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.

Pancreaticoduodenectomy in Patients With Coeliac or Superior Mesenteric Artery Stenosis: A Review of the Literature.

Pancreaticoduodenectomy (Whipple's procedure) is a technically demanding operation performed for malignant and premalignant conditions of the pancreatic head, duodenum and bile duct. Awareness of the vascular anatomy, variations, and pathology of this area is essential to achieve safe surgery and good outcomes. The operation involves division of the gastroduodenal artery (GDA) which provides communication between the foregut and midgut blood supply. In patients with coeliac or superior mesenteric artery (SMA) stenosis, this can lead to reduced blood supply to the foregut or midgut organs, with consequent severe ischaemic complications leading to significant morbidity and mortality. Coeliac artery stenosis is caused by median arcuate ligament syndrome (MALS) in the majority of patients with atherosclerosis being the second most common cause. SMA stenosis is much less common and is caused in the majority of cases by atherosclerosis. A review of preoperative imaging and intraoperative gastroduodenal artery clamp test is important to identify cases that may need additional procedures to preserve the blood supply. In this paper, we present a literature review for studies reporting patients undergoing Whipple's operation with concomitant coeliac axis stenosis (CAS) or SMA stenosis. Analysis of causes of stenosis or occlusion, prevalence, risk factors, different management strategies and outcomes was conducted.

Comparison of Omental Patch Closure Versus Simple Closure for Laparoscopic Repair of Perforated Peptic Ulcer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

AIMS: To evaluate comparative outcomes of laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer with omental patch versus without omental patch. METHODS: A systematic search of multiple electronic data sources was conducted, and all studies comparing laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) with and without omental patch were included. Operative time, postoperative complications, re-operation and mortality were the evaluated outcome parameters for the meta-analysis. Revman 5.3 was used for data analysis. RESULTS: Four observational studies reporting a total number of 438 patients who underwent laparoscopic repair of PPU with (n = 268) or without (n = 170) omental patch were included. Operative time was significantly shorter in no-omental patch group (NOP) when compared to omental patch group (P = .02). There was no significant difference in the risk of postoperative ileus (Odd ratio (OR) .76, P = .61), leakage (OR 1.17, P = .80), wound infection (OR 1.89, P = .34), intra-abdominal abscess (OR 1.17, P = .87), re-operation (OR .00, P = .94) and mortality (OR .55, P = .48). Moreover, length of hospital stay was comparable between the two groups (P = .81). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic repair of PPU with or without omental patch have comparable postoperative complications and mortality rate. However, considering the shorter operative time, no-omental patch approach is an attractive and more favourable choice. Well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed to investigate this comparison.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Bag Extraction Versus Direct Extraction for Retrieval of Gallbladder After Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.

This analysis aims to evaluate the comparative outcomes of gallbladder extraction with a bag versus direct extraction in laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). A systematic online search was conducted using the following databases: PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane database, The Virtual Health Library, Clinical trials.gov, and Science Direct. Comparative studies comparing bag versus direct extraction of the gallbladder in LC were included. Outcomes were surgical site infection (SSI), the extension of fascial defect to extract the gallbladder, intra-abdominal collection, bile spillage, and port-site hernia. Revman 5.4 (Cochrane, London, United Kingdom) was used for the data analysis. The results show eight studies were eligible to be included in this review with a total number of 1805 patients divided between endo-bag (n=835) and direct extraction (n=970). Four of the included studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) while the rest were observational studies. The rate of SSI and bile spillage were significantly higher in the direct extraction group: odds ratio (OR)=2.50, p=0.006 and OR=2.83, p=0.01, respectively. Comparable results were observed regarding intra-abdominal collection between the two groups(OR=0.01, p=0.51). However, the extension of a fascial defect was higher in the endo-bag group (OR=0.22, p=0.00001), and no difference was observed regarding the port-site hernia rate (OR-0.70, p=0.55). In conclusion, extraction of the gallbladder with an endo-bag provides a lower rate of SSI and bile spillage with similar results regarding post-operative intra-abdominal collection. Although with the endo-bag, the fascial defect will more likely need to be increased to extract the gallbladder. However, the port-site hernia rate remains similar between the two groups.

Delayed Adult Gastric Perforation Following Insertion of a Feeding Nasogastric Tube.

Although complications of a nasogastric tube (NGT) are identified and managed in daily clinical practice, gastric perforation following NGT insertion is a serious and rarely reported condition in adults. We present a case of a 71-year-old male who was brought to the hospital after having a cardiac arrest. Following stabilisation and receiving an emergency percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), he was admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), where he required NGT for feeding purposes. A few days later, abdominal distension was noted, and chest imaging was requested mainly for worsening respiratory parameters. A computed tomography (CT) scan confirmed gastric perforation and a misplaced NGT. Being a high-risk patient and in the absence of peritonism and frank sepsis, conservative management was adopted and included proton pump inhibitors (PPI), total parenteral nutrition (TPN), stomach aspiration via a Ryle tube and consideration of imaging-guided drainage. No risk factor for gastric perforation was identified in this presented case. The stable course of follow-up suggested sealed perforation; however, he died due to an extensive intracardiac thrombus. Though this incidence did not contribute directly to the patient's death, it definitely added to the overall morbidity and negatively influenced the management of the other medical conditions. For complement, we also report a review of the ten similar cases in the literature, highlighting the associated risk factors, relevant clinical challenges, lines of management executed. The main aim of this case report is to enhance doctors' awareness of this serious complication, especially in patients with risk factors, and its diagnostic dilemmas. Early recognition and prompt intervention are recommended for a better outcome.

Laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy for malignant liver tumours in the elderly: systematic review and meta-analysis.

To evaluate comparative outcomes of laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy for malignant liver tumours in elderly patients. A systematic online search was conducted using the following databases: PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane database, The Virtual Health Library, Clinical trials.gov, and Science Direct. Comparative studies comparing laparoscopic (LH) versus open hepatectomy (OH) for both primary and metastatic malignant liver tumours in the elderly were included. Total operative time (minutes), need to perform Pringle's manoeuvre, blood loss (ml), the requirement for blood transfusion intra-operatively/post-operatively, post-operative complications, r0 resection rate, specimen resection margin (mm), re-operation rate, length of hospital stay (LOS), and 90-day mortality were the evaluated outcome parameters. Twelve studies reporting a total number of 1762 patients who underwent laparoscopic (n = 831) or open (n = 931) hepatectomy were included. OH group was associated with a significantly higher overall number of post-operative complications compared to LH (P = 0.00001). Complications such as post-operative liver failure (P = 0.02), ascites formation (P = 0.002), surgical site infection (P = 0.02), blood loss (P = 0.03), blood transfusion rate (P = 0.05), and LOS (P = 0.00001) were significantly higher in the OH group when compared to LH. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of total operative time (P = 0.53), bile leak (P = 0.12), r0 resection rate (P = 0.36), re-operation (P = 0.70), and 90-day mortality (P = 0.11). Laparoscopic liver resections are safe with at least equal or superior peri-operative outcomes in the elderly population, although available data regards mainly the results of minor resections. Laparoscopic major resections in the elderly population should be carefully evaluated and preferably performed in expert centres.

Do we need to routinely perform cavity shaving with breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: To evaluate comparative outcomes of breast-conserving surgery (BCS) of breast cancer with and without cavity shaving. METHODS: A systematic search of multiple electronic data sources was conducted, and all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing BCS with or without cavity shaving for breast cancer were included. Positive margin rate, second operation rate, operative time, post-operative haematoma, cosmetic appearance and budget cost were the evaluated outcome parameters for the meta-analysis. RESULTS: Six RCTs reporting a total number of 971 patients; 495 of these underwent BCS plus shaving (BCS + S), and 473 underwent BCS alone were included. BCS + S showed significantly lower positive margin rate (Risk Ratio [RR] 0.40, P = 0.00001) and second operation rate (RR 0.38, P = 0.00001). BCS + S demonstrated longer operative time than BCS (79 ± 4 min vs 67 ± 3 min, Mean Difference 12.14, P = 0.002), and there was no significant difference in the risk of post-operative haematoma (RR 0.33, P = 0.20). CONCLUSION: BCS + S is superior to BCS in terms of positive margins rate and second operation rate. Operative time is longer when cavity shaving is performed.