Laparoscopic gastrectomy using intracorporeally hand-sewn anastomosis of esophagojejunostomy, gastroduodenostomy, or gastrojejunostomy for gastric cancer.

Laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) using intracorporeal anastomosis has recently become more prevalent due to the advancements of laparoscopic surgical instruments. However, intracorporeally hand-sewn anastomosis (IHSA) is still uncommon because of technical difficulties. In this study, we evaluated various types of IHSA following LG with respect to the technical aspects and postoperative outcomes.Seventy-six patients who underwent LG using IHSA for treatment of gastric cancer between September 2014 and June 2018 were enrolled in this study. We described the details of IHSA in step-by-step manner, evaluated the clinicopathological data and surgical outcomes, and summarized the clinical experiences.Four types of IHSA have been described: one for total gastrectomy (Roux-en-Y) and 3 for distal gastrectomy (Roux-en-Y, Billroth I, and Billroth II). The mean operation time and anastomotic time was 288.7 minutes and 54.3 minutes, respectively. Postoperative complications were observed in 13 patients. All of the patients recovered well with conservative surgical management. There was no case of conversion to open surgery, anastomotic leakage, or mortality.LG using IHSA was safe and feasible and had several advantages compared to mechanical anastomosis. The technique lengthened operating time, but this could be mitigated by increased surgical training and experience.

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy is associated with lower morbidity compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy: An updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and high-quality nonrandomized studies.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) is being increasingly performed as an alternative to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) in selected patients. Our study aimed to present a meta-analysis of the high-quality studies conducted that compared MIPD to OPD performed for pancreatic head and periampullary diseases. METHODS: A systematic review of the available literature was performed to identify those studies conducted that compared MIPD to OPD. Here, all randomized controlled trials identified were included, while the selection of high-quality, nonrandomized comparative studies were based on a validated tool (i.e., Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies). Intraoperative outcomes, postoperative recovery, oncologic clearance, and postoperative complications were also evaluated. RESULTS: Sixteen studies matched the selection criteria, including a total of 3168 patients (32.1% MIPD, 67.9% OPD). The pooled data showed that MIPD was associated with a longer operative time (weighted mean difference [WMD] = 80.89 minutes, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 39.74-122.05, P < .01), less blood loss (WMD = -227.62 mL, 95% CI: -305.48 to -149.75, P < .01), shorter hospital stay (WMD = -4.68 days, 95% CI: -5.52 to -3.84, P < .01), and an increase in retrieved lymph nodes (WMD = 1.85, 95% CI: 1.33-2.37, P < .01). Furthermore, the overall morbidity was significantly lower in the MIPD group (OR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.54-0.82, P < .01), as were total postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) (OR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.63-0.99, P = .04), delayed gastric emptying (DGE) (OR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.52-0.96, P = .02), and wound infection (OR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.39-0.79, P < .01). However, there were no statistically significant differences observed in major complications, clinically significant POPFs, reoperation rate, and mortality. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that MIPD is a safe alternative to OPD, as it is associated with less blood loss and better postoperative recovery in terms of the overall postoperative complications as well as POPF, DGE, and wound infection. Methodologic high-quality comparative studies are required for further evaluation.

Laparoscopy-Assisted versus Open Hepatectomy for Live Liver Donor: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility, safety, and potential benefits of laparoscopy-assisted living donor hepatectomy (LADH) in comparison with open living donor hepatectomy (ODH) for liver transplantation. BACKGROUND: LADH is becoming increasingly common for living donor liver transplant around the world. We aim to determine the efficacy of LADH and compare it with ODH. METHODS: A systematic search on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was conducted in May 2017. RESULTS: Nine studies were suitable for this analysis, involving 979 patients. LADH seemed to be associated with increased operation time (WMD = 24.85 min; 95% CI: -3.01~52.78, P = 0.08), less intraoperative blood loss (WMD = -59.92 ml; 95% CI: -94.58~-25.27, P = 0.0007), similar hospital stays (WMD = -0.47 d; 95% CI: -1.78~0.83, P = 0.47), less postoperative complications (RR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.51~0.94, P = 0.02), less analgesic use (SMD = -0.22; 95% CI: -0.44~-0.11, P = 0.04), similar transfusion rates (RR = 0.82; 95% CI: 0.24~3.12, P = 0.82), and similar graft weights (WMD = 7.31 g; 95% CI: -23.45~38.07, P = 0.64). CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that LADH is a safe and effective technique and, when compared to ODH.

Interplay between apoptosis and autophagy in colorectal cancer.

Autophagy and apoptosis are two pivotal mechanisms in mediating cell survival and death. Cross-talk of autophagy and apoptosis has been documented in the tumorigenesis and progression of cancer, while the interplay between the two pathways in colorectal cancer (CRC) has not yet been comprehensively summarized. In this study, we outlined the basis of apoptosis and autophagy machinery firstly, and then reviewed the recent evidence in cellular settings or animal studies regarding the interplay between them in CRC. In addition, several key factors that modulate the cross-talk between autophagy and apoptosis as well as its significance in clinical practice were discussed. Understanding of the interplay between the cell death mechanisms may benefit the translation of CRC treatment from basic research to clinical use.

Efficacy of Magnetic Sphincter Augmentation versus Nissen Fundoplication for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease in Short Term: A Meta-Analysis.

Background. The efficacy of Magnetic Sphincter Augmentation (MSA) and its outcomes for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD) are uncertain. Therefore, we aimed to summarize and analyze the efficacy of two treatments for GERD. Methods. The meta-analysis search was performed, using four databases. All studies from 2005 to 2016 were included. Pooled effect was calculated using either the fixed or random effects model. Results. A total of 4 trials included 624 patients and aimed to evaluate the differences in proton-pump inhibitor use, complications, and adverse events. MSA had a shorter operative time (MSA and NF: RR = -18.80, 95% CI: -24.57 to -13.04, and P = 0.001) and length of stay (RR = -14.21, 95% CI: -24.18 to -4.23, and P = 0.005). Similar proton-pump inhibitor use, complication (P = 0.19), and severe dysphagia for dilation were shown in both groups. Although there is no difference between the MSA and NF in the number of adverse events, the incidence of postoperative gas or bloating (RR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.54-0.94, and P = 0.02) showed significantly different results. However, there is no significant difference in ability to belch and ability to vomit. Conclusions. MSA can be recommended as an alternative treatment for GERD according to their short-term studies, especially in main-features of gas-bloating, due to shorter operative time and less complication of gas or bloating.

Intracorporeal esophagojejunostomy using the transorally inserted anvil (OrVil) after laparoscopic total gastrectomy for upper gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: Totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy gained wide popularity in recent years. Laparoscopic total gastrectomy with intracorporeal esophagojejunostomy (LTGIE) is much less performed. In this study, we reported our preliminary experience of LTGIE using the transorally inserted anvil (OrVil). METHODS: Clinical data of patients with upper gastric cancer who underwent LTGIE from January 2016 to January 2017 were retrospectively collected. The operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative recovery time of intestinal function, the length of hospitalization and postoperative complications were summarized and compared between early and later cases. RESULTS: There were totally 26 patients underwent LTGIE using OrVil successfully. The mean total operation time and esophagojejunostomy time was 272.8 min and 45.3 min. The mean estimated blood loss was 113.8 ml. The mean first flatus time was 3.1±0.9 days and the postoperative length of hospitalization (LOH) was 13.0±6.4 days. Three patients suffered postoperative complications, including one abdominal fluid collection, one pulmonary embolism and one pulmonary infection. During the follow-up period, neither local recurrence nor anastomosis-related morbidity was observed. CONCLUSIONS: The LTGIE using OrVil is feasible and safe for upper gastric cancer. These preliminary results warrant further evaluation in a larger population to validate.

Covered Stents versus Uncovered Stents for Unresectable Malignant Biliary Strictures: A Meta-Analysis.

AIM: To summarize the covered or uncovered SEMS for treatment of unresectable malignant distal biliary obstruction, comparing the stent patency, patient survival, and incidence of adverse events between the two SEMSs. METHODS: The meta-analysis search was performed independently by two of the authors, using MEDLINE, EMBASE, OVID, and Cochrane databases on all studies between 2010 and 2015. Pooled effect was calculated using either the fixed or the random effects model. RESULTS: Statistics shows that there is no difference between SEMSs in the hazard ratio for patient survival (HR 1.04; 95% CI, 0.92-1.17; P = 0.55) and stent patency (HR 0.87, 95% CI: 0.58 to 1.30, P = 0.5). However, incidence of adverse events (OR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.57 to 0.97, P = 0.03) showed significant different results in the covered SEMS, with dysfunctions events (OR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.56 to 1.00, P = 0.05) playing a more important role than complications (OR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.58 to 1.30, P = 0.50). CONCLUSIONS: Covered SEMS group had lower incidence of adverse events. There is no significant difference in dysfunctions, but covered SEMS trends to be better, with no difference in stent patency, patient survival, and complications.