Arthroscopic and open approaches for autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis repair of the knee have similar results: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cartilage defects are debilitating injuries that can reduce quality of life in patients. However, the poor regenerative properties of cartilage mean that cartilage repair remains challenging, and many methods have arisen to address that. Autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis (AMIC®) is a popular technique to manage cartilage defects. Recent advances have allowed AMIC® to be done arthroscopically, instead of a mini-open arthrotomy approach. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to investigate whether the arthroscopic approach to AMIC® provides better clinical outcomes than does the mini-open approach, in hopes of delineating a gold standard in cartilage repair. METHODS: With reference to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines, a systematic search of the following databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library) was performed on 26th October 2022 using a combination of the following search terms: "autologous matrix induced", "chondrogenesis", and "knee". A total of 390 studies were identified, of which, 24 studies were included in our final analysis. RESULTS: The arthroscopic approach achieves lower Visual Analogue Scale for pain scores. The International Knee documentation Committee) score and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score were comparable between arthroscopic and open approaches. The open approach achieves a higher Magnetic Resonance Observation of Cartilage Repair Tissue score. Incidence of reported postoperative complications of revision surgery and knee stiffness was higher for the open approach than for the arthroscopic approach, whereas deep vein thrombosis was higher in the arthroscopic approach. CONCLUSION: The AMIC® repair outcomes indicate that the arthroscopic approach does not hold a distinct advantage over the open approach. The choice of approach should consider surgeon expertise, location of lesion, and patient-specific factors. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review and meta-analysis; Level III.

A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing postoperative outcomes of laparoscopic versus open omental patch repair of perforated peptic ulcer.

BACKGROUND: The mainstay of surgical management of perforated peptic ulcer is omental patch repair. Advances in minimally invasive techniques have shown feasibility of laparoscopic omental patch repair (LOPR). Laparoscopic omental patch repair is limited by learning curve (LC), but there is a lack of reporting of LC in LOPR. This study aims to compare outcomes following LOPR versus open omental patch repair (OOPR) with reporting of LC. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and Scopus were systematically searched from inception till January 2022 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs comparing LOPR and OOPR in perforated peptic ulcer. Exclusion criteria were primary repair without use of omental patch repair. Primary outcomes were 30-day mortality, postoperative leak, and LC analysis. RESULTS: There were a total of 29 studies including 5,311 patients (LOPR, n = 1,687; OOPR, n = 3,624), with 4 RCTs with 238 patients (LOPR, n = 118; OOPR, n = 120). Majority of ulcers were located in the duodenum (57.0%) followed by stomach (30.7%). Mean ulcer size ranged from 5 to 16.2 mm in LOPR and 4.7 to 15.8 mm in OOPR. Laparoscopic omental patch repair was associated with lower 30-day mortality (odds ratio [OR], 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35-0.92; p = 0.02), overall morbidity (OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.18-0.53; p < 0.0001), surgical site infection (OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.18-0.42; p < 0.00001), and length of stay (mean difference, -2.84 days; 95% CI, -3.63 to -2.06; p < 0.00001). Postoperative leakage (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.43-2.61; p = 0.90) was comparable between LOPR and OOPR. Only three studies analyzed the proportion of consultants to trainees; LOPR was performed mainly by consultants (range, 82.4-91.4%), while OOPR was mainly performed by trainees (range, 52.8-96.8%). One study showed that consultants who performed open conversion had shorter operating time compared with chief residents (85 vs. 186.6 minutes, p < 0.003). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic omental patch repair has lower mortality, overall morbidity, length of stay, intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative pain compared with OOPR. More prospective studies should be conducted to evaluate LC in LOPR. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis; Level IV.