Robotic versus laparoscopic gastric bypass in bariatric surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis on perioperative outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Robotic-assisted surgery has emerged as a compelling approach to bariatric surgery. However, current literature has not consistently demonstrated superior outcomes to laparoscopic bariatric surgery to justify its higher cost. With its mechanical advantages, the potential gains from the robotic surgical platform are likely to be apparent in more complex cases such as gastric bypass, especially revisional cases. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to summarize the literature and evaluate the peri-operative outcomes of patients with obesity undergoing robotic gastric bypass versus laparoscopic gastric bypass surgery. SETTING: Systematic review. METHODS: A literature search of Embase, Medline, Pubmed, Cochrane library, and Google Scholar was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies comparing outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic gastric bypass for obesity were included. RESULTS: Twenty-eight eligible studies comprised a total of 82,155 patients; 9051 robotic bypass surgery (RBS) versus 73,104 laparoscopic bypass surgery (LBS) were included. All included studies compared Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. RBS was noted to have higher reoperation rate within 30 days (4.4% versus 3.4%; odds ratio 1.31 [95% CI, 1.04-1.66]; P = .027; I2 = 43.5%) than LBS. All other endpoints measured (complication rate, anastomotic leak, anastomotic stricture, surgical site infections, hospital readmission, length of stay, operative time, conversion rate and mortality) did not show any difference between RBS and LBS. CONCLUSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis showed that there was no significant difference in key outcome measures in robotic versus laparoscopic gastric bypass. RBS was associated with a slightly higher reoperation rate and there was no reduction in overall complication rate with the use of robotic platform.

Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in small bowel adenocarcinoma with peritoneal metastasis: a systematic review.

Objectives: Small bowel adenocarcinoma (SBA) with peritoneal metastasis (PM) is rare and despite treatment with systemic chemotherapy, the prognosis is poor. However, there is emerging evidence that cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) may offer a survival benefit over systemic therapy alone. This systematic review will assess the effectiveness of CRS-HIPEC for SBA-PM. Content: Three databases were searched from inception to 11/10/21. Clinical outcomes were extracted and analysed. Summary: A total of 164 cases of SBA-PM undergoing CRS-HIPEC were identified in 12 studies. The majority of patients had neoadjuvant chemotherapy (87/164, 53%) and complete cytoreduction (143/164, 87%) prior to HIPEC. The median overall survival was 9-32 months and 5-year survival ranged from 25 to 40%. Clavien-Dindo grade III/IV morbidity ranged between 19.1 and 50%, while overall mortality was low with only 3 treatment-related deaths. Outlook: CRS-HIPEC has the potential to improve the overall survival in a highly selected group of SBA-PM patients, with 5-year survival rates comparable to those reported in colorectal peritoneal metastases. However, the expected survival benefits need to be balanced against the intrinsic risk of morbidity and mortality associated with the procedure. Further multicentre studies are required to assess the safety and feasibility of CRS-HIPEC in SBA-PM to guide best practice management for this rare disease.

The incidence and risk factors of osteoarthritis following osteochondritis dissecans of the knees: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The current systematic review and meta-analysis aim to pool together the incidence and risk factors of osteoarthritis following osteochondritis dissecans of the knee. METHODS: The systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. A search was conducted using PubMed and Cochrane Library with the keywords being "knee" and "osteochondritis dissecans" or "osteochondral lesion". All original human studies that reported the incidence or risk factors of osteoarthritis following osteochondritis dissecans of the knee were included. RESULTS: Nine studies with 496 patients were included. The incidence of osteoarthritis following osteochondritis dissecans is 0.39 (95% CI 0.19-0.59). Patients with a body mass index greater than 25 kg/m2 had a significantly increased risk of osteoarthritis. Fragment excision had an increased relative risk of 1.89 (95% CI 1.19-3.01) of osteoarthritis as compared to fragment preservation. Significant heterogeneity was identified when comparing between juvenile and adult osteochondritis dissecans. The size of the lesions moderated the between-study heterogeneity with regards to the incidence of osteoarthritis, with the relative risk of osteoarthritis in lesions bigger than 4 cm2 being 2.29 (95% CI 1.24-4.23). No other risk factors, including gender of the patient, location of osteochondritis dissecans, stability of osteochondritis dissecans, and surgical versus non-surgical management were significant risk factors. CONCLUSION: Significant risk factors for osteoarthritis were increased body mass index and fragment excision. Probable but inconclusive risk factors were the age of the patients and the size of the osteochondritis dissecans. The gender of the patient, location of osteochondritis dissecans, the stability of osteochondritis dissecans, and surgical versus non-surgical management of osteochondritis dissecans when appropriate were not significant risk factors.

Perioperative pregabalin does not reduce opioid requirements in total knee arthroplasty.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study was to determine if pregabalin, when given perioperatively in addition to patient-controlled analgesia morphine, paracetamol and etoricoxib, is effective in reducing morphine requirements and moderating pain scores after primary total knee arthroplasty. We hypothesize that there would be no difference in postoperative opioid requirements, postoperative pain scores, and functional scores with the use of perioperative pregabalin. METHODS: Eighty-seven patients who underwent primary total knee arthroplasty were randomised and allocated to two groups. One group received capsules containing pregabalin 75 mg, and the other a placebo-one capsule before surgery and one capsule once per night up till postoperative day 2. Multimodal analgesia provided for all patients in this study included femoral nerve block, intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (morphine), paracetamol and etoricoxib. The primary outcome of patient's pain control was based on the measurement of cumulative morphine consumption during the first 72 h postoperatively. RESULTS: Pregabalin did not reduce the cumulative or effective morphine consumption at 48 h and 72 h post-operation. There were also no significant differences noted in pain scores at 48 h and 72 h after surgery, functional range of motion of the operated knee at 72 h post-op, or outcomes recorded on the Knee Society Score (KSS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36) questionnaires at 3 and 6 months post-op. None of the patients demonstrated common adverse reactions to pregabalin. CONCLUSION: This study showed no reduction in postoperative opioid requirements, or improvement in early postoperative pain scores or functional outcomes at 6 months, with perioperative use of pregabalin. Orthopaedic surgeons may consider this when selecting an analgesic regimen for their patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.