Clinical Adverse Events after Endoscopic Resection for Colorectal Lesions: A Meta-Analysis on the Antibiotic Prophylaxis.

BACKGROUND: Post-polypectomy coagulation syndrome (PECS) is a well-known adverse event after endoscopic polypectomy for colorectal lesions. To date, there are no standardized guidelines for the antimicrobial prophylaxis. The aim of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the usefulness of antibiotics in patients undergoing endoscopic mucosal or submucosal resections. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases was carried out according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Studies investigating the role of prophylactic antibiotic administration in reducing the PECS after endoscopic polypectomy were considered. The terms used to search were ("antimicrobial"OR"antibiotics"OR"prophylaxis"OR"prophylactic") AND ("resection"OR"polypectomy"OR"dissection") AND ("endoscopic"OR"mucosal"OR"submucosal") AND ("colon"OR"colorectal"OR"colonic"OR"rectum"). Data of included studies were collected and analysed. RESULTS: The literature search revealed 262 articles, 3 of whom were randomized trials and one was a retrospective study. Patients included were 850 (548 treated with antibiotics and 302 received no treatment). The overall incidence rate was 2.4 and 19.9% in treatment and control groups, respectively. The pooled analysis showed a reduction of 83% of postoperative events in the antibiotics group (relative risk 0.181; 95% CI 0.100-0.326, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In our meta-analysis, the antibiotic prophylaxis showed a positive effect in reducing the incidence of postoperative adverse events other than perforation and bleeding in patients treated with endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal lesions. Despite the low-level of evidence of this meta-analysis, the antibiotic prophylaxis should be taken into account. Further multicenter, large-sample, randomized controlled studies are needed to confirm our results and to evaluate whether specific subgroups of patients could actually benefit from an antibiotic prophylaxis.

Gallbladder Retrieval From Epigastric Versus Umbilical Port in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A PRISMA-Compliant Meta-Analysis.

Purpose. To date, no evidence supports the retrieval of the gallbladder through a specific trocar site, and this choice is left to surgeons' preference. The aim of this meta-analysis was to investigate the influence of the trocar site used to extract the gallbladder on postoperative outcomes. Methods. According to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a literature search of PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases was performed. Terms used were: ("gallbladder" OR "cholecystectomy") AND "umbilical" AND ("epigastric" OR "subxiphoid"). Randomized trials comparing the gallbladder retrieval from different trocar sites were considered for further analysis. Results. Literature search revealed 145 articles, of which 7 matched inclusion criteria and reported adequate data about postoperative pain, operative time, port-site infections, and hernias. A total of 876 patients were included, and the gallbladder was extracted through epigastric or umbilical trocar site in 441 and in 435 patients, respectively. A statistically significant difference among groups was noted in terms of postoperative pain at 1, 6, 12, and 24 hours in favor of the umbilical trocar site (P < .001). No significant differences were noted in postoperative hernia and infection rate, nor in terms of operative time. Conclusions. This meta-analysis shows a statistically significant reduction in terms of postoperative pain at 1, 6, 12, and 24 hours after surgery when the gallbladder is extracted through the umbilical port. Retrieval time, infections, and hernias rate implicate no contraindication for the choice of a specific trocar site to extract specimens. Despite limitations of this study, the umbilical trocar should be favored as the first choice to retrieve the gallbladder.

Antibiotic administration after cholecystectomy for acute mild-moderate cholecystitis: a PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Acute cholecystitis is a common disease and a frequent cause of emergency admission to surgical wards. Evidence regarding antibiotic administration in urgent procedures is limited and remains a contentious issue. According to the Tokyo guidelines, the antibiotic administration should be guided by the severity of cholecystitis, but internationally accepted guidelines are lacking. In particular, the need to perform antibiotic therapy after laparoscopic cholecystectomy is controversial for mild and moderate acute calculous cholecystitis (Tokio I and II). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a comprehensive computer literature search of PubMed and MEDLINE databases in accordance to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Guidelines. We selected patients treated with cholecystectomy for mild or moderate acute calculous cholecystitis (Tokio I or II), only randomized controlled trials, (post-operative antibiotic administration versus placebo or untreated), data about local or systemic infection rate in the next 30 days after surgery. RESULTS: Three hundred and fifty-nine articles were identified, and three articles were considered eligible for the meta-analysis, including 676 patients. Overall surgical site infections were documented in 18 (5.49%) of 328 patients treated with post-operative antibiotics versus 25 (7.18%) of 348 patients treated without post-operative antibiotics. Overall results and the subgroup analysis (superficial and deep incisional infection and organ/space infection) showed no statistically significant reduction of surgical site infections rate under antibiotic therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis shows no significant benefit of extended antibiotic therapy in reducing SSI after cholecystectomy for mild and moderate acute cholecystitis (Tokio I and II). Further RCTs with adequate statistical power and involving a higher number of patients with subgroups are needed to better evaluate the benefit of post-operative antibiotic treatment in reducing the rate of organ/space surgical site infections.

Use of retrieval bag in the prevention of wound infection in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy: is it evidence-based? A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infections complicate elective laparoscopic cholecystectomies in 2,4-3,2% of cases. During the operation the gallbladder is commonly extracted with a retrieval bag. We conducted a meta-analysis to clarify whether its use plays a role in preventing infections. METHODS: Inclusion criteria: elective cholecystectomy, details about the gallbladder extraction and data about local or systemic infection rate. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: cholecystitis, jaundice, concurrent antibiotic therapy, immunosuppression, cancer. A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Cochrane Library and MEDLINE databases was carried out independently by two researchers, according to the PRISMA guidelines and applying the GRADE approach. Terms used were ("gallbladder"AND("speciment"OR"extraction"OR"extract"))OR("gallbladder"OR"cholecystectomy")AND("bag"OR"retrieval|"OR|"endobag"OR"endocatch"). RESULTS: The comprehensive literature revealed 279 articles. The eligible studies were 2 randomized trials and a multicentre prospective study. Wound infections were documented in 14 on 334 (4,2%) patients operated using a retrieval bag versus 16 on 271 (5,9%) patients operated without the use of a retrieval bag. The statistical analysis revealed a risk ratio (RR) of 0.82 (0.41-1.63 95% CI). Concerning sensitivity analysis the estimated pooled RR ranged from 0.72 to 0.96, both not statistically significant. Harbord test did not reveal the occurrence of small-study effect (p = 0.892) and the funnel-plot showed no noteworthy pattern. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this review highlight the paucity of well-designed large studies and despite limitations related to the low level of evidence, our meta-analysis showed no significant benefit of retrieval bags in reducing the infection rate after elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. In absence of acute cholecystitis, accidental intraoperative gallbladder perforation or suspected carcinoma their use, to date, may not be mandatory, so that, further studies focusing on complex cases are needed.

Open and Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Surgery: A Cost Analysis.

Background: In the treatment of inguinal hernias, there is little hard evidence concerning the economic reimbursement in the diagnosis-related group (DRG) era. Factors that affect whether a hospital may earn or lose financially depending on open or laparoscopic approach is still underexplored. The aim of this study was to provide a reliable analysis of in-hospital costs and reimbursements in inguinal hernia surgery. Methods: This retrospective study analyzed the 1-year experience in inguinal hernia repair in patients undergoing open Lichtenstein (OL), laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal unilateral (UTEP), or bilateral (BTEP) hernia repair. Demographics, results, costs, and DRG-based reimbursements were recorded and analyzed. Results: During the study period, 39 patients underwent OL, 82 patients UTEP, and 16 patients BTEP. The average total cost amounted to 4126 EUR in OL, 5134 EUR in UTEP, and 7082 EUR in BTEP groups (P < .001). The hospital reimbursement amounted to 5486 EUR, 5252 EUR, and 6555 EUR in the OL, UTEP, and BTEP groups, respectively (P < .001). Finally, the mean hospital earnings were 1360 EUR, 118 EUR, and -527 EUR for each patient in OL, UTEP, and BTEP, respectively (P < .001). Conclusions: In-hospital costs were higher in UTEP and BTEP as compared with OL. The DRG-based reimbursement provided adequate compensation for patients with unilateral inguinal hernia, whereas hospital earnings were profitable in OL group only, and led an overall financial loss in the BTEP group. Surgeons should be conscious that clinical advantages of the laparoscopic approach are not adequately compensated for, from an economic point of view.

Short-term cyclosporine therapy and cotransplantation of donor splenocytes: effects on graft rejection and survival rates in pigs subjected to renal transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Donor-specific allogeneic loading can prolong the survival of solid organ transplants by inducing a state known as acceptance. Several populations of cells are known to be involved in this process, but their exact roles have yet to be defined. The aim of this study was to assess the effects of portal-vein transfusion of donor-specific splenocytes (DST) after short-term cyclosporine A (CyA) therapy in pigs subjected to renal transplantation. METHODS: Four groups of unrelated swine underwent renal transplantation with removal of the native kidneys. Antirejection protocols consisted in portal-vein DST (3 x 10(8) cells/kg) (Group 2, n = 7); intravenous CyA (9 mg/kg/d) on postoperative days 1-12 (Group 3, n = 14); and DST + CyA (as described above) (Group 4, n = 13). Results (through postoperative day 90) were compared with those obtained in untreated control recipients (Group 1, n = 7). RESULTS: Compared with animals of Groups 1, 2, and 3, Group 4 recipients presented significantly longer survival (mean: 90 days, P < 0.01 in Kaplan-Meier analysis) and better renal function (P < 0.05). Graft histology revealed preserved parenchyma. CONCLUSION: The role of spleen cells in the immune response has probably been underestimated. Cotransplantation of donor splenocytes seems to induce a certain degree of acceptance toward the renal allograft. The route of administration (portal-vein infusion in this study) may be crucial for developing favorable mechanisms of recognition.