations of these studies and provide more conclusive evidence regarding the effectiveness of ICP monitoring in reducing mortality in patients with traumatic brain injury.

Background: The objective of this study is to summarize the evidence in Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews, the effects, and the benefits of monitoring intracranial pressure (ICP) in patients with head trauma with an indication of ICP monitoring Methods: The process of preparing this overview followed the guidelines established by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) for umbrella reviews. Two independent reviewers evaluated the quality of reporting, bias risk, methodologies, and evidence using three different tools: the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) instrument, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), and A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2). Results: A total of five papers met the criteria for inclusion in the study. These papers consisted of 49 primary research studies and 19 unique primary research studies. One of the SRs indicated that using intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring led to a reduction in mortality. Two of the SRs had mixed results with temporal variation, while two found no significant difference in mortality with ICP monitoring. It is important to note that the quality of the SRs varied, with some being of higher quality than others. Conclusion There was no conclusive evidence that ICP monitoring reduces mortality in TBI patients. There was high heterogeneity in included primary research studies. Future research should aim to address the limitations of these studies and provide more conclusive evidence regarding the effectiveness of ICP monitoring in reducing mortality in patients with traumatic brain injury.

Background: The objective of this study is to summarize the evidence in Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews, the effects, and the benefits of monitoring intracranial pressure (ICP) in patients with head trauma with an indication of ICP monitoring Methods: The process of preparing this overview followed the guidelines established by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) for umbrella reviews. Two independent reviewers evaluated the quality of reporting, bias risk, methodologies, and evidence using three different tools: the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) instrument, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), and A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2). Results: A total of five papers met the criteria for inclusion in the study. These papers consisted of 49 primary research studies and 19 unique primary research studies. One of the SRs indicated that using intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring led to a reduction in mortality. Two of the SRs had mixed results with temporal variation, while two found no significant difference in mortality with ICP monitoring. It is important to note that the quality of the SRs varied, with some being of higher quality than others. Conclusion There was no conclusive evidence that ICP monitoring reduces mortality in TBI patients. There was high heterogeneity in included primary research studies. Future research should aim to address the limitations of these studies and provide more conclusive evidence regarding the effectiveness of ICP monitoring in reducing mortality in patients with traumatic brain injury.

Background: The objective of this study is to summarize the evidence in Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews, the effects, and the benefits of monitoring intracranial pressure (ICP) in patients with head trauma with an indication of ICP monitoring Methods: The process of preparing this overview followed the guidelines established by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) for umbrella reviews. Two independent reviewers evaluated the quality of reporting, bias risk, methodologies, and evidence using three different tools: the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) instrument, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), and A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2). Results: A total of five papers met the criteria for inclusion in the study. These papers consisted of 49 primary research studies and 19 unique primary research studies. One of the SRs indicated that using intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring led to a reduction in mortality. Two of the SRs had mixed results with temporal variation, while two found no significant difference in mortality with ICP monitoring. It is important to note that the quality of the SRs varied, with some being of higher quality than others. Conclusion There was no conclusive evidence that ICP monitoring reduces mortality in TBI patients. There was high heterogeneity in included primary research studies. Future research should aim to address the limitations of these studies and provide more conclusive evidence regarding the effectiveness of ICP monitoring in reducing mortality in patients with traumatic brain injury.

Background: Existing literature lacks high-quality evidence regarding the ideal intraoperative positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) to minimize postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs). We hypothesized that applying individualized PEEP derived from electrical impedance tomography would reduce the severity of postoperative lung aeration loss, deterioration in oxygenation, and PPC incidence. Methods: A pilot feasibility study was conducted on 36 patients who underwent open abdominal oncologic surgery. The patients were randomized to receive individualized PEEP or conventional PEEP at 4 cmH2O. The primary outcome was the impact of individualized PEEP on changes in the modified lung ultrasound score (MLUS) derived from preoperative and postoperative lung ultrasonography. A higher MLUS indicated greater lung aeration loss. The secondary outcomes were the PaO2/FiO2 ratio and PPC incidence. Results: A significant increase in the postoperative MLUS (12.0 ± 3.6 vs 7.9 ± 2.1, P < 0.001) and a significant difference between the postoperative and preoperative MLUS values (7.0 ± 3.3 vs 3.0 ± 1.6, P < 0.001) were found in the conventional PEEP group, indicating increased lung aeration loss. In the conventional PEEP group, the intraoperative PaO2/FiO2 ratios were significantly lower but not the postoperative ratios. The PPC incidence was not significantly different between the groups. Post-hoc analysis showed the increase in lung aeration loss and deterioration of intraoperative oxygenation correlated with the deviation from the individualized PEEP. Conclusions Individualized PEEP appears to protect against lung aeration loss and intraoperative oxygenation deterioration. The advantage was greater in patients whose individualized PEEP deviated more from the conventional PEEP.