Current evidence on the role of smoking in plastic surgery elective procedures: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Smoking is considered to be a significant risk factor for the development of postoperative complications after various surgical procedures, mainly by limiting oxygen delivery to tissues. Evidence on the collective impact of smoking in aesthetic procedure outcomes is scarce. The aim of this study is to evaluate the current evidence on the association between smoking and postoperative outcomes in patients who underwent common elective procedures in plastic surgery. METHODS: PubMed and Cochrane bibliographical databases were searched from January 1950 to October 2016 for studies reporting on patients who underwent facelift, abdominoplasty, breast reduction and breast reconstruction and for studies with included data on smoking history of treated patients. RESULTS: Fifty-three studies reporting on postoperative complications in tobacco users undergoing facelift, abdominoplasty, breast reduction and reconstruction were identified. Tobacco use is found to significantly increase the total number of postoperative complications as far as abdominoplasty (OR: 5.43; 95% CI = 2.92-10.10), breast reduction (OR: 2.36; 95% CI = 1.64-3.39) and breast reconstruction (OR: 1.91; 95% CI = 1.69-2.17) are concerned. Smoking history does not significantly affect total postoperative complications after facelift procedures (OR: 3.36; 95% CI = 0.92-12.30). CONCLUSIONS: Smoking predisposes to surgical site infections, delayed wound healing and skin necrosis in patients undergoing the most common aesthetic procedures in plastic surgery. More rigorous and detailed reporting on the history of tobacco use and surgical outcomes following plastic surgery procedures is needed to better quantify the impact of smoking on the overall postoperative care for this patient population.

Laparoscopic versus robotic adrenalectomy: A comprehensive meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The benefit of robotic adrenalectomy (RA) compared to laparoscopic adrenalectomy (LA) is still debatable. The purpose of this paper was to systematically review and synthesize all available evidence comparing RA to LA so as to evaluate which procedure provides superior clinical outcomes. METHODS: A systematic literature search of PubMed and Scopus databases was performed with respect to the PRISMA statement (end-of-search date: January 31, 2016). Data on perioperative variables were extracted by three independent reviewers. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies were included in this review (13 comparative and 14 non-comparative). Overall, 1162 patients underwent adrenalectomy (747 treated with RA and 415 with LA). There was no significant difference between the robotic and the laparoscopic groups for intraoperative complications (OR: 1.20; 95%CI, 0.33-4.38), postoperative complications (OR: 0.69; 95% CI, 0.36-1.31), mortality (OR: 0.42; 95%CI, 0.07-2.72), conversion to laparotomy (OR: 0.51; 95%CI, 0.21-1.23), conversion to laparotomy or laparoscopy (OR: 0.73; 95%CI, 0.32-1.69) and blood loss (WMD: -9.78; 95%, -22.10 to 2.53). For patients treated with RA, there was a significantly shorter hospital stay (WMD: -0.40; 95% CI, -0.64 to -0.17) and a significantly longer operating time (WMD: 15.60; 95%CI, 2.12 to 29.08). CONCLUSIONS: Robotic adrenalectomy is a safe and feasible procedure with similar clinical outcomes as the laparoscopic approach in selected patient populations. High quality RCTs as well as uniform and detailed reporting of outcomes are needed to determine the role and cost-effectiveness of robotic adrenal surgery in the years to come.

Robotic vs. Laparoscopic Roux-En-Y Gastric Bypass: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

We aim to summarize the available literature on patients treated with robotic RYGB and compare the clinical outcomes of patients treated with robotic RYGB with those treated with the standard laparoscopic RYGB. A systematic literature search of PubMed and Scopus databases was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Fourteen comparative and 11 non-comparative studies were included in this study, reporting data on 5145 patients. This study points to comparable clinical outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic RYGB. Robotic-assisted RYGB was associated with significantly less frequent anastomotic stricture events, reoperations, and a decreased length of hospital stay compared with the standard laparoscopic procedures; however, these findings should be interpreted with caution given the low number and poor quality of the studies currently available in the literature.