Abdominal drainage is contraindicated after uncomplicated hepatectomy: Results of a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: No conclusive recommendations exist regarding use of abdominal drainage in hepatectomy. The practice of abdominal drainage remains commonplace despite unfavorable outcomes reported by randomized controlled trials. We aimed to compare the impact of abdominal drainage on outcomes of hepatectomy. METHODS: A systematic search of electronic information sources and bibliographic reference lists was conducted. A combination of free text and controlled vocabulary search adapted to thesaurus headings, search operators, and limits in each of the above databases was applied. Overall perioperative and wound-related complications, bile leak, intra-abdominal collections (including those requiring an intervention), and the length of hospital stay were the evaluated outcome parameters. RESULTS: Seven randomized controlled trials reporting 1,064 patients undergoing hepatectomy with (n = 533) or without (n = 531) placement of abdominal drain were included. Patients in both groups were of comparable age (P = .23), sex (P = .49), proportion of major hepatectomy (P = .93), minor hepatectomy (P = .96), cirrhosis (P = .78), and malignant pathologies (P = .61). Drainage after hepatectomy was associated with significantly higher overall complications (RR: 1.37, P = .0003) and wound-related complications (risk ratio: 2.29, P = .01) compared to no drainage. Moreover, there was no significant difference in bile leak (risk ratio: 2.15, P = .19), intra-abdominal collections (risk ratio: 1.13, P = .70), intra-abdominal collections requiring interventions (risk ratio: 1.19, P = .71), or length of hospital stay (mean difference: 0.37, P = .67) between the 2 groups. The trial sequential analysis confirmed conclusiveness of the findings. CONCLUSION: Abdominal drainage after hepatectomy increases overall and wound-related complications, without any reduction in the risk of intra-abdominal collections needing an intervention. Routine drainage after an uncomplicated hepatectomy should be avoided, with the possible exception of the presence of a bilioenteric anastomosis.

Incidental gallbladder cancer diagnosis confers survival advantage irrespective of tumour stage and characteristics.

BACKGROUND: Incidental gallbladder cancer (IGBC) represents 50%-60% of gallbladder cancer cases. Data are conflicting on the role of IGBC diagnosis in oncological outcomes. Some studies suggest that IGBC diagnosis does not affect outcomes, while others that overall survival (OS) is longer in these cases compared to non-incidental diagnosis (NIGBC). Furthermore, some studies reported early tumour stages and histopathologic characteristics as possible confounders, while others not. AIM: To investigate the role of IGBC diagnosis on patients' overall survival, especially after surgical treatment with curative intent. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of all patient referrals with gallbladder cancer between 2008 and 2020 in a tertiary hepatobiliary centre. Statistical comparison of patient and tumour characteristics between IGBC and NIGBC subgroups was performed. Survival analysis for the whole cohort, surgical and non-surgical subgroups was done with the Kaplan-Meier method and the use of log rank test. Risk analysis was performed with univariable and multivariable Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: The cohort included 261 patients with gallbladder cancer. 65% of cases had NIGBC and 35% had IGBC. A total of 90 patients received surgical treatment (66% of IGBC cases and 19% of NIGBC cases). NIGBC patients had more advanced T stage and required more extensive resections than IGBC ones. OS was longer in patients with IGBC in the whole cohort (29 vs 4 mo, P < 0.001), as well as in the non-surgical (14 vs 2 mo, P < 0.001) and surgical subgroups (29 vs 16.5 mo, P = 0.001). Disease free survival (DFS) after surgery was longer in patients with IGBC (21.5 mo vs 8.5 mo, P = 0.007). N stage and resection margin status were identified as independent predictors of OS and DFS. NIGBC diagnosis was identified as an independent predictor of OS. CONCLUSION: IGBC diagnosis may confer a survival advantage independently of the pathological stage and tumour characteristics. Prospective studies are required to further investigate this, including detailed pathological analysis and molecular gene expression.

Comparison of Colorectal Cancer Surgery Services During COVID-19 First Wave With Pre-COVID Time.

Introduction The first confirmed case of COVID-19 in the United Kingdom (UK) was reported on 29 January 2020. The country saw the peak of infection between March and May of 2020. The result was a change in the practice of how we treat most surgical conditions including cancer. We continued providing service to our colorectal cancer patients at a District General Hospital. The aim of this study was to compare our provision of colorectal cancer service during the peak of the pandemic to that of the pre-COVID time in our hospital.  Methods We collected data of all colorectal cancer patients who underwent surgery between 1 March 2020 and 30 April 2020 in our hospital. The comparative data were collected for similar patients during the same time frame in 2019. A detailed data set was compiled on Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corp, Washington) and analysed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 21.0 (Released 2012. IBM Corp, Armonk, NY). Results The two groups were comparable in demographics including age, BMI, gender, and Charlson comorbidity index. Time from decision- to-treat to surgery, post-operative HDU/ITU stay, and overall length of stay was shorter in the COVID group than the Pre-COVID group without any significant statistical difference. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in Calvien-Dindo complications grade 1 and 2. No mortality was reported due to direct or indirect consequences of COVID-19 infection. More open procedures were performed in our department during the first wave of COVID-19 in the UK compared to Pre-COVID time. Conclusions Despite the challenges we faced during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, we managed to provide standard care to our colorectal cancer patients with comparable post-operative surgical and oncological outcomes.

When DVT turns into surgical catastrophe: undiagnosed case of May-Thurner syndrome leading to retroperitoneal haematoma and fatal bleeding.

May-Thurner syndrome (MTS) is an unusual cause of deep venous thrombosis; even rarer is the spontaneous rupture of collaterals around the thrombosed common iliac vein due to MTS. We present a case of MTS which presented with left leg swelling and abdominal mass due to retroperitoneal haemorrhage.

Effectiveness of Intra-Gastric Balloon as a Bridge to Definitive Surgery in the Super Obese.

BACKGROUND: British National guidelines (NICE) recommend bariatric surgery for patients with a body mass index (BMI) > 40 kg/m2, or BMI > 35 kg/m2 with any comorbidities of the metabolic syndrome. Intra-gastric balloons (IGB) can be used in super obese patients as a first step, before definitive surgery. AIMS: Quantify weight loss 6 months after IGB placement, measure progression to definitive surgery and identify complications. METHODS: Data collected retrospectively on 50 patients. Forty-six proposed for definitive bariatric surgery, four patients excluded. Analysis performed using SPSS v23.0. RESULTS: Median weight decreased from 165.5 to 155 kg (range 78 to 212, p < 0.01), BMI from 57.4 to 52.15 (range 32.9 to 70.5, p < 0.01), percentage excess weight loss (%EWL) was 12.9% (range - 3.3 to 64.66%, p < 0.01) and BMI reduction was 4.25 kg/m2 (range - 1.3 to 13.9, p < 0.01). Twenty-nine out of 46 patients (63%) progressed to definitive bariatric surgery. Ten out of 46 patients (21.7%) had complications requiring readmission. Seven of these patients required early balloon removal and six failed to progress to definitive surgery. Six patients had a second balloon placement, their actual weight loss was less successful, with some regaining weight. DISCUSSION: IGB is useful to aid weight loss prior to definitive bariatric surgery. Results from first balloon placement are encouraging and comparable with other studies "as reported by Genco et al. (Int J of Obes 30:129-133, 2006)." Readmission due to nausea, vomiting, dehydration and poor compliance may be associated with poor weight loss and failure to progress to definitive surgery. Second balloon placements were less successful. CONCLUSION: IGB as bridging therapy is a safe and useful adjunct. Sequential IGBs do not seem to provide additional benefit.