Comparison of low versus high (standard) intraabdominal pressure during laparoscopic colorectal surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate outcomes of low with high intraabdominal pressure during laparoscopic colorectal resection surgery. METHODS: A systematic search of multiple electronic data sources was conducted, and all studies comparing low with high (standard) intraabdominal pressures were included. Our primary outcomes were post-operative ileus occurrence and return of bowel movement/flatus. The evaluated secondary outcomes included: total operative time, post-operative haemorrhage, anastomotic leak, pneumonia, surgical site infection, overall post-operative complications (categorised by Clavien-Dindo grading), and length of hospital stay. Revman 5.4 was used for data analysis. RESULTS: Six randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and one observational study with a total of 771 patients (370 surgery at low intraabdominal pressure and 401 at high pressures) were included. There was no statistically significant difference in all the measured outcomes; post-operative ileus [OR 0.80; CI (0.42, 1.52), P = 0.50], time-to-pass flatus [OR -4.31; CI (-12.12, 3.50), P = 0.28], total operative time [OR 0.40; CI (-10.19, 11.00), P = 0.94], post-operative haemorrhage [OR 1.51; CI (0.41, 5.58, P = 0.53], anastomotic leak [OR 1.14; CI (0.26, 4.91), P = 0.86], pneumonia [OR 1.15; CI (0.22, 6.09), P = 0.87], SSI [OR 0.69; CI (0.19, 2.47), P = 0.57], overall post-operative complications [OR 0.82; CI (0.52, 1.30), P = 0.40], Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3 [OR 1.27; CI (0.59, 2.77), P = 0.54], and length of hospital stay [OR -0.68; CI (-1.61, 0.24), P = 0.15]. CONCLUSION: Low intraabdominal pressure is safe and feasible approach to laparoscopic colorectal resection surgery with non-inferior outcomes to standard or high pressures. More robust and well-powered RCTs are needed to consolidate the potential benefits of low over high pressure intra-abdominal surgery.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the management of acute uncomplicated diverticulitis: time to change traditional practice.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate comparative outcomes of outpatient (OP) versus inpatient (IP) treatment and antibiotics (ABX) versus no antibiotics (NABX) approach in the treatment of uncomplicated (Hinchey grade 1a) acute diverticulitis. METHODS: A systematic online search was conducted using electronic databases. Comparative studies of OP versus IP treatment and ABX versus NABX approach in the treatment of Hinchey grade 1a acute diverticulitis were included. Primary outcome was recurrence of diverticulitis. Emergency and elective surgical resections, development of complicated diverticulitis, mortality rate, and length of hospital stay were the other evaluated secondary outcome parameters. RESULTS: The literature search identified twelve studies (n = 3,875) comparing NABX (n = 2,008) versus ABX (n = 1,867). The NABX group showed a lower disease recurrence rate and shorter length of hospital stay compared with the ABX group (P = 0.01) and (P = 0.004). No significant difference was observed in emergency resections (P = 0.33), elective resections (P = 0.73), development of complicated diverticulitis (P = 0.65), hospital re-admissions (P = 0.65) and 30-day mortality rate (P = 0.91). Twelve studies (n = 2,286) compared OP (n = 1,021) versus IP (n = 1,265) management of uncomplicated acute diverticulitis. The two groups were comparable for the following outcomes: treatment failure (P = 0.10), emergency surgical resection (P = 0.40), elective resection (P = 0.30), disease recurrence (P = 0.22), and mortality rate (P = 0.61). CONCLUSION: Observation-only treatment is feasible and safe in selected clinically stable patients with uncomplicated acute diverticulitis (Hinchey 1a classification). It may provide better outcomes including decreased length of hospital stay. Moreover, the OP approach in treating patients with Hinchey 1a acute diverticulitis is comparable to IP management. Future high-quality randomised controlled studies are needed to understand the outcomes of the NABX approach used in an OP setting in managing patients with uncomplicated acute diverticulitis.

Outcomes following open versus laparoscopic multi-visceral resection for locally advanced colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: This meta-analysis aims to compare morbidity, mortality, oncological safety, and survival outcomes after laparoscopic multi-visceral resection (MVR) of the locally advanced primary colorectal cancer (CRC) compared with open surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search of multiple electronic data sources was conducted, and all studies comparing laparoscopic and open surgery in patients with locally advanced CRC undergoing MVR were selected. The primary endpoints were peri-operative morbidity and mortality. Secondary endpoints were R0 and R1 resection, local and distant disease recurrence, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) rates. RevMan 5.3 was used for data analysis. RESULTS: Ten comparative observational studies reporting a total of 936 patients undergoing laparoscopic MVR (n = 452) and open surgery (n = 484) were identified. Primary outcome analysis demonstrated a significantly longer operative time in laparoscopic surgery compared with open operations (P = 0.008). However, intra-operative blood loss (P<0.00001) and wound infection (P = 0.05) favoured laparoscopy. Anastomotic leak rate (P = 0.91), intra-abdominal abscess formation (P = 0.40), and mortality rates (P = 0.87) were comparable between the two groups. Moreover the total number of harvested lymph nodes, R0/R1 resections, local/distant disease recurrence, DFS, and OS rates were also comparable between the groups. CONCLUSION: Although inherent limitations exist with observational studies, the available evidence demonstrates that laparoscopic MVR in locally advanced CRC seems to be a feasible and oncologically safe surgical option in carefully selected cohorts.

Delorme's vs. Altemeier's in the management of rectal procidentia: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Rectal prolapse is a distressing condition for patients and no consensus exists on optimal surgical management. We compared outcomes of two common perineal operations (Delorme's and Altemeier's) used in the treatment of rectal prolapse. METHODS: A systematic search of multiple electronic databases was conducted. Peri- and post-operative outcomes following Delorme's and Altemeier's procedures were extracted. Primary outcomes included recurrence rate, anastomotic dehiscence rate and mortality rate. The secondary outcomes were total operative time, volume of blood loss, length of hospital stay and coloanal anastomotic stricture formation. Revman 5.3 was used to perform all statistical analysis. RESULTS: Ten studies with 605 patients were selected; 286 underwent Altemeier's procedure (standalone), 39 had Altemeier's with plasty (perineoplasty or levatoroplasty), and 280 had Delorme's. Recurrence rate [OR: 0.66; 95% CI [0.44-0.99], P = 0.05] was significantly lower and anastomotic dehiscence [RD: 0.05; 95% CI [0.00-0.09], P = 0.03] was significantly higher in the Altemeier's group. However, sub group analysis of Altemeier's with plasty failed to show significant differences in these outcomes compared with the Delorme's procedure. Length of hospital stay was significantly more following an Altemeier's operation compared with Delorme's [MD: 3.05, 95% CI [0.95 - 5.51], P = 0.004]. No significant difference was found in total operative time, intra-operative blood loss, coloanal anastomotic stricture formation and mortality rates between the two approaches. CONCLUSIONS: A direct comparison of two common perineal procedures used in the treatment of rectal prolapse demonstrated that the Altemeier's approach was associated with better outcomes. Future, well-designed high quality RCTs with long-term follow up are needed to corroborate our findings.

Comparison of Midline and Off-midline specimen extraction following laparoscopic left-sided colorectal resections: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Aims: This study aims to evaluate comparative outcomes following midline versus off-midline specimen extractions following laparoscopic left-sided colorectal resections. Methods: A systematic search of electronic information sources was conducted. Studies comparing 'midline' versus 'off midline' specimen extraction following laparoscopic left-sided colorectal resections performed for malignancies were included. The rate of incisional hernia formation, surgical site infection (SSI), total operative time and blood loss, anastomotic leak (AL) and length of hospital stay (LOS) was the evaluated outcome parameters. Results: Five comparative observational studies reporting a total of 1187 patients comparing midline (n = 701) and off-midline (n = 486) approaches for specimen extraction were identified. Specimen extraction performed through an off-midline incision was not associated with a significantly reduced rate of SSI (odds ratio [OR]: 0.71; P = 0.68), the occurrence of AL (OR: 0.76; P = 0.66) and future development of incisional hernias (OR: 0.65; P = 0.64) compared to the conventional midline approach. No statistically significant difference was observed in total operative time (mean difference [MD]: 0.13; P = 0.99), intraoperative blood loss (MD: 2.31; P = 0.91) and LOS (MD: 0.78; P = 0.18) between the two groups. Conclusions: Off-midline specimen extraction following minimally invasive left-sided colorectal cancer surgery is associated with similar rates of SSI and incisional hernia formation compared to the vertical midline incision. Furthermore, there were no statistically significant differences observed between the two groups for evaluated outcomes such as total operative time, intra-operative blood loss, AL rate and LOS. As such, we did not find any advantage of one approach over the other. Future high-quality well-designed trials are required to make robust conclusions.

Single-incision versus multi-port laparoscopic ileocolic resections for Crohn's disease: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Introduction: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) versus multi-port laparoscopy for ileocolic resection in patients with Crohn's disease (CD). Patients and Methods: A systematic search of multiple electronic databases was conducted. The peri- and post-operative outcomes were evaluated between Crohn's patients undergoing SILS versus multi-port laparoscopy for ileocolic resection. The primary outcomes included operative time, anastomotic leak rate, post-operative wound infections and length of hospital stay. Analysed secondary outcomes were conversion rates, ileus occurrence, intra-abdominal abscess formation, return to theatre and re-admissions. Revman 5.3 was used to perform the statistical analysis. Results: Five observational studies with 521 patients (SILS: 211; multi-port: 310) were included in the data synthesis. Patients undergoing SILS had a reduced total operative time compared to multi-port laparoscopy (mean difference [MD]: -16.14, 95% confidence interval: [CI] -27.23 - 5.05, P = 0.004). Post-operative hospital stay was also found to be significantly less in the SILS group (MD: -0.57, 95% CI: -0.73--0.42, P < 0.0001). No significant difference was seen in the anastomotic leak rate (MD: -16.14, 95% CI: 0.18-1.71, P = 0.004) or post-operative wound infections (odds ratio: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.24 - 2.47, P = 0.67) between the two groups. Moreover, all the measured secondary outcomes were comparable. Conclusion: SILS seems to be a feasible alternative to multi-port laparoscopic surgery for ileocolic resection in patients with CD. Improved outcomes in terms of total operative time and length of hospital stay were observed in patients undergoing SILS surgery. Adopting this procedure into routine clinical practice constitutes the next step in the development of minimally invasive surgery.

Comparison of the colonic J-pouch versus straight (end-to-end) anastomosis following low anterior resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: To evaluate comparative outcomes of straight (end-to-end) anastomosis versus colonic J-pouch anastomosis following anterior resection. METHODS: A systematic search of multiple electronic data sources was conducted, and all studies comparing straight (end-to-end) anastomosis versus J-pouch anastomosis were included. Anastomotic complications, post-operative complications, re-operation, mortality, and functional outcomes were the evaluated outcome parameters. Revman 5.3 was used for data analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies reporting a total number of 3293 patients who underwent straight anastomosis (n = 1581) or J-pouch (n = 1712) were included. Anastomotic leak and re-operation rates were significantly higher in the straight group compared to the J-pouch group [RD 0.03, P = 0.03] and [OR 1.87, P = 0.003], respectively. Stool frequency per 24 h at 6 months and 12 months was lower in the J-pouch group than the straight group [MD 2.13, P = 0.003] and [MD 1.44, P = 0.00001], respectively. In addition, the use of anti-diarrheal medication is lower at 12 months in the J-pouch group [MD 3.85, P = 0.03]. Moreover, the two groups showed comparable results regarding SSI, sepsis, paralytic ileus, anastomotic stricture formation, anastomotic bleeding, and mortality. CONCLUSION: J-pouch anastomosis showed lower risk for anastomotic leak and re-operation. Furthermore, better functional outcomes such as stool frequency were achieved using the colonic J-pouch reconstruction over the conventional straight end-to-end anastomosis.

Efficacy and safety of mesh closure in preventing wound failure following emergency laparotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: To evaluate comparative outcomes of emergency laparotomy closure with and without prophylactic mesh. METHODS: A systematic review was performed via literature databases: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Science Direct, and Google Scholar. Studies were examined for eligibility and included if they compared prophylactic mesh closure to the conventional laparotomy closure following emergency abdominal surgery. Both acute wound failure and incisional hernia (IH) occurence were our primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes included surgical site infection (SSI), seroma/hematoma formation, Clavien-Dindo complications (score ≥ 3), total operative time, and length of hospital stay (LOS). RESULTS: Two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and four comparative studies with a total of 817 patients met the inclusion criteria. Overall acute wound failure and incisional hernia rate was significantly lower in the mesh group compared to non-mesh group (odd ratio (OR) 0.23, p = 0.002) and (OR 0.21, p = 0.00001), respectively. There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding the following outcomes: total operative time (mean difference (MD) 21.44, p = 0.15), SSI (OR 1.47, p = 0.06), seroma/haematoma formation (OR 2.74, p = 0.07), grade ≥ 3 Clavien-Dindo complications (OR 2.39, p = 0.28), and LOS (MD 0.26, p = 0.84). CONCLUSION: The current evidence for the use of prophylactic mesh in emergency laparotomy is diverse and obscure. Although the data trends towards a reduction in the incidence of IH, a reliable conclusion requires further high-quality RCTs to fully assess the efficacy and safety of mesh use in an emergency setting.

Sutures versus clips for skin closure following caesarean section: a systematic review, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomised controlled trials.

PURPOSE: To evaluate comparative outcomes of skin closure with clips and sutures after caesarean section (CS). METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of electronic information sources and bibliographic reference lists. Wound infection, wound separation, haematoma, seroma, re-admission, closure time, length of hospital stay, patient scar assessment scale (PSAS) and the observer scar assessment scale (OSAS) were the evaluated outcome parameters. RESULTS: We identified 16 randomised controlled trials reporting a total of 4926 patients who had skin closure with sutures (n = 2724) or clips (n = 2202) following CS. Use of clips was associated with a significantly higher rate of wound separation (risk ratio (RR): 2.33, P = 0.004) and longer length of hospital stay (mean difference (MD): 1.21, P = 0.03) but shorter closure time (MD: 5.35, P = 0.00001) when compared to sutures group. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the risk of wound infection (RR: 1.12, P = 0.75), haematoma formation (RR: 2.46, P = 0.23), seroma (RR: 1.17, P = 0.73), re-admission rate (RR: 1.28, P = 0.73), PSAS (MD: 0.44, P = 0.73) and OSAS (MD: 0.32, P = 0.55). Trial sequential analysis showed the meta-analysis was conclusive for wound infection, wound separation and closure time; however, it was inconclusive for length of hospital stay, PSAS and OSAS due to risk of type 2 error. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis of best available evidence (level 1) demonstrated that although skin closure with subcuticular sutures is more time-consuming than clips, it is associated with a significantly lower risk of wound separation and shorter length of hospital stay.

Early versus delayed (interval) appendicectomy for the management of appendicular abscess and phlegmon: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The safety and role of emergency (EA) versus interval appendicectomy (IA) for appendicular abscess and phlegmon remains debatable with no optimal strategy identified. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate outcomes of managing appendicular abscesses and phlegmon with emergency or interval appendicectomy. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of electronic databases using key terms including 'appendicular abscess', 'appendicular phlegmon' and 'interval appendicectomy'. Randomised controlled trials and observational studies comparing the two management approaches were included. Operative time, post-operation complication, unplanned bowel resection, rate of surgical site infection, post-operative length of stay and overall mortality rate were evaluated. RESULTS: We identified six studies (2 RCTs and 4 observational studies) with a total of 9264 patients of whom (n = 1352) underwent IA, and (n 7912) underwent EA. The EA group was associated with statistically significant unplanned bowel resection (OR 0.55, 95% CI [0.33-0.90], P = 0.02) and longer total operating time (MD - 14.11, 95% CI [- 18.26-- 9.96] P = 0.00001). However, the following parameters were compared for both EA and IA groups; there were no significant statistical differences: surgical site infection (OR 0.49, 95% CI [0.17-1.38], P = 0.18), post-operative intra-abdominal collection (RD - 0.01, 95% CI [- 0.04-0.01], P = 0.29), total length of hospital stay (MD 1.83, 95% CI [- 0.19-3.85], P = 0.08), post-operative length of hospital stay (MD - 0.27, 95% CI [- 3.66-3.13], P = 0.88) and mortality rate (MD - 0.27, 95% CI [- 3.66-3.13], P = 0.66). CONCLUSION: Emergency operation for appendicular abscess and phlegmon may lead to a higher rate of reported morbidity when compared with interval appendicectomy. Although emergency appendicectomy performed for appendicular abscess and phlegmon is a feasible and safe operative approach, it is associated with significantly increased operative time and unplanned bowel resection (ileocolic and right hemicolectomies) compared to interval appendicectomy.

Incision and drainage of cutaneous abscess with or without cavity packing: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis of randomised controlled trials.

AIMS: To evaluate comparative outcomes of incision and drainage of cutaneous abscess with and without packing of the abscess cavity. METHODS: A systematic search of multiple electronic data sources was conducted, and all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing incision and drainage of cutaneous abscess with and without packing were included. Abscess recurrence at maximum follow-up period, need for second intervention, and development of fistula in-ano were the evaluated outcome parameters for the meta-analysis A Trial Sequential Analysis was conducted to determine the robustness of the findings. RESULTS: Eight RCTs reporting a total number of 485 patients who underwent incision and drainage of cutaneous abscess with (n = 243) or without (n = 242) packing of the abscess cavity were included. There was no significant difference in the risk of recurrence (risk ratio (RR) 1.31, P = 0.56), fistula-in-ano (RR 0.63, P = 0.28), and need for second intervention (RR 0.70, P = 0.05) between two groups. The results remained unchanged on sub-group analyses for ano-rectal abscess, paediatric patients, adult patients, and the use of antibiotics. The Trial Sequential Analysis demonstrated that the meta-analysis was not conclusive, and the results for recurrence were subject to type 2 error. CONCLUSION: Incision and drainage of cutaneous abscess with or without packing have comparable outcomes. However, considering the cost and post-operative pain associated with packing, performing the procedure without packing of the abscess cavity may be more favourable. The findings of the better quality ongoing RCTs may provide stronger evidence in favour of packing or non-packing.

Single-port laparoscopic appendicectomy versus conventional three-port approach for acute appendicitis: A systematic review, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomised controlled trials.

AIMS: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare outcomes of single-port laparoscopic appendicectomy (SPLA) and conventional three-port laparoscopic appendicectomy (CLA) in the management of acute appendicitis. METHODS: A comprehensive systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with subsequent meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of outcomes were conducted. Post-operative pain at 12-h, cosmesis, need for an additional port(s), operative time, port-site hernia, ileus, surgical site infection (SSI), intra-abdominal collection, length of hospital stay (LOS), readmission, and reoperation were the evaluated outcome parameters. RESULTS: Sixteen RCTs with total number of 2017 patients who underwent SPLA (n = 1009) or CLA (n = 1008) were included. SPLA was associated with a significantly higher cosmetic score (MD 1.11, P= 0.03) but significantly longer operative time (MD 7.08, P = 0.00001) compared to CLA. However, the difference was not significant between SPLA and CLA in the post-operative pain score at 12-h (MD -0.13, P = 0.69), need for additional port(s) (RR0.03, P = 0.07), port-site hernia (RD: 0.00, P = 0.68), ileus (RR 0.74, P = 0.51), SSI (RR 1.38, P = 0.28), post-operative intra-abdominal collection (RR 0.00, P = 0.62), LOS (MD -2.41, P = 0.16), readmission to the hospital (RR 0.45, P = 0.22), and return to theatre (RR 0.00, P = 0.49). Trial sequential analysis demonstrated that the meta-analysis is conclusive for most of the outcomes, except LOS and intra-abdominal collection. CONCLUSION: Although SPLA is associated with a slightly longer operative time, its efficacy and safety are comparable to CLA in management of uncomplicated appendicitis. Moreover, it offers improved post-operative cosmesis. The available evidence is conclusive, and further trials may not be required.

Single-port laparoscopic appendicectomy versus conventional three-port approach for acute appendicitis in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: To evaluate comparative outcomes of single-port laparoscopic appendicectomy (SPLA) and conventional three-port laparoscopic appendicectomy (CLA) in the management of acute appendicitis in children. METHODS: A comprehensive systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with subsequent meta-analysis of outcomes were conducted in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement standards. Operative time, surgical site infection, intra-abdominal collection, incisional hernia, length of hospital stay (LOS), additional port/s and conversion to open were the evaluated outcome parameters. RESULTS: Four RCTs reporting a total number of 520 patients who underwent SPLA (n = 260) or CLA (n = 260) were included. There was no difference between SPLA and CLA group in post-operative collection (risk difference (RD) - 0.00, P = 0.94), surgical site infection (RD 0.02, P = 0.25), incisional hernia (RD 0.00 P = 1), LOS (mean difference (MD) 0.73 P = 0.93), need for additional port/s (RD 0.04, P = 0.24) and conversion to open (RD 0.00, P = 1). However, there was a significantly longer operative time in the SPLA group (MD 9.80, P = 0.00001). The certainty of the evidence was judged to be moderate for all outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: SPLA and CLA seem to have comparable efficacy and safety in children with acute appendicitis although the former may be associated with longer procedure time. Future high-quality RCTs with adequate sample sizes are required to provide stronger evidence in favour of an intervention.

Closure of stoma site with or without prophylactic mesh reinforcement: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: To evaluate comparative outcomes of the closure of temporary stoma site with or without prophylactic mesh reinforcement METHODS: A systematic online search was conducted using the following databases: PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane database, The Virtual Health Library, Clinical trials.gov and Science Direct. Studies comparing the reversal of stoma with and without prophylactic mesh reinforcement were included. Stoma site incisional hernia (SSIH), surgical site infection (SSI), operative time, seroma formation, haematoma formation, bowel obstruction, anastomosis leak, length of hospital stay (LOS) and secondary operation to repair the SSIH were the evaluated outcome parameters. RESULTS: Six comparative studies reporting a total of 1683 patients who underwent closure of stoma with (n = 669) or without (n = 1014) prophylactic mesh reinforcement were included. Use of mesh was associated with a significantly lower risk of SSIH (OR 0.22, P = 0.003) and need for surgical intervention to repair SSIH (OR 0.32, P = 0.04) compared with no use of mesh. However, it was associated with significantly longer operative time (MD 47.78, P = 0.02). There was no significant difference in SSI (OR 1.09, P = 0.59), bowel obstruction (OR 1.11, P = 0.74), seroma formation (OR 2.86, P = 0.19), anastomosis leak (OR 1.60, P = 0.15), haematoma formation (OR 1.25, P = 0.75) or LOS (MD - 0.45, P = 0.31) between two groups. CONCLUSION: Prophylactic mesh reinforcement during the closure of temporary stoma may significantly reduce the risk of SSIH and surgical intervention to repair the hernia without increasing the risk of SSI or other morbidities. However, it may increase the procedure time. Future higher-quality randomised evidence is required.

Simultaneous versus staged colorectal and hepatic resections for colorectal cancer with synchronous hepatic metastases: a meta-analysis of outcomes and clinical characteristics.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the comparative outcomes and clinical characteristics of simultaneous and staged colorectal and hepatic resections for colorectal cancer with synchronous hepatic metastases. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of electronic information sources, and bibliographic reference lists. Perioperative morbidity and mortality, anastomotic leak, wound infection, bile leak, bleeding, intra-abdominal abscess, sub-phrenic abscess, reoperation, recurrence, 5-year overall survival, procedure time, and length of hospital stay were the evaluated outcome parameters. Combined overall effect sizes were calculated using random-effects model. RESULTS: We identified 41 comparative studies reporting a total of 12,081 patients who underwent simultaneous (n = 5013) or staged (n = 7068) resections for colorectal cancer with synchronous hepatic metastases. There were significantly lower use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (p = 0.003), higher right-sided colonic resections (p < 0.00001), and minor hepatic resections (p < 0.00001) in the simultaneous group. The simultaneous resection was associated with significantly lower rate of bleeding (OR 0.60, p = 0.03) and shorter length of hospital stay (MD - 5.40, p < 0.00001) compared to the staged resection. However, no significant difference was found in perioperative morbidity (OR1.04, p = 0.63), mortality (RD 0.00, p = 0.19), anastomotic leak (RD 0.01, p = 0.33), bile leak (OR 0.83, p = 0.50), wound infection (OR 1.17, p = 0.19), intra-abdominal abscess (RD 0.01, p = 0.26), sub-phrenic abscess (OR 1.26, p = 0.48), reoperation (OR 1.32, p = 0.18), recurrence (OR 1.33, p = 0.10), 5-year overall survival (OR 0.88, p = 0.19), or procedure time (MD - 23.64, p = 041) between two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Despite demonstrating nearly comparable outcomes, the best available evidence (level 2) regarding simultaneous and staged colorectal and hepatic resections for colorectal cancer with synchronous hepatic metastases is associated with major selection bias. It is time to conduct high-quality randomised studies with respect to burden and laterality of disease. We recommend the staged approach for complex cases.

Haemorrhoidectomy under local anaesthesia versus spinal anaesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: To evaluate comparative outcomes of local anaesthesia (LA) and spinal anaesthesia (SA) in patients undergoing haemorrhoidectomy. METHODS: A systematic online search was conducted using the following databases: PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Database, The Virtual Health Library, Clinical trials.gov , and Science Direct. Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing excisional haemorrhoidectomy under LA and SA were included. Post-operative pain score, need for rescue analgesia, urinary retention, headache, rectal bleeding, and operative time were the evaluated outcome parameters. RESULTS: Seven RCTs reporting a total number of 440 patients of whom 222 patients underwent haemorrhoidectomy under LA and 218 patients had the procedure under SA were included. LA was associated with significantly lower post-operative pain at 6 h (mean difference (MD) - 2.25, P = 0.0001) and at 24 h (MD - 0.87, P = 0.0002), need for a rescue analgesia (risk ratio (RR) 0.18, P = 0.002), urinary retention (RR 0.17, P = 0.0001), and headache (RR 0.09, P = 0.0003) compared with SA. However, there was no significant difference in rectal bleeding (RR 0.89, P = 0.70) and operative time (MD 1.15, P = 0.19) between LA and SA. CONCLUSION: Compared with SA, LA may be associated with significantly lower post-operative pain, need for rescue analgesia, urinary retention, and headache making it an attractive choice of anaesthesia in day-case surgery for those who are not either fit for GA or refuse such anaesthetic modality.

Meta-analysis of temporary loop ileostomy closure during or after adjuvant chemotherapy following rectal cancer resection: the dilemma remains.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate comparative outcomes of temporary loop ileostomy closure during or after adjuvant chemotherapy following rectal cancer resection. METHODS: We systematic searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry, ClinicalTrials.gov , ISRCTN Register and bibliographic reference lists. Overall perioperative complications, anastomotic leak, surgical site infection, ileus and length of hospital stay were the evaluated outcome parameters. Combined overall effect sizes were calculated using fixed effects or random effects models. RESULTS: We identified 4 studies reporting a total of 436 patients comparing outcomes of temporary loop ileostomy closure during (n = 185) or after (n = 251) adjuvant chemotherapy following colorectal cancer resection. There was no significant difference in overall perioperative complications (OR 1.39; 95% CI 0.82-2.36, p = 0.22), anastomotic leak (OR 2.80; 95% CI 0.47-16.56, p = 0.26), surgical site infection (OR 1.97; 95% CI 0.80-4.90, p = 0.14), ileus (OR 1.22; 95% CI 0.50-2.96, p = 0.66) or length of hospital stay (MD 0.02; 95% CI - 0.85-0.89, p = 0.97) between two groups. Between-study heterogeneity was low in all analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The meta-analysis of the best, albeit limited, available evidence suggests that temporary loop ileostomy closure during adjuvant chemotherapy following rectal cancer resection may be associated with comparable outcomes to the closure of ileostomy after adjuvant chemotherapy. We encourage future research to concentrate on the completeness of chemotherapy and quality of life which can determine the appropriateness of either approach.

Engaging with Faith Councils to Develop Stoma-specific Fatawas: A Novel Approach to the Healthcare Needs of Muslim Colorectal Patients.

Intestinal stomas are common. Muslims report significantly lower quality of life following stoma surgery compared to non-Muslims. A fatwa is a ruling on a point of Islamic law according to a recognised religious authority. The use of fatawas to guide health-related decision-making has becoming an increasingly popular practice amongst Muslims, regardless of geographic location. This project aimed to improve the quality of life of Muslim ostomates by addressing faith-specific stoma concerns. Through close collaboration with Muslim ostomates, a series of 10 faith-related questions were generated, which were posed to invited local faith leaders during a stoma educational event. Faith leaders received education concerning the realities of stoma care before generating their fatawas. The event lead to the formulation of a series of stoma-specific fatawas representing Hanafi and Salafi scholarship, providing faith-based guidance for Muslim ostomates and their carers. Enhanced communication between healthcare providers and Islamic faith leaders allows for the delivery of informed fatawas that directly benefit Muslim patients and may represent an efficient method of improving health outcomes in this faith group.

Level 1a Evidence Comparing Use of Antibiotics Versus No Antibiotics in Management of Acute Left-Sided Uncomplicated Diverticulitis.

BACKGROUND: Acute uncomplicated diverticulitis (AUD) is a common cause of acute abdominal pain. Recent guidelines advise selective use of antibiotics in AUD patients. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness of no antibiotics vs antibiotics in AUD patients. METHODS: This review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving AUD patients which compared the use of antibiotics with no antibiotics. Pooled outcome data was calculated using random effects modeling with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: 5 RCTs with 1934 AUD patients were included. 979 patients were managed without antibiotics (50.6%). Patients in the no antibiotic and antibiotic groups had comparable demographics (age, sex, and body mass index) and presenting features (temperature, pain score, and C-reactive protein levels). There was no significant difference in rates of complicated diverticulitis (OR: .61, 95% CI: 0.27-1.36, P = .23), abscess (OR: .51, 95% CI: .08-3.25, P = .47) or fistula (OR: .33, 95% CI: .03-3.15, P = .33) formation, perforation (OR: .98, 95% CI: .32-3.07, P = .98), recurrence (OR: .96, 95% CI: .66-1.41, P = .85), need for surgery (OR: 1.36, 95% CI: .47-3.95, P = .37), mortality (OR: 1.27, 95% CI: .14-11.76, P = .82), or length of stay (MD: .215, 95% CI: -.43-.73, P = .61) between the 2 groups. However, the likelihood of readmission was higher in the antibiotics group (OR: 2.13, 95% CI: 1.43-3.18, P = .0002). CONCLUSION: There is no significant difference in baseline characteristics, clinical presentation, and adverse health outcomes between AUD patients treated without antibiotics compared to with antibiotics.