Comparison of BioLIFT versus LIFT for the treatment of trans-sphincteric anal fistula: a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Identifying the optimal treatment for anal fistula has been challenging. Since first reported in 2007, the ligation of the intersphincteric fistula tract (LIFT) procedure has reported healing rates between 40% and 95% and is being increasingly adopted. The BioLIFT is an augmentation of the LIFT with an intersphincteric bioprosthetic mesh and has reported healing rates between 69% and 94%. Despite increased costs and potential complications associated with mesh, the evidence comparing healing rates between BioLIFT and LIFT is unknown. This study details the protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of BioLIFT and LIFT to compare outcomes associated with each procedure. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database will be searched from inception using a search strategy designed by an information specialist. Randomised controlled trials, prospective and retrospective cohort studies, consecutive series, cross-sectional studies and case series with more than five patients will be included. Both comparative and single group studies will be included. The eligible population will be adult patients undergoing BioLIFT or LIFT for trans-sphincteric anal fistula. The primary outcome will be primary healing rate. Secondary outcomes will capture secondary healing rate and complications. Abstract, full text and data extraction will be completed independently and in duplicate by two reviewers. Study risk of bias will be assessed using Risk of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions and the Risk of Bias (RoB 2.0) tool. Quality of evidence for outcomes will be evaluated using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations criteria. A meta-analysis will be performed using a random-effects inverse variance model. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses will be explored in relation to complex fistula characteristics and patients who have undergone previous LIFT. Heterogeneity will be assessed using the I2 statistic. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This review does not require research ethics board approval. This study will be completed in September 2022. The findings of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed international conferences and journals. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020127996.

Neoadjuvant therapy and anastomotic leak after tumor-specific mesorectal excision for rectal cancer.

PURPOSE: This study was designed to evaluate whether neoadjuvant therapy is a risk factor for anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer surgery. METHODS: A retrospective review of 220 patients who underwent tumor-specific mesorectal excision for rectal cancer from 2000 to 2005 was performed. Risk factors for leak were identified by using a multivariable regression model. RESULTS: A total of 54 patients received neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy and surgery, whereas 166 received surgery alone. No difference in clinically significant leaks was observed between the two groups (5.6 vs. 6.6 percent, P = 1). A diverting ileostomy was performed in 26.4 percent of patients who received neoadjuvant therapy compared with 9.7 percent for surgery alone (P = 0.0021). Neoadjuvant patients were more likely to have ultralow anastomoses (17.6 vs. 2.5 percent, P < 0.0001). On multivariate analysis, smoking (odds ratio, 6.37 (1.8, 22.2), P = 0.004), difficult anastomosis (odds ratio, 7.66 (1.8, 31.5), P = 0.0048), and low level of anastomosis (

The use of endoscopic hemoclips for postoperative anastomotic bleeding.

With the availability of endoscopy and its inherent use as a diagnostic and therapeutic modality, many surgeons and gastroenterologists are able to use this tool to remedy a wide range of gastrointestinal pathologies. The literature is replete with anecdotal endoscopic therapeutic strategies ranging from epinephrine injection, to use of cautery or argon plasma coagulation. This case report highlights the use of endoscopic hemoclips which were successfully applied in the acute postoperative period for a bleeding vessel at a fresh anastomotic site. The article allows for a brief discussion of plausible endoscopic treatment strategies available to the surgeon faced with a similar situation.

Is it feasible to include a technical skill station on a national licensing examination?

The purpose of the current study was to assess the feasibility and validity of including a technical skill station on a national licensing examination. At the 2003 Medical Council of Canada Qualifying Examination, 745 test takers participated in a pilot station assessing the ability to perform a technical procedure. Checklists and rating scales were used for scoring. Validity was investigated by comparing surgery-trained to non-surgery-trained test takers. The mean for the pilot station was 72.4%. The pilot station was moderately correlated to the rest of the examination (item-total correlation .43). The mean score for surgery test takers was higher than for other test takers (P < .001). Inclusion of a technical skill station on a high-stakes examination is feasible, and at many levels, there is evidence of the validity of including this station.