Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and individual patient data comparing minimally invasive with open oesophagectomy for cancer.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) for oesophageal cancer may reduce surgical complications compared with open oesophagectomy. MIO is, however, technically challenging and may impair optimal oncological resection. The aim of the present study was to assess if MIO for cancer is beneficial. METHODS: A systematic literature search in MEDLINE, Web of Science and CENTRAL was performed and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing MIO with open oesophagectomy were included in a meta-analysis. Survival was analysed using individual patient data. Random-effects model was used for pooled estimates of perioperative effects. RESULTS: Among 3219 articles, six RCTs were identified including 822 patients. Three-year overall survival (56 (95 per cent c.i. 49 to 62) per cent for MIO versus 52 (95 per cent c.i. 44 to 60) per cent for open; P = 0.54) and disease-free survival (54 (95 per cent c.i. 47 to 61) per cent versus 50 (95 per cent c.i. 42 to 58) per cent; P = 0.38) were comparable. Overall complication rate was lower for MIO (odds ratio 0.33 (95 per cent c.i. 0.20 to 0.53); P < 0.010) mainly due to fewer pulmonary complications (OR 0.44 (95 per cent c.i. 0.27 to 0.72); P < 0.010), including pneumonia (OR 0.41 (95 per cent c.i. 0.22 to 0.77); P < 0.010). CONCLUSION: MIO for cancer is associated with a lower risk of postoperative complications compared with open resection. Overall and disease-free survival are comparable for the two techniques. LAY SUMMARY: Oesophagectomy for cancer is associated with a high risk of complications. A minimally invasive approach might be less traumatic, leading to fewer complications and may also improve oncological outcome. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing minimally invasive to open oesophagectomy was performed. The analysis showed that the minimally invasive approach led to fewer postoperative complications, in particular, fewer pulmonary complications. Survival after surgery was comparable for the two techniques.

Oesophagectomy for cancer is associated with a high risk of complications. A minimally invasive approach might be less traumatic, leading to fewer complications and may also improve oncological outcome. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing minimally invasive to open oesophagectomy was performed. The analysis showed that the minimally invasive approach led to fewer postoperative complications, in particular, fewer pulmonary complications. Survival after surgery was comparable for the two techniques.

Meta-analysis of α-blockade versus no blockade before adrenalectomy for phaeochromocytoma.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative α-blockade in phaeochromocytoma surgery is recommended by all guidelines to prevent intraoperative cardiocirculatory events. The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the benefit of such preoperative treatment compared with no treatment before adrenalectomy for phaeochromocytoma. METHODS: A systematic literature search was undertaken in MEDLINE, Web of Science and CENTRAL without language restrictions. Randomized and non-randomized comparative studies investigating preoperative α-blockade in phaeochromocytoma surgery were included. Data on perioperative safety, effectiveness and outcomes were extracted. Pooled results were calculated as an odds ratio or mean difference with 95 per cent confidence interval. RESULTS: A total of four retrospective comparative studies were included investigating 603 patients undergoing phaeochromocytoma surgery. Mortality, cardiovascular complications, mean maximal intraoperative systolic and diastolic BP, and mean maximal intraoperative heart rate did not differ between patients with or without α-blockade. The certainty of the evidence was very low owing to the inferior quality of studies. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis has shown a lack of evidence for preoperative α-blockade in surgery for phaeochromocytoma. RCTs are needed to evaluate whether preoperative α-blockade can be abandoned.

ANTECEDENTES: Todas las guías recomiendan el bloqueo alfa preoperatorio en la cirugía del feocromocitoma para prevenir eventos cardiocirculatorios intraoperatorios. El objetivo de este metaanálisis fue evaluar el beneficio de dicho tratamiento preoperatorio antes de la adrenalectomía por feocromocitoma en comparación con ningún tratamiento. MÉTODOS: Se realizó una búsqueda sistemática de la literatura en MEDLINE, Web of Science y CENTRAL sin restricciones de idioma. Se incluyeron estudios comparativos aleatorizados y no aleatorizados que investigaron el bloqueo alfa preoperatorio en la cirugía del feocromocitoma. Se extrajeron los datos en relación a la seguridad perioperatoria, la efectividad y los resultados. Los resultados agrupados se mostraron como razón de oportunidades (odds ratio, OR) o diferencia de medias (MD) con el correspondiente i.c. del 95%. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron un total de cuatro estudios comparativos retrospectivos que analizaron a 603 pacientes sometidos a cirugía del feocromocitoma. La mortalidad, las complicaciones cardiovasculares, la media del valor máximo de la presión arterial sistólica y diastólica intraoperatoria y la media del valor máximo de la frecuencia cardíaca intraoperatoria no difirieron entre pacientes con o sin bloqueo. La certeza de la evidencia fue muy baja debido a la baja calidad de los estudios. CONCLUSIÓN: Este metaanálisis demuestra la falta de evidencia del bloqueo alfa preoperatorio en la cirugía del feocromocitoma. Se necesitan ensayos controlados aleatorizados para evaluar si se puede abandonar el bloqueo alfa preoperatorio.

Endoscopic versus surgical treatment for infected necrotizing pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes of endoscopic and surgical treatment for infected necrotizing pancreatitis (INP) based on results of randomized controlled trials (RCT). BACKGROUND: Treatment of INP has changed in the last two decades with adoption of interventional, endoscopic and minimally invasive surgical procedures for drainage and necrosectomy. However, this relies mostly on observational studies. METHODS: We performed a systematic review following Cochrane and PRISMA guidelines and AMSTAR-2 criteria and searched CENTRAL, Medline and Web of Science. Randomized controlled trails that compared an endoscopic treatment to a surgical treatment for patients with infected walled-off necrosis and included one of the main outcomes were eligible for inclusion. The main outcomes were mortality and new onset multiple organ failure. Prospero registration ID: CRD42019126033 RESULTS: Three RCTs with 190 patients were included. Intention to treat analysis showed no difference in mortality. However, patients in the endoscopic group had statistically significant lower odds of experiencing new onset multiple organ failure (odds ratio (OR) confidence interval [CI] 0.31 [0.10, 0.98]) and were statistically less likely to suffer from perforations of visceral organs or enterocutaneous fistulae (OR [CI] 0.31 [0.10, 0.93]), and pancreatic fistulae (OR [CI] 0.09 [0.03, 0.28]). Patients with endoscopic treatment had a statistically significant lower mean hospital stay (Mean difference [CI] - 7.86 days [- 14.49, - 1.22]). No differences in bleeding requiring intervention, incisional hernia, exocrine or endocrine insufficiency or ICU stay were apparent. Overall certainty of evidence was moderate. CONCLUSION: There seem to be possible benefits of endoscopic treatment procedure. Given the heterogenous procedures in the surgical group as well as the low amount of randomized evidence, further studies are needed to evaluate the combination of different approaches and appropriate timepoints for interventions.

The effect of prophylactic mesh implantation on the development of incisional hernias in patients with elevated BMI: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Incisional hernia is a common complication after midline laparotomy. In certain risk profiles incidences can reach up to 70%. Large RCTs showed a positive effect of prophylactic mesh reinforcement (PMR) in high-risk populations. OBJECTIVES: The aim was to evaluate the effect of prophylactic mesh reinforcement on incisional hernia reduction in obese patients after midline laparotomies. METHODS: Following the PRISMA guidelines, a systematic literature search in Medline, Web of Science and CENTRAL was conducted. RCTs investigating PMR in patients with a BMI ≥ 27 reporting incisional hernia as primary outcome were included. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and certainty of evidence was rated according to the GRADE Working Group grading of evidence. A random-effects model was used for the meta-analysis. Secondary outcomes included postoperative complications. RESULTS: Out of 2298 articles found by a systematic literature search, five RCTs with 1136 patients were included. There was no significant difference in the incidence of incisional hernia when comparing PMR with primary suture (odds ratio (OR) 0.59, 95% CI 0.34-1.01, p = 0.06, GRADE: low). Meta-analyses of seroma formation (OR 1.62, 95% CI 0.72-3.65; p = 0.24, GRADE: low) and surgical site infections (OR 1.52, 95% CI 0.72-3.22, p = 0.28, GRADE: moderate) showed no significant differences as well as subgroup analyses for BMI ≥ 40 and length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: We did not observe a significant reduction of the incidence of incisional hernia with prophylactic mesh reinforcement used in patients with elevated BMI. These results stand in contrast to the current recommendation for hernia prevention in obese patients.

Effect of kinesiotaping, non-elastic taping and bracing on segmental foot kinematics during drop landing in healthy subjects and subjects with chronic ankle instability.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of kinesiotape, non-elastic tape, and soft brace on segmental foot kinematics during drop landing in subjects with chronic ankle instability and healthy subjects. DESIGN: Controlled study with repeated measurements. SETTING: Three-dimensional motion analysis laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty participants with chronic ankle instability and 20 healthy subjects. INTERVENTIONS: The subjects performed drop landings with 17 retroreflective markers on the foot and lower leg in four conditions: barefoot, with kinesiotape, with non-elastic tape and with a soft brace. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Ranges of motion of foot segments using a foot measurement method. RESULTS: In participants with chronic ankle instability, midfoot movement in the frontal plane (inclination of the medial arch) was reduced significantly by non-elastic taping, but kinesiotaping and bracing had no effect. In healthy subjects, both non-elastic taping and bracing reduced that movement. In both groups, non-elastic taping and bracing reduced rearfoot excursion in inversion/eversion significantly, which indicates a stabilisation effect. No such effect was found with kinesiotaping. All three methods reduced maximum plantar flexion significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Non-elastic taping stabilised the midfoot best in patients with chronic ankle instability, while kinesiotaping did not influence foot kinematics other than to stabilise the rearfoot in the sagittal plane. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01810471.