Laparoscopic hernia repair in children: does recreating the open operation improve outcomes? A systematic review.

PURPOSE: The use of laparoscopy for paediatric inguinal hernia repairs has increased significantly over the past 2 decades. However, there is significant variation in the reported recurrence rates in the literature, with many studies reporting higher rates than the open operation. This may be explained by the range of different techniques currently included under the term laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. The purpose of this study is to determine whether dividing the hernia sac before ligation improves surgical outcomes following a paediatric laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair compared to ligation alone. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed following PRISMA guidelines of all studies reporting the outcomes following paediatric laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair where the technique was recorded as laparoscopic suture ligation alone (LS) or laparoscopic sac division and suture ligation (LSDS). Studies were assessed for risk of bias and exclusion criteria included reported follow-up of less than 6 months. RESULTS: A total of 8518 LS repairs and 6272 LSDS repairs were included in the final analysis. LSDS repair was associated with a significantly lower recurrence rate (odds ratio 0.51, 95% CI 0.36-0.71, p = 0.001). There was no significant difference in the rates of testicular ascent or atrophy. CONCLUSION: Recreating the open operation by hernia sac division followed by suture ligation significantly reduces the risk of hernia recurrence.

Laparoscopic inguinal herniotomy: Recreating the open operation optimises outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Recent evidence suggests simple laparoscopic inguinal herniorrhaphy is associated with higher rates of recurrence and testicular ascent. We instigated a standardised approach to laparoscopic inguinal herniotomy (LIH), with circumferential sac division and 'purse-string' closure (4/0 monofilament polypropylene). An active follow-up programme was pursued. We reviewed our outcomes of this technique and compared them to an open herniotomy (OIH) cohort. METHODS: LIH patients were identified prospectively (2017-2021): OIH retrospectively from 2016. Risk factors for complications were defined: extremely to very preterm (< 32 weeks), emergency presentation with incarceration, and redo surgery for recurrence. Data are presented as median [IQR]. Comparisons used Fisher's exact and Mann-Whitney U tests: significance defined as p < 0.05. RESULTS: 192 inguinal herniae in 140 patients were included in the LIH group and 214 herniae in 179 patients in the OIH group. Groups were similar in age and gender. The LIH group had a significantly larger proportion of cases that were premature, had emergency surgery, or had redo surgery after previous OIH. Follow-up was 24.4 months [10.8-33.6] vs. 66.4 [64.5-68.5] (LIH vs. OIH). Hernia recurrence occurred in 2/192 (1.0%) vs. 4/214 (1.9%) (LIH vs. OIH), p = 0.69. There was one known case of testicular ascent after OIH but none in the LIH group. CONCLUSIONS: Recreation of the open herniotomy laparoscopically appears to confer excellent outcomes, with low rates of recurrence despite a high proportion of patients having known risk factors. Further long-term data on rates of testicular ascent after active follow-up are required.

Better assessment of nodal metastases by PET/CT fusion compared to side-by-side PET/CT in oesophageal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Recently, positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) has been introduced in the staging of oesophageal cancer. The impact of PET/CT fusion in comparison with side-by-side PET/CT in these tumours, was analyzed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In 61 patients, 18-F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-PET and multidetector (md)-CT were performed within a two week interval. Software-fusion of md-CT and FDG-PET was correlated with side-by-side FDG-PET/CT reading by two independent investigators. The gold standard was the pathological outcome or clinical evidence of progression during the first year of follow-up. RESULTS: In 18 patients (18/61; 30%), nodal staging improved with software-fusion. The number of nodal metastases increased in five patients and decreased in four patients, leading to up-staging in one patient (2%) and down-staging in three patients (5%). In nine cases (15%), certainty and localization of metastases improved. However, the number of distant metastases did not change and software-fusion did not have an influence on resectability. CONCLUSION: PET/CT fusion substantially improves detection and localization of nodal metastases and may have an impact on locoregional treatment options.

Current relevance of cervical ultrasonography in staging cancer of the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the value of external ultrasonography (US) of the neck in current dedicated preoperative staging of patients with cancer of the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed 180 consecutive patients (154 men, 26 women, and mean age 63 (38-84) years) without palpable cervical lymphadenopathy, treated between January 2001 and March 2006. Suspicious lesions were confirmed by cytological examination. All first 125 consecutive patients (group A) were staged by standard endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), multidetector computed tomography (md-CT), positron emission tomography with (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG-PET) and external US. The other 55 patients (group B) were prospectively staged according to a revised protocol consisting of routine EUS and md-CT, while PET was only performed in subjects with T3-T4 and/or N1 disease and external US solely on indication. RESULTS: Cervical metastases were found in seven patients from group A (6%) and in five from group B (9%). Twenty percent (4/20) of the tumors above the carina and 5% (8/160) of the distal tumors presented with cervical metastases. All were diagnosed as T3 and T4 tumors on EUS. Eleven of these metastases were detected by external US and nine on md-CT. All nodal metastases were detected by the combination of PET and md-CT. No cervical metastases were missed by the diagnostic algorithm in group B. CONCLUSION: In present staging procedures for esophageal cancer, routine external US seems to have no additional value in detecting cervical metastases. It is still indicated to obtain cytological proof of suspected cervical lesions.

Better survival in patients with esophageal cancer after surgical treatment in university hospitals: a plea for performance by surgical oncologists.

BACKGROUND: In primary esophageal cancer, studies have frequently focused on surgical patients in an effort to link outcome to hospital- or surgeon-related experience, with operative mortality used as the main outcome measure. Many studies have found an inverse relationship between operative mortality and hospital volume and surgical expertise. This study aims to assess the influence of surgeon-related expertise and hospital volume on the relative survival of operated esophageal cancer patients. METHODS: From January 1994 to January 2002, a total of 1149 consecutive patients with primary esophageal cancer were diagnosed in the region of the Comprehensive Cancer Center North-Netherlands. As a proxy for surgeon-related expertise, hospitals in this region were categorized into three types: university, teaching nonuniversity, and nonteaching hospitals. The influence of hospital type on the relative survival of operated patients was studied by a multivariate Poisson regression model. RESULTS: Of the 1149 patients, 18.5% underwent surgery. There was no evidence of selective referral for surgery between the three hospital types with regard to age, tumor stage, and location. For operated patients, the 5-year relative survival was 49.2% for the university hospital versus 32.6% and 27.3% for teaching nonuniversity and nonteaching hospitals, respectively (P = .0039). When adjusted for age, tumor stage, hospital volume and referral frequency, the relative excess risk of death for the university hospital was considerably lower at .57 (95% confidence interval, .29-1.12) compared with nonteaching hospitals and .43 (95% confidence interval, .24-.76) compared with teaching nonuniversity hospitals (P = .0126). CONCLUSIONS: In our region, patients with esophageal cancer who underwent esophagectomy in the university hospital had a markedly better relative survival compared with those who underwent surgery at teaching nonuniversity and nonteaching hospitals, emphasizing the need for referral of esophageal surgery to centers with a greater experience.