Esophageal defect repair by artificial scaffolds: a systematic review of experimental studies and proportional meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The traditional technique of gastrointestinal reconstruction of the esophagus after esophagectomy presents plenty of complications. Hence, tissue engineering has been introduced as an effective artificial alternative with potentially fewer complications. Three types of esophageal scaffolds have been used in experimental studies so far. The aim of our meta-analysis is to present the postoperative outcomes after esophageal replacement with artificial scaffolds and the investigation of possible factors that affect these outcomes. METHODS: The present proportional meta-analysis was designed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews guidelines. We searched Medline, Scopus, Clinicaltrials.gov, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials CENTRAL, and Google Scholar databases from inception until February 2020. RESULTS: Overall, 32 studies were included that recruited 587 animals. The pooled morbidity after esophageal scaffold implantation was 53.4% (95% CI = 36.6-70.0%). The pooled survival interval was 111.1 days (95% CI = 65.5-156.8 days). Graft stenosis (46%), postoperative dysphagia (15%), and anastomotic leak (12%) were the most common complications after esophageal scaffold implantation. Animals that underwent an implantation of an artificial scaffold in the thoracic part of their esophagus presented higher survival rates than animals that underwent scaffold implantation in the cervical or abdominal part of their esophagus (P < 0.001 and P = 0.011, respectively). CONCLUSION: Tissue engineering seems to offer an effective alternative for the repair of esophageal defects in animal models. Nevertheless, issues like graft stenosis and lack of motility of the esophageal scaffolds need to be addressed in future experimental studies before scaffolds can be tested in human trials.

Current evidence on the role of smoking in plastic surgery elective procedures: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Smoking is considered to be a significant risk factor for the development of postoperative complications after various surgical procedures, mainly by limiting oxygen delivery to tissues. Evidence on the collective impact of smoking in aesthetic procedure outcomes is scarce. The aim of this study is to evaluate the current evidence on the association between smoking and postoperative outcomes in patients who underwent common elective procedures in plastic surgery. METHODS: PubMed and Cochrane bibliographical databases were searched from January 1950 to October 2016 for studies reporting on patients who underwent facelift, abdominoplasty, breast reduction and breast reconstruction and for studies with included data on smoking history of treated patients. RESULTS: Fifty-three studies reporting on postoperative complications in tobacco users undergoing facelift, abdominoplasty, breast reduction and reconstruction were identified. Tobacco use is found to significantly increase the total number of postoperative complications as far as abdominoplasty (OR: 5.43; 95% CI = 2.92-10.10), breast reduction (OR: 2.36; 95% CI = 1.64-3.39) and breast reconstruction (OR: 1.91; 95% CI = 1.69-2.17) are concerned. Smoking history does not significantly affect total postoperative complications after facelift procedures (OR: 3.36; 95% CI = 0.92-12.30). CONCLUSIONS: Smoking predisposes to surgical site infections, delayed wound healing and skin necrosis in patients undergoing the most common aesthetic procedures in plastic surgery. More rigorous and detailed reporting on the history of tobacco use and surgical outcomes following plastic surgery procedures is needed to better quantify the impact of smoking on the overall postoperative care for this patient population.