Mirizzi Syndrome-The Past, Present, and Future.

Mirizzi syndrome is a complication of gallstone disease caused by an impacted gallstone in the infundibulum of the gallbladder or within the cystic duct, causing chronic inflammation and extrinsic compression of the common hepatic duct or common bile duct. Eventually, mucosal ulceration occurs and progresses to cholecystobiliary fistulation. Numerous systems exist to classify Mirizzi syndrome, with the Csendes classification widely adopted. It describes five types of Mirizzi syndrome according to the presence of a cholecystobiliary fistula and its corresponding severity, and whether a cholecystoenteric fistula is present. The clinical presentation of Mirizzi syndrome is non-specific, and patients typically have a longstanding history of gallstones. It commonly presents with obstructive jaundice, and can mimic gallbladder, biliary, or pancreatic malignancy. Achieving a preoperative diagnosis guides surgical planning and improves treatment outcomes. However, a significant proportion of cases of Mirizzi syndrome are diagnosed intraoperatively, and the presence of dense adhesions and distorted anatomy at Calot's triangle increases the risk of bile duct injury. Cholecystectomy remains the mainstay of treatment for Mirizzi syndrome, and laparoscopic cholecystectomy is increasingly becoming a viable option, especially for less severe stages of cholecystobiliary fistula. Subtotal cholecystectomy is feasible if total cholecystectomy cannot be performed safely. Additional procedures may be required, such as common bile duct exploration, choledochoplasty, and bilioenteric anastomosis. Conclusions: There is currently no consensus for the management of Mirizzi syndrome, as the management options depend on the extent of surgical pathology and availability of surgical expertise. Multidisciplinary collaboration is important to achieve diagnostic accuracy and guide treatment planning to ensure good clinical outcomes.

Gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD) after peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM).

BACKGROUND: Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is gaining traction as a minimally invasive treatment of achalasia. Increased reflux is reported after POEM but the incidence, type and severity of reflux are not fully understood. We aimed to study the prevalence and nature of reflux after POEM and correlate reflux with endoscopy and pH-impedance findings. METHODS: This is a prospective cohort study of achalasia patients undergoing POEM since 2014. Data from Eckardt and GERD symptom scores, high-resolution oesophageal manometry (HRM) and gastroscopy were performed pre-procedure and repeated at 1-year follow-up. Data from 24-h pH-impedance, if performed, were also recorded. A standardized questionnaire was used to determine the severity and frequency of heartburn symptoms and the composite score for each patient was calculated. RESULTS: 58 patients underwent POEM between January 2014 and October 2018. The efficacy of POEM at 1 year was 93.0%. We observed reduction of median Integrated Relaxation Pressure (IRP) from 23.5 ± 33.1 mmHg to 13.4 ± 7.71 mmHg (p = 0.005) and mean Eckardt score improved from 6.09 ± 2.43 points to 1.16 ± 1.70 points (p < 0.001). At 1 year, 43.1% (n = 25) had symptomatic reflux. Of the 40 patients who underwent repeated gastroscopy, 60.0% (n = 24) had endoscopic evidence of oesophagitis with seven patients (18%) diagnosed with Grade C or D oesophagitis. 43.1% (n = 25) of patients had pH-impedance done post-POEM off PPIs. 14 patients (56%) had increased acid exposure. Sixteen percent of reflux episodes were acidic and 77.3% were weakly acidic. CONCLUSION: POEM was an effective treatment for achalasia. However, GERD was common after POEM with incidence of 43% on symptom score, 60% on endoscopy and 56% on pH-impedance test. Post-POEM reflux appeared to be predominantly acidic in nature. Routine surveillance for GERD after POEM is recommended.

Meta-analysis and systematic review: Prevalence, graft failure, mortality, and post-operative thrombosis in liver transplant recipients with pre-operative portal vein thrombosis.

AIMS: This study seeks to evaluate the association between pre-transplant portal vein thrombosis (PVT) and overall survival, graft failure, waitlist mortality, and post-operative PVT after liver transplantation. METHODS: A conventional pairwise meta-analysis between patients with and without pre-transplant PVT was conducted using hazard ratios or odds ratios where appropriate. RESULTS: Prevalence of preoperative PVT was 11.6% (CI 9.70-13.7%). Pre-operative PVT was associated with increased overall mortality (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.27-1.65) and graft loss (HR 1.58, 95% CI 1.34-1.85). In particular, grade 3 (HR 1.59, 95% CI 1.00-2.51) and 4 (HR 2.24, 95% CI 1.45-3.45) PVT significantly increased mortality, but not grade 1 or 2 PVT. Patients with PVT receiving living donor (HR 1.54, 95% CI 1.24-1.91) and deceased donor (HR 1.52, 95% CI 1.21-1.92) liver transplantation had increased mortality, with no significant difference between transplant types (P = .13). Furthermore, pre-transplant PVT was associated with higher occurrence of post-transplant PVT (OR 5.06, 95% CI 3.89-6.57). Waitlist mortality was not significantly increased in patients with pre-transplant PVT. CONCLUSION: Graft failure, mortality, and post-operative PVT are more common in pre-transplant PVT patients, especially in grade 3 or 4 PVT. Prophylactic anticoagulation can be considered to reduce re-thrombosis and improve survival.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection versus endoscopic mucosal resection for rectal carcinoid tumor. A meta-analysis and meta-regression with single-arm analysis.

OBJECTIVE: As there has been so far no consensus on the best endoscopic resection technique, a meta-analysis was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for treating rectal carcinoid tumors. METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched for articles on the treatment of rectal carcinoid tumors using ESD vs EMR published up to October 2020 for outcomes including en bloc and complete resection, margin involvement, procedure time, requirement for additional surgery, bleeding, perforation and recurrence. Risk ratio and weighted mean differences were used for a DerSimonian and Laird random effects pairwise meta-analysis. Single-arm meta-analyses of proportions and random effects meta-regression analysis were also conducted. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies involving 1360 rectal carcinoid tumors were included, in which 655 and 705 rectal carcinoid tumors were resected with ESD and EMR, respectively. The resection efficacy of ESD was comparable to that of EMR for tumors <10 mm. However, there were a significantly higher complete resection rate, and lower rates of vertical margin involvement and requirement for additional surgery using ESD than using EMR for tumors ≤20 mm. ESD had a longer procedure time and an increased likelihood of bleeding than EMR. CONCLUSIONS: ESD is more effective in providing a curative treatment for rectal carcinoid tumors ≤20 mm in size as ESD can achieve a higher complete resection rate with lower vertical margin involvement than EMR. While they are suitable for treating rectal carcinoid tumors <10 mm as both techniques provide similar efficacy.

Is colonic lavage a suitable alternative for left-sided colonic emergencies?

BACKGROUND: The use of intra-operative colonic lavage (IOCL) with primary anastomosis remains controversial in the emergency left-sided large bowel pathologies, with alternatives including Hartmann's procedure, manual decompression and subtotal colectomy. AIM: To compare the peri-operative outcomes of IOCL to other procedures. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched for articles employing IOCL from inception till July 13, 2020. Odds ratio and weighted mean differences (WMD) were estimated for dichotomous and continuous outcomes respectively. Single-arm meta-analysis was conducted using DerSimonian and Laird random effects. RESULTS: Of 28 studies were included in this meta-analysis, involving 1142 undergoing IOCL, and 634 other interventions. IOCL leads to comparable rates of wound infection when compared to Hartmann's procedure, and anastomotic leak and wound infection when compared to manual decompression. There was a decreased length of hospital stay (WMD = -7.750; 95%CI: -13.504 to -1.996; P = 0.008) compared to manual decompression and an increased operating time. Single-arm meta-analysis found that overall mortality rates with IOCL was 4% (CI: 0.03-0.05). Rates of anastomotic leak and wound infection were 3% (CI: 0.02-0.04) and 12% (CI: 0.09-0.16) respectively. CONCLUSION: IOCL leads to similar rates of post-operative complications compared to other procedures. More extensive studies are needed to assess the outcomes of IOCL for emergency left-sided colonic surgeries.

Different position from traditional left lateral for colonoscopy? A meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized control trials.

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy requires the intubation of the cecum for screening of colorectal diseases. The conventional position used for colonoscopy is the left lateral position (LLP). However, alternative positions have also been utilized to enhance the success of intubation. Thus, the aim of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of the different positions to determine the effectiveness of the individual positions for successful colonoscopy. METHODS: Medline, Embase and Cochrane trials electronic databases were searched for studies on colonoscopy positions. The primary outcome was defined as the cecal intubation rate. Pooled risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the rates of cecal intubation were estimated. Secondary outcomes such as the cecal intubation time and adenoma detection rate were further analyzed qualitatively. RESULTS: After reviewing 644 identified records, 7 randomized control trials (RCT) studies were included. No significant difference was observed in either comparisons, between the LLP vs. supine position (SP) (RR = 1.01, 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.04, P = 0.55) or the LLP vs. prone position (PP) (RR = 1.02, 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.06, P = 0.27). CONCLUSIONS: Amidst available literature, the use of other positions can be considered when performing colonoscopy. These further highlights that the existential practice is based predominantly on familiarity instead of evidence-based-research.

Early surgery after bridge-to-surgery stenting for malignant bowel obstruction is associated with better oncological outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Placement of self-expanding metal stents has been increasingly adopted as a bridge to surgery in patients presenting with obstructed left-sided colorectal cancers. The optimal bridging time has yet to be widely established, hence this retrospective study aims to determine the optimal bridging time to elective surgery post endoluminal stenting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients who underwent colorectal stenting for large bowel obstruction in a single, tertiary hospital in Singapore between January 2003 and December 2017 were retrospectively identified. Patients' baseline demographics, tumour characteristics, stent-related complications, intra-operative details, post-operative complications and oncological outcomes were analysed. RESULTS: Of the 53 patients who successfully underwent colonic stenting for malignant left sided obstruction, 33.96% of patients underwent surgery within two weeks of stent placement while 66.04% of patients underwent surgery after 2 weeks of stent placement. Univariate analysis between both groups did not demonstrate significant differences in postoperative complications and stoma formation. Significant differences were observed between both groups for stent complications (38.89% vs 8.57%, p = 0.022), on-table decompression (38.89% vs 2.86%, p = 0.001) and systemic recurrence (11.11% vs 40.00%, p = 0.030). Increased bridging interval to surgery (OR 13.16, CI 1.37-126.96, p = 0.026) was a significant risk factor for systemic recurrence on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing definitive surgery within 2 weeks of colonic stenting may have better oncological outcomes without compromising on postoperative outcomes. Further prospective studies are required to compare outcomes between emergency surgery and different bridging intervals.

Preoperative concerns of patients undergoing general surgery.

OBJECTIVES: This qualitative review aims to provide a clearer understanding of concerns general surgery (GS) patients face in the preoperative period. METHODS: Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Web of Science were searched for articles describing the preoperative concerns of GS patients. Qualitative and mixed method studies were included. Key quotes were extracted, coded, and thematically analyzed according to Thomas and Harden's methodology. RESULTS: 27 articles were included. Three main themes were generated: (1) lead-up to surgery, (2) postoperative recovery process and (3) standard of care. While waiting for surgery, patients were often shrouded with uncertainty and concerned themselves with the potential impacts of their disease and surgery on their wellbeing and recovery. Furthermore, patients' trust and confidence in Healthcare Professionals (HCPs) was compromised when standard of care was perceived to be deficient, resulting in doubts about HCPs' credibility and capabilities. CONCLUSION: Patients' preoperative concerns often stem from the uncertainty and unfamiliarity surrounding surgery. To address this, a combination of effective preoperative education, individualised communication and involvement of social support should be considered. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Preoperative concerns can negatively impact patients and effective interventions will result in a better perioperative experience with fewer negative consequences arising from patients' fear and anxiety.

Metformin and colorectal cancer: a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression.

PURPOSE: Metformin may have a role in reducing the incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) and improving survival outcome. This meta-analysis explored the effect of metformin use on colorectal adenoma and cancer incidence, and colorectal oncological outcomes. METHODS: A database search was conducted on Medline, Embase and CNKI for studies comparing metformin vs. non-metformin users, metformin users vs. non-diabetics and metformin users vs. diabetics with diet-only treatment. Meta-analysis was done with DerSimonian and Laird with risk ratios (RR), and hazard ratios (HR) for survival outcomes. RESULTS: We included 58 studies and summarized incidences of colorectal adenoma and cancer, as well as cancer survival outcomes. Metformin users had a significant lower incidence of colorectal adenoma (RR 0.77, CI 0.67-0.88, p < 0.001), advanced adenoma (0.61, CI 0.42-0.88, p = 0.008) and CRC (RR 0.76, CI 0.69-0.84, p < 0.001) respectively compared with non-metformin users. Overall survival (HR 0.6, CI 0.53-0.67, p < 0.001) and CRC-specific survival (HR 0.66, CI 0.59-0.74, p < 0.001) were higher among metformin users compared with non-metformin users. Further analysis on overall survival of metastatic CRC patients revealed significantly higher survival rates in metformin users (HR 0.77, CI 0.68-0.87, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis showed that metformin use significantly reduces colorectal adenoma and cancer incidence and improves colorectal cancer outcomes.