Meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing aggressive versus non-aggressive intravenous fluid therapy in acute pancreatitis: an insight into the existence of type 2 error.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: We aimed to evaluate comparative outcomes of aggressive versus non-aggressive intravenous fluid (IVF) therapy in patients with acute pancreatitis. METHODS: A systematic search of electronic data sources and bibliographic reference lists were conducted. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting outcomes of aggressive versus non-aggressive IVF therapy in acute pancreatitis were included and their risk of bias were assessed. Effect sizes were determined for overall mortality, systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), sepsis, respiratory failure, pancreatic necrosis, severe pancreatitis, clinical improvement, AKI, and length of stay using random-effects modeling. Trial sequential analysis was conducted to determine risk of types 1 or 2 errors. RESULTS: We included 10 RCTs reporting 993 patients with acute pancreatitis who received aggressive (n = 475) or non-aggressive (n = 518) IVF therapy. Aggressive IVF therapy was associated with significantly higher rate of sepsis (OR: 2.68, P = 0.0005) and longer length of stay (MD: 0.94, P < 0.00001) compared with the non-aggressive approach. There was no statistically significant difference in mortality (RD: 0.02, P = 0.31), SIRS (OR: 0.93, P = 0.89), respiratory failure (OR: 2.81, P = 0.07), pancreatic necrosis (OR: 1.98, P = 0.06), severe pancreatitis (OR: 1.31, P = 0.38), clinical improvement (OR: 1.12, P = 0.83) or AKI (OR: 1.06, P = 0.91) between the two groups. Sub-group analysis demonstrated higher morbidity and mortality associated with the aggressive approach in more severe disease. Trial sequential analysis detected risk of type 2 error. CONCLUSIONS: Aggressive IVF therapy may be associated with higher morbidity in patients with acute pancreatitis compared with the non-aggressive approach, particularly in patients with more severe disease. It may also prolong length of hospital stay. The available evidence is subject to type 2 error indicating the need for adequately powered RCTs.

Meta-analysis of survival after pulmonary resection for isolated metachronous pancreatic cancer metastasis: a promising, albeit infrequent, approach.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate survival outcomes of pulmonary resection for isolated metachronous pancreatic cancer metastasis. METHODS: A systematic search of electronic data sources and reference lists were conducted. Proportion meta-analysis model was constructed to quantify 1- to 5-year survival after pulmonary resection for isolated metachronous pancreatic cancer metastasis. Random-effects modelling was applied to calculate pooled outcome data. RESULTS: Twenty-four retrospective studies were included reporting a total of 168 patients who underwent pulmonary resection for isolated pancreatic cancer metastasis. The nature of the index pancreatic surgery included 65% pancreaticoduodenectomies, 17.5% distal pancreatectomies, 0.5% total pancreatectomy, and 17% unspecified. Adjuvant chemotherapy was given to 88% of the patients. The median disease-free interval was 35 (8-96) months. The type of pulmonary resection included 54% wedge resections, 26% lobectomies, 4% segmentectomies, 1% pneumonectomies, and 15% unspecified. Pulmonary resection was associated with 1-year survival of 91.1% (95% CI 86.6%-95.5%), 2-year survival of 77.5% (95% CI 68.9%-86.0%), 3-year survival of 65.0% (95% CI 50.7%-79.3%), 4-year survival of 52.0% (95% CI 37.2%-66.9%), and 5-year survival of 37.0% (95% CI 25.0%-49.1%). CONCLUSION: Pulmonary resection for isolated pancreatic cancer metastasis is associated with acceptable overall patient survival. We recommend selective pulmonary resection for isolated pulmonary metastasis from pancreatic cancer. Our findings may encourage conduction of better-quality studies in this context to help establishment of definitive treatment strategies.

Effect of surgeon's seniority and subspeciality interest on mortality after emergency laparotomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: To evaluate effect of surgeon's seniority (trainee surgeon vs. consultant surgeon) and surgeon's subspeciality interest on postoperative mortality in patients undergoing emergency laparotomy (EL). METHOD: A systematic review was conducted and reported according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews and the PRISMA statement standards, respectively. We evaluated all studies comparing the risk of postoperative mortality in patients undergoing EL between (a) trainee surgeon and consultant surgeon, and (b) surgeon without and with subspeciality interest related to pathology. Random effects modelling was applied for the analyses. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE system. RESULTS: Analysis of 256 844 patients from 13 studies showed no difference in the risk of postoperative mortality between trainee-led and consultant-led EL (OR: 0.76, p = 0.12). However, EL performed by a surgeon without subspeciality interest related to the pathology was associated with a higher risk of postoperative mortality compared with a surgeon with subspeciality interest (OR: 1.38, p < 0.00001). In lower gastrointestinal (GI) pathologies, EL done by upper GI surgeons resulted in higher risk of mortality compared with lower GI surgeons (OR: 1.43, p < 0.00001). In upper GI pathologies, EL done by lower GI surgeons resulted in higher risk of mortality compared with upper GI surgeons (OR: 1.29, p = 0.05). CONCLUSION: While confounding by indication cannot be excluded, level 2 evidence with moderate certainty suggests that trainee-led EL may not increase the risk of postoperative mortality but EL by a surgeon with subspeciality interest related to the pathology may reduce the risk of mortality.

Meta-analysis of pancreatic re-resection for locally recurrent pancreatic cancer following index pancreatectomy.

The role of surgical resection in patients with recurrent pancreatic cancer is unclear. We aimed to evaluate the survival outcomes of pancreatic re-resection for locally recurrent pancreatic cancer following index pancreatectomy. A literature search was carried out in CENTRAL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Web of Science. Proportion meta-analysis model was constructed to quantify 1 to 5-year survival after pancreatic re-resection for locally recurrent pancreatic cancer. Random-effects modelling was applied to calculate pooled outcome data. Fifteen retrospective studies were included, reporting a total of 250 patients who underwent pancreatic re-resection for locally recurrent pancreatic cancer following their index pancreatectomy. Pancreatic re-resection was associated with 1-year survival 70.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 65.0-76.2), 2-year survival 38.8% (95% CI, 28.6-49.0), 3-year survival 20.2% (95% CI, 13.8-26.7), and 5-year survival 9.2% (95% CI, 5.5-12.8). The between-study heterogeneity was insignificant in all outcome syntheses. Repeat pancreatectomy for local recurrence of pancreatic cancer in the remnant pancreas following the index pancreatectomy is associated with acceptable overall patient survival. We recommend selective re-resection of such recurrences in younger patients with favorable tumor size and location. Our findings may encourage more robust studies to be conducted in this context to provide stronger evidence.

Safety and feasibility of colonoscopy in nonagenarians: A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression analysis.

AIM: The aim of this work was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of performing colonoscopy in patients aged 90 years or over. METHOD: In compliance with PRISMA statement standards, a systematic review of studies reporting the outcomes of colonoscopy in patients aged ≥90 years was conducted. A proportional meta-analysis model was constructed to quantify the risk of outcomes and a direct comparison meta-analysis model was constructed to compare outcomes between nonagenarians and patients aged between 50 and 89 years via random-effects models. RESULTS: Seven studies enrolling 1304 patients (1342 colonoscopies) were included. Analyses showed that complications related to bowel preparation occurred in 0.7% (95% CI 0.1%-1.6%), procedural complications in 0.6% (0.00%-1.7%), 30-day complications in 1.5% (0.6%-2.7%), procedural mortality in 0.3% (0.0%-1.1%) and 30-day mortality in 1.1% (0.3%-2.2%). Adequate bowel preparation and colonoscopy completion were achieved in 81.3% (73.8%-87.9%) and 92.1% (86.7%-96.3%), respectively. No difference was found in bowel preparation-related complications [risk difference (RD) 0.00, p = 0.78], procedural complications (RD 0.00, p = 0.60), 30-day complications (RD 0.01, p = 0.20), procedural mortality (RD 0.00, p = 1.00) or 30-day mortality (RD 0.01, p = 0.34) between nonagenarians and patients aged between 50 and 89 years. The colorectal cancer detection rate was 14.3% (9.8%-19.5%), resulting in therapeutic intervention in 65.9% (54.5%-76.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Although the evidence is limited to a selected group of nonagenarians, it may be fair to conclude that if a colonoscopy is indicated in a nonagenarian with good performance status (based on initial less-invasive investigations), the level 2 evidence supports its safety and feasibility. Age on its own should not be a reason for failing to offer colonoscopy to a nonagenarian.

Purse-string skin closure versus linear skin closure in people undergoing stoma reversal.

BACKGROUND: Stoma reversal is associated with a relatively high risk of surgical site infection (SSI), occurring in up to 40% of cases. This may be explained by the presence of microorganisms around the stoma site, and possible contamination with the intestinal contents during the open-end manipulation of the bowel, making the stoma closure site a clean-contaminated wound. The conventional technique for stoma reversal is linear skin closure (LSC). The purse-string skin closure (PSSC) technique (circumferential skin approximation) creates a small opening in the centre of the wound, enabling free drainage of contaminants and serous fluid. This could decrease the risk of SSI compared with LSC. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of purse-string skin closure compared with linear skin closure in people undergoing stoma reversal. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases, and three trials registers on 21 December 2022. We also checked references, searched for citations, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PSSC and LSC techniques in people undergoing closure of stoma (loop ileostomy, end ileostomy, loop colostomy, or end colostomy) created for any indication. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected eligible studies, extracted data, evaluated the methodological quality of the included studies, and conducted the analyses. The most clinically relevant outcomes were SSI, participant satisfaction, incisional hernia, and operative time. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, each with its corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: Nine RCTs involving 757 participants were eligible for inclusion. Eight studies recruited only adults (aged 18 years and older), and one study included people aged 12 years and older. The participants underwent elective reversal of either ileostomy (82%) or colostomy (18%). We considered all studies at high risk of performance and detection bias (lack of blinding) and four studies at unclear risk of selection bias related to random sequence generation. PSSC compared with LSC likely reduces the risk of SSI (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.29; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 757 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The anticipated absolute risk of SSI is 52 per 1000 people who have PSSC and 243 per 1000 people who have LSC. The likelihood of being very satisfied or satisfied with stoma closure may be higher amongst people who have PSSC compared with people who have LSC (100% vs 89%; OR 20.11, 95% CI 1.09 to 369.88; 2 studies, 122 participants; low-certainty evidence). The results of the analysis suggest that PSSC compared with LSC may have little or no effect on the risk of incisional hernia (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.70; I2 = 49%; 4 studies, 297 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and operative time (MD -2.67 minutes, 95% CI -8.56 to 3.22; I2 = 65%; 6 studies, 460 participants; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: PSSC compared with LSC likely reduces the risk of SSI in people undergoing reversal of stoma. People who have PSSC may be more satisfied with the result compared with people who have LSC. There may be little or no difference between the skin closure techniques in terms of incisional hernia and operative time, though the evidence for these two outcomes is very uncertain.

Meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of pancreatic stump closure using a hand-sewn or stapler technique in distal pancreatectomy.

This study aimed to compare outcomes of hand-sewn and stapler closure techniques of pancreatic stump in patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy (DP). Impact of stapler closure reinforcement using mesh on outcomes was also evaluated. Literature search was carried out using multiple data sources to identify studies that compared hand-sewn and stapler closure techniques in management of pancreatic stump following DP. Odds ratio (OR) was determined for clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) via random-effects modelling. Subsequently, trial sequential analysis was performed. Thirty-two studies with a total of 4,022 patients undergoing DP with hand-sewn (n = 1,184) or stapler (n = 2,838) closure technique of pancreatic stump were analyzed. Hand-sewn closure significantly increased the risk of clinically relevant POPF compared to stapler closure (OR: 1.56, p = 0.02). When stapler closure was considered, staple line reinforcement significantly reduced formation of such POPF (OR: 0.54, p = 0.002). When only randomized controlled trials were considered, there was no significant difference in clinically relevant POPF between hand-sewn and stapler closure techniques (OR: 1.20, p = 0.64) or between reinforced and standard stapler closure techniques (OR: 0.50, p = 0.08). When observational studies were considered, hand-sewn closure was associated with a significantly higher rate of clinically relevant POPF compared to stapler closure (OR: 1.59, p = 0.03). Moreover, when stapler closure was considered, staple line reinforcement significantly reduced formation of such POPF (OR: 0.55, p = 0.02). Trial sequential analysis detected risk of type 2 error. In conclusion, reinforced stapler closure in DP may reduce risk of clinically relevant POPF compared to hand-sewn closure or stapler closure without reinforcement. Future randomized research is needed to provide stronger evidence.

Low versus standard central venous pressure during laparoscopic liver resection: A systematic review, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

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.

Can preoperative Carbohydrate Antigen 19-9 predict metastatic pancreatic cancer? Results of a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: To investigate the relationship between preoperative Carbohydrate Antigen19-9(CA19-9)and pancreatic cancer occult metastasis. METHODS: Systematic search of MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Web of Science and bibliographic reference lists were conducted. All comparative observational studies investigating the predictive ability of preoperative CA 19-9 in patients with pancreatic cancer were considered. Mean CA-19-9 value in the pancreatic cancer patients with and without metastasis were evaluated. Best cut-off value of CA 19-9 for metastasis was determined using ROC analysis. RESULTS: Ten comparative observational studies reporting a total of 1431 pancreatic cancer patients with (n = 496) and without (n = 935) metastasis were included. Subsequent meta-analysis demonstrated that mean preoperative CA 19-9 level was significantly higher in patients with metastases compared to those without (MD: 904.4; 95 % CI, 642.08-1166.74, P < 0.0001). The between-study heterogeneity was significant (I2: 99 %, P < 0.00001). ROC analysis yielded a cut-off CA 19-9 level of 336 with a sensitivity and specificity for predicting metastasis of 90 % and 80 %, respectively (AUC = 0.90). CONCLUSIONS: CA 19-9 level is significantly higher in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. A preoperative CA 19-9 value of 336 should be considered as an acceptable cut-off value to design prospective studies.

Sarcopenia versus clinical frailty scale in predicting the risk of postoperative mortality after emergency laparotomy: a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To compare predictive significance of sarcopenia and clinical frailty scale (CFS) in terms of postoperative mortality in patients undergoing emergency laparotomy METHODS: In compliance with STROCSS statement standards, a retrospective cohort study with prospective data collection approach was conducted. The study period was between January 2017 and January 2022. All adult patients with non-traumatic acute abdominal pathology who underwent emergency laparotomy in our centre were included. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality and secondary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and 90-day mortality. The predictive value of sarcopenia and CFS were compared using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis and multivariable binary logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 1043 eligible patients were included. The risk of 30-day mortality, in-hospital mortality, and 90-day mortality were 8%, 10%, and 11%, respectively. ROC curve analysis suggested that sarcopenia is a significantly stronger predictor of 30-day mortality (AUC: 0.87 vs. 0.70, P<0.0001), in-hospital mortality (AUC: 0.79 vs. 0.67, P=0.0011), and 90-day mortality (AUC: 0.79 vs. 0.67, P=0.0009) compared with CFS. Moreover, multivariable binary logistic regression analysis identified sarcopenia as an independent predictor of mortality [coefficient: 4.333, OR: 76.16 (95% CI 37.06-156.52), P<0.0001] but not the CFS [coefficient: 0.096, OR: 1.10 (95% CI 0.88-1.38), P=0.4047]. CONCLUSIONS: Sarcopenia is a stronger predictor of postoperative mortality compared with CFS in patients undergoing emergency laparotomy. It cancels out the predictive value of clinical frailty scale in multivariable analyses; hence among the two variables, sarcopenia deserves to be included in preoperative predictive tools.

Level 1a Evidence Comparing Use of Antibiotics Versus No Antibiotics in Management of Acute Left-Sided Uncomplicated Diverticulitis.

BACKGROUND: Acute uncomplicated diverticulitis (AUD) is a common cause of acute abdominal pain. Recent guidelines advise selective use of antibiotics in AUD patients. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness of no antibiotics vs antibiotics in AUD patients. METHODS: This review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving AUD patients which compared the use of antibiotics with no antibiotics. Pooled outcome data was calculated using random effects modeling with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: 5 RCTs with 1934 AUD patients were included. 979 patients were managed without antibiotics (50.6%). Patients in the no antibiotic and antibiotic groups had comparable demographics (age, sex, and body mass index) and presenting features (temperature, pain score, and C-reactive protein levels). There was no significant difference in rates of complicated diverticulitis (OR: .61, 95% CI: 0.27-1.36, P = .23), abscess (OR: .51, 95% CI: .08-3.25, P = .47) or fistula (OR: .33, 95% CI: .03-3.15, P = .33) formation, perforation (OR: .98, 95% CI: .32-3.07, P = .98), recurrence (OR: .96, 95% CI: .66-1.41, P = .85), need for surgery (OR: 1.36, 95% CI: .47-3.95, P = .37), mortality (OR: 1.27, 95% CI: .14-11.76, P = .82), or length of stay (MD: .215, 95% CI: -.43-.73, P = .61) between the 2 groups. However, the likelihood of readmission was higher in the antibiotics group (OR: 2.13, 95% CI: 1.43-3.18, P = .0002). CONCLUSION: There is no significant difference in baseline characteristics, clinical presentation, and adverse health outcomes between AUD patients treated without antibiotics compared to with antibiotics.

Clinical outcomes after transplantation of domino grafts or standard deceased donor livers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Domino liver transplantation (DLT) utilizes otherwise discarded livers as donor grafts for another recipients. It is unclear whether DLT has less favorable outcomes compared to deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). We aimed to assess the outcomes of DLT compared to DDLT. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science database were searched to identify studies comparing outcomes after DLT with DDLT. Data were pooled using random-effects modeling, evaluating odds ratios (OR) or mean difference (MD) for outcomes including waiting list time, severe hemorrhage, intensive care unit (ICU), length hospital stay (LOS), rejection, renal, vascular, and biliary events, and recipient survival at 1, 3, 5, and 10 years. RESULTS: Five studies were identified including 945 patients (DLT = 409, DDLT = 536). The DLT recipients were older compared to the DDLT group (P = 0.04), and both cohorts were comparable regarding lab MELD, hepatocellular carcinoma, and waitlist time. There were no differences in vascular (OR: 1.60, P = 0.39), renal (OR: 0.62, P = 0.24), biliary (OR: 1.51, P = 0.21), severe hemorrhage (OR: 1.09, P = 0.86), rejection (OR: 0.78, P = 0.51), ICU stay (MD: 0.50, P = 0.21), or LOS (MD: 1.68, P = 0.46) between DLT and DDLT. DLT and DDLT were associated with comparable 1-year (78.9% vs 80.4%; OR: 1.03, P = 0.89), 3-year (56.2% vs 54.1%; OR: 1.35, P = 0.07), and 10-year survival (6.5% vs 8.5%; OR: 0.8, P = 0.67) rates. DLT was associated with higher 5-year survival (41.6% vs 36.4%; OR: 1.70; P = 0.003) compared to DDLT, which was not confirmed at sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis of the best available evidence (Level 2a) demonstrated that DLT and DDLT have comparable outcomes. As indications for liver transplantation expand, future high-quality research is encouraged to increase the DLT numbers in clinical practice, serving the growing waiting list candidates, with the caveat of uncertain de novo disease transmission risks.

Meta-analysis of laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy: An insight into confounding by indication.

AIMS: To evaluate comparative outcomes of laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (LSPDP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy (LDPS). METHODS: A systematic search of multiple electronic data sources and bibliographic reference lists were conducted. Comparative studies reporting outcomes of LSPDP and LDPS were considered followed by evaluation of the associated risk of bias according to ROBINS-I tool. Perioperative complications, clinically important postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), infectious complications, blood loss, conversion to open, operative time and duration of hospital stay were the investigated outcome parameters. RESULTS: Nineteen studies were identified enrolling 3739 patients of whom 1860 patients underwent LSPDP and the remaining 1879 patients had LDPS. The patients in the LSPDP and LDPS groups were of comparable age (p = 0.73), gender (p = 0.59), and BMI (p = 0.07). However, the patient in the LDPS group had larger tumour size (p = 0.0004) and more malignant lesions (p = 0.02). LSPDP was associated with significantly lower POPF (OR:0.65, p = 0.02), blood loss (MD:-28.30, p = 0.001), and conversion to open (OR:0.48, p < 0.0001) compared to LDPS. Moreover, it was associated with significantly shorter procedure time (MD: -22.06, p = 0.0009) and length of hospital stay (MD: -0.75, p = 0.005). However, no significant differences were identified in overall perioperative (OR:0.89, p = 0.25) or infectious (OR:0.67, p = 0.05) complications between two groups. CONCLUSIONS: LSPDP seems to be associated with lower POPF, bleeding and conversion to open compared to LDPS in patients with small-sized benign tumours. Moreover, it may be quicker and reduce hospital stay. Nevertheless, such advantages are of doubtful merit about large-sized or malignant tumours. The available evidence is subject to confounding by indication.

Development and Validation of HAS (Hajibandeh Index, ASA Status, Sarcopenia) - A Novel Model for Predicting Mortality After Emergency Laparotomy.

OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate a predictive model to predict the risk of postoperative mortality after emergency laparotomy taking into account the following variables: age, age ≥ 80, ASA status, clinical frailty score, sarcopenia, Hajibandeh Index (HI), bowel resection, and intraperitoneal contamination. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The discriminative powers of the currently available predictive tools range between adequate and strong; none has demonstrated excellent discrimination yet. METHODS: The TRIPOD and STROCSS statement standards were followed to protocol and conduct a retrospective cohort study of adult patients who underwent emergency laparotomy due to non-traumatic acute abdominal pathology between 2017 and 2022. Multivariable binary logistic regression analysis was used to develop and validate the model via two protocols (Protocol A and B). The model performance was evaluated in terms of discrimination (ROC curve analysis), calibration (calibration diagram and Hosmer-Lemeshow test), and classification (classification table). RESULTS: One thousand forty-three patients were included (statistical power = 94%). Multivariable analysis kept HI (Protocol-A: P =0.0004; Protocol-B: P =0.0017), ASA status (Protocol-A: P =0.0068; Protocol-B: P =0.0007), and sarcopenia (Protocol-A: P <0.0001; Protocol-B: P <0.0001) as final predictors of 30-day postoperative mortality in both protocols; hence the model was called HAS (HI, ASA status, sarcopenia). The HAS demonstrated excellent discrimination (AUC: 0.96, P <0.0001), excellent calibration ( P <0.0001), and excellent classification (95%) via both protocols. CONCLUSIONS: The HAS is the first model demonstrating excellent discrimination, calibration, and classification in predicting the risk of 30-day mortality following emergency laparotomy. The HAS model seems promising and is worth attention for external validation using the calculator provided. HAS mortality risk calculator https://app.airrange.io/#/element/xr3b_E6yLor9R2c8KXViSAeOSK .

Meta-analysis of fenestrating versus reconstituting subtotal cholecystectomy in the management of difficult gallbladder.

AIMS: To evaluate comparative outcomes of fenestrating and reconstituting subtotal cholecystectomy (STC) in patients with difficult gallbladder. METHODS: A systematic search of electronic data sources and bibliographic reference lists were conducted. All comparative studies reporting outcomes of laparoscopic fenestrating and reconstituting STC were included and their risk of bias were assessed using ROBINS-I tool. RESULTS: Seven comparative studies were included enrolling 590 patients undergoing laparoscopic STC using either fenestrating (n = 353) or reconstituting (n = 237) approaches. Although fenestrating STC was associated with a significantly higher rate of bile leak (OR: 2.47, p = 0.007) compared to reconstituting STC, both approaches were comparable in terms of resolution of bile leak without (RD: -0.02, p = 0.86) or with (OR: 1.84, p = 0.40) postoperative ERCP. Moreover, there was no significant difference in development of bile duct injury (RD: -0.02, p = 0.16), need for postoperative ERCP (OR: 1.36, p = 0.49), wound infection (RD: 0.03, p = 0.27), re-operation (OR: 0.95, p = 0.95), gallbladder remnant cholecystitis (OR: 0.21, p = 0.09) or need for completion cholecystectomy (RD: 0.01, p = 0.59) between two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Fenestrating STC is associated with a higher risk of bile leak than the reconstructing technique. This issue can be mitigated by routine use of drains, delayed drain removal, and in selected cases endoscopic therapy. We encourage the fenestrating approach considering trends in improved short- and long-term outcomes.

Pancreatic resection for metastasis from renal cell carcinoma: A single institution experience and meta-analysis of survival outcomes.

AIMS: To evaluate short-term clinical and long-term survival outcomes of pancreatic resection for pancreatic metastasis from renal cell carcinoma (RCC). METHODS: A retrospective evaluation of patients undergoing pancreatic resection for metastasis from RCC over a 12-years period was conducted. Furthermore, a systematic search of electronic data sources and bibliographic reference lists were conducted to identify studies investigating the same clinical question. Short-term clinical and long-term survival outcomes were evaluated. Kaplan-Meier survival plots were constructed for survival outcomes. Cox-proportional regression analysis was performed to determine factors associated with survival. Finally, meta-analysis of survival outcomes was conducted using random-effects modelling. RESULTS: Eighteen patients underwent pancreatic resections for RCC pancreatic metastasis within the study period. The mean age of the included patients was 63.8 ± 8.0 years. There were 10(55.6 %) male and 8(44.4 %) female patients. Pancreatectomy was associated with 4(25.0 %) Clavien-Dindo (C-D) I, 5(31.3 %) C-D II, and 7(43.7 %) C-D III complications, 7(38.8 %) pancreatic fistula, 3(16.7 %) post-pancreatectomy acute pancreatitis, 1(5.6 %) delayed gastric emptying, and 1(5.6 %) chyle leak. The mean length of hospital stay was 18 ± 16.3 days. The median survival was 64 months (95 % CI 60-78). The 3-and 5-year disease-free survival rates were 83.3 % and 55.5 %, respectively. The 3-and 5-year survival rates were 100 % and 55.6 %, respectively. The pooled analyses of 553 patients demonstrated 3-and 5-year survival rates of 77.6 % and 60.7 %, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Pancreatectomy for RCC metastasis is associated with acceptable short-term clinical and promising long-term survival outcomes. Considering the rarity of the entity, escalation of level of evidence in this context is challenging.

Meta-analysis of adjuvant chemotherapy versus no adjuvant chemotherapy for resected stage I pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate comparative outcomes of pancreatic cancer resection with or without adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with stage I pancreatic cancer. METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and Web of Science and bibliographic reference lists were conducted. All comparative studies reporting outcomes of pancreatic cancer resection for stage I cancer with or without adjuvant chemotherapy were included, and their risk of bias was assessed using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies-of Interventions tool. Survival outcomes were analyzed using the hazard ratio and odds ratio for the time-to-event and dichotomous outcomes, respectively. RESULTS: We included 6 comparative studies reporting a total of 6,874 patients with resected stage 1 pancreatic cancer, of whom 3,951 patients had no adjuvant chemotherapy, and the remaining 2,923 patients received adjuvant chemotherapy. The use of adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with significantly higher overall survival (hazard ratio 0.71, 95% confidence interval 0.62-0.82, P < .00001) and 2-year survival (65.1% vs 57.4%, odds ratio 1.99; 95% confidence interval 1.01-1.41, P = .04) compared to no use of adjuvant chemotherapy. However, there was no statistically significant difference in 1-year (86.8% vs 78.4%, odds ratio 1.60; 95% confidence interval 0.72-3.57, P = .25), 3-year (46.0% vs 44.0%, odds ratio 1.07; 95% confidence interval 0.90-1.29, P = .43), or 5-year survival (24.8% vs 23.3%, odds ratio 1.03; 95% confidence interval 0.80-1.33, P = .81) between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: Meta-analysis of best available evidence (level 2a with low to moderate certainty) demonstrates that adjuvant chemotherapy may confer survival benefits for stage I pancreatic cancer when compared to the use of surgery alone. Randomized control trials are required to escalate the level of evidence and confirm these findings with consideration of contemporary chemotherapy agents and regimens.

HAS (Hajibandeh Index, American Society of Anesthesiologists Status, and Sarcopenia) Model Versus NELA (National Emergency Laparotomy Audit) Score in Predicting the Risk of Mortality After Emergency Laparotomy: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Background The National Emergency Laparotomy Audit (NELA) mortality risk score is currently used in the UK to estimate mortality risk after emergency laparotomy. The HAS (Hajibandeh Index, American Society of Anesthesiologists status, and sarcopenia) is a novel model with excellent accuracy in predicting the risk of mortality after emergency laparotomy. This study aimed to compare the predictive performance of the HAS model and NELA score in estimating mortality risk following emergency laparotomy. Methodology A retrospective cohort study was conducted including consecutive adult patients who underwent emergency laparotomy between January 2019 and January 2022. Thirty-day mortality was the primary outcome. In-hospital mortality and 90-day mortality were the secondary outcomes. The predictive tools were compared in terms of discrimination via receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, calibration via the Hosmer-Lemeshow test, and classification via classification table. Results Analysis of 818 patients showed that the area under the curve of HAS was superior to NELA for 30-day mortality (0.97 vs. 0.86, p < 0.0001), in-hospital mortality (0.90 vs. 0.83, p = 0.0004), and 90-day mortality (0.90 vs. 0.83, p = 0.0004). HAS demonstrated good calibration for 30-day mortality (p = 0.286), in-hospital mortality (p = 0.48), and 90-day mortality (p = 0.48) while NELA score showed poor calibration for 30-day mortality (p = 0.001), in-hospital mortality (p = 0.001), and 90-day mortality (p = 0.001). Conclusions The HAS model was superior to the NELA score in predicting mortality after emergency laparotomy. The HAS model may be worth paying attention to for external validation.

Accuracy of the END-PAC Model in Predicting the Risk of Developing Pancreatic Cancer in Patients with New-Onset Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the performance of the END-PAC model in predicting pancreatic cancer risk in individuals with new-onset diabetes (NOD). METHODS: The PRISMA statement standards were followed to conduct a systematic review. All studies investigating the performance of the END-PAC model in predicting pancreatic cancer risk in individuals with NOD were included. Two-by-two tables, coupled forest plots and summary receiver operating characteristic plots were constructed using the number of true positives, false negatives, true negatives and false positives. Diagnostic random effects models were used to estimate summary sensitivity and specificity points. RESULTS: A total of 26,752 individuals from four studies were included. The median follow-up was 3 years and the pooled risk of pancreatic cancer was 0.8% (95% CI 0.6-1.0%). END-PAC score ≥ 3, which classifies the patients as high risk, was associated with better predictive performance (sensitivity: 55.8% (43.9-67%); specificity: 82.0% (76.4-86.5%)) in comparison with END-PAC score 1-2 (sensitivity: 22.2% (16.6-29.2%); specificity: 69.9% (67.3-72.4%)) and END-PAC score < 1 (sensitivity: 18.0% (12.8-24.6%); specificity: 50.9% (48.6-53.2%)) which classify the patients as intermediate and low risk, respectively. The evidence quality was judged to be moderate to high. CONCLUSIONS: END-PAC is a promising model for predicting pancreatic cancer risk in individuals with NOD. The score ≥3 should be considered as optimum cut-off value. More studies are needed to assess whether it could improve early pancreatic cancer detection rate, pancreatic cancer re-section rate, and pancreatic cancer treatment outcomes.