Delorme's vs. Altemeier's in the management of rectal procidentia: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Rectal prolapse is a distressing condition for patients and no consensus exists on optimal surgical management. We compared outcomes of two common perineal operations (Delorme's and Altemeier's) used in the treatment of rectal prolapse. METHODS: A systematic search of multiple electronic databases was conducted. Peri- and post-operative outcomes following Delorme's and Altemeier's procedures were extracted. Primary outcomes included recurrence rate, anastomotic dehiscence rate and mortality rate. The secondary outcomes were total operative time, volume of blood loss, length of hospital stay and coloanal anastomotic stricture formation. Revman 5.3 was used to perform all statistical analysis. RESULTS: Ten studies with 605 patients were selected; 286 underwent Altemeier's procedure (standalone), 39 had Altemeier's with plasty (perineoplasty or levatoroplasty), and 280 had Delorme's. Recurrence rate [OR: 0.66; 95% CI [0.44-0.99], P = 0.05] was significantly lower and anastomotic dehiscence [RD: 0.05; 95% CI [0.00-0.09], P = 0.03] was significantly higher in the Altemeier's group. However, sub group analysis of Altemeier's with plasty failed to show significant differences in these outcomes compared with the Delorme's procedure. Length of hospital stay was significantly more following an Altemeier's operation compared with Delorme's [MD: 3.05, 95% CI [0.95 - 5.51], P = 0.004]. No significant difference was found in total operative time, intra-operative blood loss, coloanal anastomotic stricture formation and mortality rates between the two approaches. CONCLUSIONS: A direct comparison of two common perineal procedures used in the treatment of rectal prolapse demonstrated that the Altemeier's approach was associated with better outcomes. Future, well-designed high quality RCTs with long-term follow up are needed to corroborate our findings.

Comparison of Midline and Off-midline specimen extraction following laparoscopic left-sided colorectal resections: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Aims: This study aims to evaluate comparative outcomes following midline versus off-midline specimen extractions following laparoscopic left-sided colorectal resections. Methods: A systematic search of electronic information sources was conducted. Studies comparing 'midline' versus 'off midline' specimen extraction following laparoscopic left-sided colorectal resections performed for malignancies were included. The rate of incisional hernia formation, surgical site infection (SSI), total operative time and blood loss, anastomotic leak (AL) and length of hospital stay (LOS) was the evaluated outcome parameters. Results: Five comparative observational studies reporting a total of 1187 patients comparing midline (n = 701) and off-midline (n = 486) approaches for specimen extraction were identified. Specimen extraction performed through an off-midline incision was not associated with a significantly reduced rate of SSI (odds ratio [OR]: 0.71; P = 0.68), the occurrence of AL (OR: 0.76; P = 0.66) and future development of incisional hernias (OR: 0.65; P = 0.64) compared to the conventional midline approach. No statistically significant difference was observed in total operative time (mean difference [MD]: 0.13; P = 0.99), intraoperative blood loss (MD: 2.31; P = 0.91) and LOS (MD: 0.78; P = 0.18) between the two groups. Conclusions: Off-midline specimen extraction following minimally invasive left-sided colorectal cancer surgery is associated with similar rates of SSI and incisional hernia formation compared to the vertical midline incision. Furthermore, there were no statistically significant differences observed between the two groups for evaluated outcomes such as total operative time, intra-operative blood loss, AL rate and LOS. As such, we did not find any advantage of one approach over the other. Future high-quality well-designed trials are required to make robust conclusions.

Meta-analysis of temporary loop ileostomy closure during or after adjuvant chemotherapy following rectal cancer resection: the dilemma remains.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate comparative outcomes of temporary loop ileostomy closure during or after adjuvant chemotherapy following rectal cancer resection. METHODS: We systematic searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry, ClinicalTrials.gov , ISRCTN Register and bibliographic reference lists. Overall perioperative complications, anastomotic leak, surgical site infection, ileus and length of hospital stay were the evaluated outcome parameters. Combined overall effect sizes were calculated using fixed effects or random effects models. RESULTS: We identified 4 studies reporting a total of 436 patients comparing outcomes of temporary loop ileostomy closure during (n = 185) or after (n = 251) adjuvant chemotherapy following colorectal cancer resection. There was no significant difference in overall perioperative complications (OR 1.39; 95% CI 0.82-2.36, p = 0.22), anastomotic leak (OR 2.80; 95% CI 0.47-16.56, p = 0.26), surgical site infection (OR 1.97; 95% CI 0.80-4.90, p = 0.14), ileus (OR 1.22; 95% CI 0.50-2.96, p = 0.66) or length of hospital stay (MD 0.02; 95% CI - 0.85-0.89, p = 0.97) between two groups. Between-study heterogeneity was low in all analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The meta-analysis of the best, albeit limited, available evidence suggests that temporary loop ileostomy closure during adjuvant chemotherapy following rectal cancer resection may be associated with comparable outcomes to the closure of ileostomy after adjuvant chemotherapy. We encourage future research to concentrate on the completeness of chemotherapy and quality of life which can determine the appropriateness of either approach.

Meta-analysis of medial-to-lateral versus lateral-to-medial colorectal mobilisation during laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate comparative outcomes of medial-to-lateral and lateral-to-medial colorectal mobilisation in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of electronic databases and bibliographic reference lists. Perioperative mortality and morbidity, procedure time, length of hospital stay, rate of conversion to open procedure, and number of harvested lymph nodes were the outcome parameters. Combined overall effect sizes were calculated using fixed-effects or random-effects models. RESULTS: We identified eight comparative studies reporting a total of 1477 patients evaluating outcomes of medial-to-lateral (n = 626) and lateral-to-medial (n = 851) approaches in laparoscopic colorectal resection. The medial-to-lateral approach was associated with significantly lower rate of conversion to open (odds ratio (OR) 0.43, P = 0.001), shorter procedure time (mean difference (MD) - 32.25, P = 0.003) and length of hospital stay (MD - 1.54, P = 0.02) compared to the lateral-to-medial approach. However, there was no significant difference in mortality (risk difference (RD) 0.00, P = 0.96), overall complications (OR 0.78, P = 0.11), wound infection (OR 0.84, P = 0.60), anastomotic leak (OR 0.70, P = 0.26), bleeding (OR 0.60, P = 0.50), and number of harvested lymph nodes (MD - 1.54, P = 0.02) between two groups. Sub-group analysis demonstrated that the lateral-to-medial approach may harvest more lymph nodes in left-sided colectomy (MD - 1.29, P = 0.0009). The sensitivity analysis showed that overall complications were lower in the medial-to-lateral group (OR 0.72, P = 0.49). CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis (level 2 evidence) showed that medial-to-lateral approach during laparoscopic colorectal resection may reduce procedure time, length of hospital stay and conversion to open procedure rate. Moreover, it may probably reduce overall perioperative morbidity. However, both approaches carry similar risk of mortality, and have comparable ability to harvest lymph nodes. Future high-quality randomised trials are required.

Laparoscopic Transcystic Versus Transductal Common Bile Duct Exploration: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate comparative outcomes of laparoscopic transcystic (TC) and transductal (TD) common bile duct (CBD) exploration. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry, ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN Register, and bibliographic reference lists. CBD clearance rate, perioperative complications, and biliary complications were defined as the primary outcome parameters. Procedure time, length of hospital stay, conversion to open procedure were the secondary outcomes. Combined overall effect sizes were calculated using random-effects models. RESULTS: We identified 30 studies reporting a total of 4073 patients comparing outcomes of laparoscopic TC (n = 2176) and TD (N = 1897) CBD exploration. The TC approach was associated with significantly lower overall complications (RD: -0.07, P = 0.001), biliary complications (RD: -0.05, P = 0.0003), and blood loss (MD: -16.20, P = 0.02) compared to TD approach. Moreover, the TC approach significantly reduced the length of hospital stay (MD: -2.62, P < 0.00001) and procedure time (MD: -12.73, P = 0.005). However, there was no significant difference in rate of CBD clearance (RD: 0.00, P = 0.77) and conversion to open procedure (RD: 0.00, P = 0.86) between two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic TC CBD exploration is safe and reduces overall morbidity and biliary complications compared to the TD approach. Moreover, it is associated with significantly shorter length of hospital stay and procedure time. High-quality randomised trials may provide stronger evidence with respect to impact of the cystic duct/CBD diameter, number or size of CBD stones, or cystic duct anatomy on the comparative outcomes of TC and TD approaches.