Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with lateral lymph node dissection for advanced rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Lateral pelvic node dissection (LPND) poses significant technical challenges. Despite the advent of robotic surgery, determining the optimal minimally invasive approach remains a topic of debate. This study aimed to compare postoperative outcomes between robotic total mesorectal excision with LPND (R-LPND) and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with LPND (L-LPND). METHODS: This meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) 2020 and AMSTAR 2 (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews) guidelines. Utilizing the RevMan 5.3.5 statistical package from the Cochrane Collaboration, a random-effects model was employed. RESULTS: Six eligible studies involving 652 patients (316 and 336 in the R-LPND and L-LPND groups, respectively) were retrieved. The robotic approach demonstrated favourable outcomes compared with the laparoscopic approach, manifesting in lower morbidity rates, reduced urinary complications, shorter hospital stays, and a higher number of harvested lateral pelvic lymph nodes. However, longer operative time was associated with the robotic approach. No significant differences were observed between the two groups regarding major complications, anastomotic leak, intra-abdominal infection, neurological complications, LPND time, overall recurrence, and local recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, the robotic approach is a safe and feasible alternative for Total Mesorectal Excision (TME) with LPND in advanced rectal cancer. Notably, it is associated with lower morbidity, particularly a reduction in urinary complications, a shorter hospital stay and increased number of harvested lateral pelvic nodes. The trade-off for these benefits is a longer operative time.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of hernia sac management in laparoscopic groin hernia mesh repair: reduction or transection?

BACKGROUND: There is no consensus regarding hernia sac management during laparoscopic hernia repair, and this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the postoperative outcomes of sac reduction (RS) and sac transection (TS) during laparoscopic mesh hernia repair. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) 2020 and AMSTAR 2 (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews) guidelines. We used the RevMan 5.4 statistical package from the Cochrane collaboration for meta-analysis. A random effects model was used. RESULTS: The literature search yielded six eligible studies including 2941 patients: 821 patients in the TS group and 2120 patients in the RS group. In the pooled analysis, the TS group was associated with a lower incidence of seroma (OR = 1.71; 95% CI [1.22, 2.39], p = 0.002) and shorter hospital stay (MD = -0.07; 95% CI [-0.12, -0.02], p = 0.008). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of morbidity (OR = 0.87; 95% CI [0.34, 2.19], p = 0.76), operative time (MD = -4.39; 95% CI [-13.62, 4.84], p = 0.35), recurrence (OR = 2.70; 95% CI [0.50, 14.50], p = 0.25), and Postoperative pain. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis showed that hernia sac transection is associated with a lower seroma rate and shorter hospital stay with similar morbidity, operative time, recurrence, and postoperative pain compared to the reduction of the hernia sac. PROTOCOL: The protocol was registered in PROSPERO with ID CRD42023391730.

Banded versus non-banded sleeve gastrectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic banded sleeve gastrectomy (LBSG) has been compared to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) in terms of anthropometric results and postoperative complications, which are controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of LBSG and LSG. METHODS: We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis according to preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis 2020 and assessing the methodological quality of systematic review 2 guidelines. We included studies that systematically searched electronic databases and compared LBSG with LSG conducted until August 10, 2021. RESULTS: The literature search yielded 8 comparative studies. Seven hundred forty-three patients were included: 352 in the LBSG group and 391 in the LSG group. LBSG group allowed greater anthropometric parameters (body mass index [BMI] after 1 year (mean difference [MD] = -3.18; 95% CI [-5.45, -0.92], P = .006), %EWL after 1 year (MD = 8.02; 95% CI [1.22, 14.81], P = .02), and %EWL after 3 years (MD = 10.60; 95% CI [5.60, 15.69], P < .001) and similar results with LSG group in terms of operative time (MD = 1.23; 95% CI [-4.71, 7.17], P = .69), food intolerance (OR = 1.72; 95% CI [0.84, 3.49], P = .14), postoperative vomiting (OR = 2.10; 95% CI [0.69, 6.35], P = .19), and De novo GERD (OR = 0.65; 95% CI [0.34, 1.26], P = .2). Nevertheless, major postoperative complications did not differ between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis comparing LBSG and LSG concluded that banding sleeve gastrectomy (SG) may ensure a lower BMI and %EWL after 1 year of follow-up, and a significant reduction in %EWL after 3 years of follow-up. There is no evidence to support LBSG in vomiting, de novo GERD, food intolerance, or operative time.

Robotic versus open total pancreatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Limited data are available on postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing robotic total pancreatectomy (RTP). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the postoperative outcomes of RTP and open total pancreatectomy (OTP). We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis according to the PRISMA 2020 and AMSTAR 2 guidelines. We included studies conducted through August 10, 2022, that systematically searched electronic databases and compared RTP with OTP. We retained four controlled clinical trials in the literature search, including 156 patients: 65 in the RTP group and 91 in the OTP group. There was no difference between the RTP group and OTP group in terms of mortality, severe complications, morbidity, bleeding, biliary leak, delayed gastric emptying, reoperation, operative time, length of stay, harvested lymph nodes, and positive resection margin. The RTP reduces the delay of the first liquid diet, first oral diet, and out of bed. RTP is feasible and safe in selected patients. Robotic surgery allows for a quicker recovery. In cases of major vessel invasion, conversion to laparotomy should be preoperatively considered.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of liver venous deprivation versus portal vein embolization before hepatectomy: future liver volume, postoperative outcomes, and oncological safety.

Introduction: This systematic review aimed to compare liver venous deprivation (LVD) with portal vein embolization (PVE) in terms of future liver volume, postoperative outcomes, and oncological safety before major hepatectomy. Methods: We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis following the PRISMA guidelines 2020 and AMSTAR 2 guidelines. Comparative articles published before November 2022 were retained. Results: The literature search identified nine eligible comparative studies. They included 557 patients, 207 in the LVD group and 350 in the PVE group. This systematic review and meta-analysis concluded that LVD was associated with higher future liver remnant (FLR) volume after embolization, percentage of FLR hypertrophy, lower failure of resection due to low FLR, faster kinetic growth, higher day 5 prothrombin time, and higher 3 years' disease-free survival. This study did not find any difference between the LVD and PVE groups in terms of complications related to embolization, FLR percentage of hypertrophy after embolization, failure of resection, 3-month mortality, overall morbidity, major complications, operative time, blood loss, bile leak, ascites, post hepatectomy liver failure, day 5 bilirubin level, hospital stay, and three years' overall survival. Conclusion: LVD is as feasible and safe as PVE with encouraging results making some selected patients more suitable for surgery, even with a small FLR. Systematic review registration: The review protocol was registered in PROSPERO before conducting the study (CRD42021287628).

C-reactive Protein Is the Best Biomarker to Predict Advanced Acute Cholecystitis and Conversion to Open Surgery. A Prospective Cohort Study of 556 Cases.

BACKGROUND: White blood cell levels (WBC) is the only biologic determinant criterion of the severity assessment of acute cholecystitis (AC) in the revised Tokyo Guidelines 2018 (TG18). The aims of this study were to evaluate the discriminative powers of common inflammatory markers (neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), and C-reactive protein (CRP)) compared with WBC for the severity of AC, and the risk for conversion to open surgery and to determine their diagnostic cutoff levels. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study. Over 3 years, 556 patients underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy for AC. Patients were classified into two groups: 139 cases of advanced acute cholecystitis (AAC) (gangrenous cholecystitis, pericholecystic abscess, hepatic abscess, biliary peritonitis, emphysematous cholecystitis), and 417 cases of non-advanced acute cholecystitis (NAAC). Multiple logistic regression and receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis were employed to explore which variables (WBC, CRP, and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR)) were statistically significant in predicting AAC and conversion to open surgery. RESULTS: On multivariable logistic regression analysis, male gender (OR = 0.4; p = 0.05), diabetes mellitus (OR = 7.8; p = 0.005), 3-4 ASA score (OR = 5.34; p = 0.037), body temperature (OR = 2.65; p = 0.014), and CRP (OR = 1.01; p = 0.0001) were associated independently with AAC. The value of the area under the curve (AUC) of the CRP (0.75) was higher than that of WBC (0.67) and NLR (0.62) for diagnosing AAC. CRP was the only predictive factor of conversion in multivariate analysis (OR = 1.008 [1.003-1.013]. Comparing areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves, it was the CRP that had the highest discriminative power in terms of conversion. CONCLUSION: CRP is the best inflammatory marker predictive of AAC and of conversion to open surgery. We think that our results would support a multicenter-international study to confirm the findings, and if supported, CRP should be considered as a severity criterion of acute cholecystitis in the next revised version of the Guidelines of Tokyo.