Mechanical bowel preparation combined with oral antibiotics reduces infectious complications and anastomotic leak in elective colorectal surgery: a pooled-analysis with trial sequential analysis.

OBJECTIVE: A pooled analysis combined with trial sequential analysis (TSA) was conducted in order to explore the effect of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) combined with oral antibiotic bowel decontamination (OAB) versus MBP alone on patients who have undergone colorectal resection. METHODS: Comprehensive and systematic searches of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Knowledge, and Clinical Trials.gov databases were conducted. The quality of literature was evaluated using Cochrane risk bias assessment tool as well as Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) score. A pooled analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective studies was performed comparing patients who underwent colorectal resection and received MBP plus OAB or MBP alone. The outcome endpoints were the incidence of anastomotic leak (AL) and surgical site infection (SSI). TSA is a tool used to assess the reliability of currently available evidence to determine further clinical trial validation. RESULTS: The analysis included a total of 22 studies involving 8852 patients, including 3016 patients in the MBP + OAB group and 4415 patients exposed to MBP alone. The pooled analysis showed that the incidence of postoperative anastomotic leak was significantly lower in the group treated with MBP plus OAB compared with MBP alone (OR = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.23-0.81, P = 0.009, I2 = 73%). The incidence of postoperative surgical site infections was significantly lower in the group exposed to the combination of MBP and OAB compared with MBP alone (OR = 0.38, 95% CI: 0.32-0.46, P < 0.0001, I2 = 24%). The TSA demonstrated significant benefits of MBP plus OAB intervention in terms of AL and SSI. CONCLUSION: MBP combined with OAB significantly reduces the incidence of AL and SSI in patients after colorectal resection compared with MBP alone.

Effectiveness of anastomotic reinforcement sutures in reducing anastomotic leakage risk after laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: a pooled and integration analysis.

Background and objectives: Anastomotic leakage (AL) is one of the most serious complications after laparoscopic anus-preserving surgery for rectal cancer, which significantly prolongs the patient's hospital stay, leads to dysfunction, and even increases the patient's perioperative morbidity and mortality, and little is known about the effectiveness of anastomotic reinforcement sutures to prevent AL. Thus, this study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of anastomotic reinforcement sutures as a means to prevent AL during laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. Methods: A comprehensive and systematic search was performed in the literature database by combining subject and free terms up to 10 October 2023. The overall literature included was integrated and analyzed using Stata 12.0 software and Review Manager version 5.4 software to assess the effect of anastomotic reinforcement sutures on the incidence of AL. Results: A total of 2,452 patients from 14 studies were included, and an integrated analysis showed that the use of anastomotic reinforcement sutures significantly reduced the incidence of AL [odds ratio (OR) = 0.26; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.18-0.37; P < 0.00001; I2 = 0%]. However, the findings confirmed whether or not the anastomosis reinforced with sutures did not affect the incidence of anastomotic stenosis (OR = 0.69; 95% CI, 0.37-1.32; P = 0.27; I2 = 0%). We performed subgroup analyses of the results of the study, the randomized controlled studies (OR = 0.31; 95% CI, 0.15-0.65; P < 0.001) as well as retrospective studies (OR = 0.28; 95% CI, 0.19-0.41; P < 0.001), 3-0 sutures (OR = 0.28; 95% CI, 0.17-0.45; P < 0.001) versus 4-0 sutures (OR = 0.26; 95% CI, 0.13-0.53; P < 0.001), barbed wire sutures (OR = 0.26; 95% CI, 0.14-0.48; P < 0.001) versus non-barbed wire sutures (OR = 0.30; 95% CI, 0.20-0.46; P < 0.001), interrupted (OR = 0.30, 95% CI, 0.20-0.46; P < 0.001) versus continuous sutures (OR = 0.29, 95% CI, 0.16-0.51; P < 0.001) to the anastomosis, full-thickness suture (OR = 0.29; 95% CI, 0.16-0.51; P < 0.001) versus sutured with the seromuscular layer (OR = 0.27; 95% CI, 0.14-0.53; P < 0.001), anastomotic sutured in one (OR = 0.27; 95% CI, 0.14-0.53; P < 0.001) versus non-one circle (OR = 0.30; 95% CI, 0.20-0.44; P < 0.001), and reinforcing sutures to the dog-ear area (OR = 0.26; 95% CI, 0.14-0.50; P < 0.001) versus the non-dog-ear area (OR = 0.30; 95% CI, 0.20-0.45; P < 0.001), which have suggested that there is no significant difference between each other and that all of them reduce the incidence of AL. Conclusions: This study provides evidence that performing reinforcement suturing of the anastomosis during laparoscopic rectal surgery significantly lowers the incidence of postoperative AL but has no significant effect on anastomotic stenosis. It is important to note that further randomized controlled studies are required to confirm this conclusion. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42022368631.

Which site is better for prophylactic ileostomy after laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery? By the specimen extraction site or new site: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: There is controversy about the outcomes of prophylactic ileostomy via the specimen extraction site (SES) after laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery (LRCS). We, therefore, performed a meta-analysis to determine the efficacy and safety of stoma through the SES versus new site (NS). Methods: All relevant studies from 1997 to 2022 were searched in the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CNKI, VIP databases. This meta-analysis was performed using RevMan software 5.3 for statistical analysis. Results: 7 studies with 1736 patients were included. The present meta-analysis noted that prophylactic ileostomy via SES was associated with a higher risk of overall stoma-related complications, especially parastomal hernia (OR, 2.39, 95% CI 1.43-4.00; p=0.0008). No statistical difference was found in terms of wound infection, ileus, stoma edema, stoma prolapse, stoma necrosis, stoma infection, stoma bleeding, stoma stenosis, skin inflammation around the stoma, stoma retraction and postoperative pain score on postoperative day 1 and 3 between SES group and NS group. However, prophylactic ileostomy via SES was associated with lesser blood loss (MD = -0.38, 95% CI: -0.62 - -0.13; p=0.003), shorter operation time(MD = -0.43, 95% CI: -0.54 - -0.32 min; p<0.00001), shorter post-operative hospital stay (MD = -0.26, 95% CI: -0.43 - -0.08; p=0.004), shorter time to first flatus(MD = -0.23, 95% CI: -0.39 - -0.08; p=0.003) and lower postoperative pain score on postoperative day 2. Conclusion: Prophylactic ileostomy via SES after LRCS reduces new incision, decreases operative time, promotes postoperative recovery, and improves cosmetic outcomes, but may increase the incidence of parastomal hernias. The vast majority of parastomal hernias can be repaired by closing the ileostomy, therefore SES remain an option for temporary ileostomy after LRCS.

Can neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy combined with immunotherapy benefit patients with microsatellite stable locally advanced rectal cancer? a pooled and integration analysis.

Objective: To assess the clinical efficacy of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy combined with immunotherapy for patients with microsatellite stable (MSS) locally advanced rectal cancer and provide evidence to support clinical decision-making. Methods: A systematic search was conducted on the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Collaboration databases, conference summaries, and Chinese databases for clinical studies that investigated neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy combined with immunotherapy for the treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer with MSS status. The search spanned from the inception of each database through July 2023. Data from the identified studies were extracted using a pre-designed table, and efficacy outcomes were analyzed. An integrated analysis was conducted using Stata 12.0 software. Results: Eight studies were included, comprising 204 patients with locally advanced MSS rectal cancer who received chemoradiotherapy combined with immunotherapy. The integrated analysis revealed a pathologic complete remission rate of 0.33, a sphincter preservation rate of 0.86, an R0 resection rate of 0.83, a major pathologic remission rate of 0.33, and a clinical complete remission rate of 0.30. Conclusion: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy combined with immunotherapy demonstrates significant short-term efficacy in MSS-type locally advanced rectal cancer, notably enhancing the pathologic complete remission and sphincter preservation rates. This combination is a recommended treatment for patients with MSS-type rectal cancer.

Network Pharmacology and Molecular Docking Validation to Reveal the Pharmacological Mechanisms of Kangai Injection against Colorectal Cancer.

Background: Kangai injection is a traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) mixed by extracts from astragalus, ginseng, and kurorinone with modern technology. It is a commonly used antitumor injection in China, but the mechanism of Kangai injection in the treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC) is still unclear. The purpose of this study is to explore the mechanism of Kangai injection against CRC using network pharmacology and molecular docking technology. Methods: Targets of Kangai injection in CRC were predicted by SwissTargetPrediction and DisGeNET databases. Gene Ontology (GO) analysis and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) were performed by using the DAVID database. A component-disease-target gene-pathway network was constructed by Cytoscape 3.8.0 software. Results: 114 overlapping targets of Kangai injection and CRC were used to construct a PPI network, and the top 10 hub targets of Kangai injection were rated from high to low as TP53, VEGFA, EGFR, TNF, ESR1, STAT3, HSP90AA1, HDAC1, AR, and MMP9. The ingredient-target-disease interactive network was constructed, which included 22 compounds and 114 overlapping targets with 161 nodes and 707 edges. Entries of enrichment analysis were obtained based on P value (<0.05), which included 19 of GO-MF, 217 of GO-BP, 8 of GO-CC, and 13 KEGG. Molecular docking analysis showed that Kangai injection strongly interacted with top 10 hub target proteins. Conclusion: Network pharmacology intuitively showed the multicomponent, multiple targets, and multiple pathways of Kangai injection in the treatment of CRC. The molecular docking experiment verified that compounds of Kangai injection had good binding ability with top 10 hub target proteins as well.