Does transanal drainage tubes placement have an impact on the incidence of anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer surgery? a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Whether Transanal drainage tubes (TDTs) placement reduces the occurrence of anastomotic leakage (AL) after rectal cancer (RC) surgery remains controversial. Most existing meta-analyses rely on retrospective studies, while the prospective studies present an inadequate level of evidence. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies on TDTs placement in RC patients after surgery was conducted. The main analysis index was the incidence of AL, Grade B AL, and Grade C AL, while secondary analysis index was the incidence of anastomotic bleeding, incision infection, and anastomotic stenosis. A comprehensive literature search was performed utilizing the databases Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science. We recorded Risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each included study, and a fixed-effect model or random-effect model was used to investigate the correlation between TDTs placement and four outcomes after RC surgery. RESULTS: Seven studies (1774 participants, TDT 890 vs non-TDT 884) were considered eligible for quantitative synthesis and meta-analysis. The meta-analysis revealed that the incidence of AL was 9.3% (83/890) in the TDT group and 10.2% (90/884) in the non-TDT group. These disparities were found to lack statistical significance (P = 0.58). A comprehensive meta-analysis, comprising four studies involving a cumulative sample size of 1259 participants, revealed no discernible disparity in the occurrence of Grade B AL or Grade C AL between the TDT group and the non-TDT group (Grade B AL: TDT 34/631 vs non-TDT 26/628, P = 0.30; Grade C AL: TDT 11/631 vs non-TDT 27/628, P = 0.30). Similarly, the incidences of anastomotic bleeding (4 studies, 876 participants), incision infection (3studies, 713 participants), and anastomotic stenosis (2studies, 561 participants) were 5.5% (24/440), 8.1% (29/360), and 2.9% (8/280), respectively, in the TDT group, and 3.0% (13/436), 6.5% (23/353), and 3.9% (11/281), respectively, in the non-TDT group. These differences were also determined to lack statistical significance (P = 0.08, P = 0.43, P = 0.48, respectively). CONCLUSION: The placement of TDTs does not significantly affect the occurrence of AL, Grade B AL, and Grade C AL following surgery for rectal cancer. Additionally, TDTs placement does not be associated with increased complications such as anastomotic bleeding, incision infection, or anastomotic stenosis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42023427914.

Association between tea consumption and colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of a population-based study.

PURPOSE: A meta-analysis study was performed to systematically assess the association between tea consumption and CRC risk. METHODS: Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science were retrieved to collect articles in English since 24 July 2023. Databases were searched and evaluated by two reviewers independently.We screened the literature based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. After determining the random effect model or fixed utility model based on a heterogeneity test, odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. RESULTS: We included fourteen articles in this meta-analysis. We analyzed the data using a random effect model to explore the association between tea consumption and CRC because of apparent heterogeneity (P < 0.001, I2 = 99.5%). The combined results of all tests showed that there is no statistically significant association between tea consumption and CRC risk (OR = 0.756, 95%CI = 0.470-1.215, P = 0.247). Subsequently, subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were performed. Excluding any single study, the overall results ranged from 0.73 (95%CI = 0.44-1.20) to 0.86 (95%CI = 0.53-1.40). It was determined that there was no significant publication bias between tea consumption and CRC risk (P = 0.064) by Egger's tests. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicated that tea consumption may not be significantly associated with the development of CRC. IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS: Tea reduces colon cancer risk by 24%, but the estimate is uncertain. The actual effect on risk can range from a reduction of 51% to an increase of 18%, but regional and population differences may cause differences.

Establishment of clinical predictive model based on the study of influence factors in patients with colorectal polyps.

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the most common gastrointestinal malignancy and is generally thought to be caused by the transformation of colorectal polyps. It has been shown that early detection and removal of colorectal polyps may reduce the mortality and morbidity of colorectal cancer. Objective: Based on the risk factors associated with colorectal polyps, an individualized clinical prediction model was built to predict and evaluate the possibility of developing colorectal polyp. Methods: A case-control study was conducted. Clinical data were collected from 475 patients who underwent colonoscopy at the Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University from 2020 to 2021. All clinical data were then divided into training sets and validation sets by using R software (7:3). A multivariate logistic analysis was performed to identify the factors associated with colorectal polyps according to the training set, and a predictive nomogram was created by R software based on the multivariate analysis. The results were internally validated by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, calibration curves, and externally validated by validation sets. Results: Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that age (OR = 1.047, 95% CI = 1.029-1.065), history of cystic polyp (OR = 7.596, 95% CI = 0.976-59.129), and history of colorectal diverticulums (OR = 2.548, 95% CI = 1.209-5.366) were independent risk factors for colorectal polyps. History of constipation (OR = 0.457, 95% CI = 0.268-0.799) and fruit consumption (OR = 0.613, 95% CI 0.350-1.037) were protective factors for colorectal polyps. The nomogram demonstrated good accuracy for predicting colorectal polyps, with both C index and AUC being 0.747 (95% CI = 0.692-0.801). The calibration curves showed good agreement between the predicted risk by the nomogram and real outcomes. Both internal and external validation of the model showed good results. Conclusion: In our study, the nomogram prediction model is reliable and accurate, which can help early clinical screening of patients with high-risk colorectal polyps, improve polyp detection rate, and reduce the incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC).