Safety of laparoscopic appendicectomy during pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Acute appendicitis is the most common non-obstetric surgical presentation during pregnancy. There were concerns that laparoscopic appendicectomy increases the risk of foetal loss compared to an open approach. Therefore, with recent advances in perioperative care, it is likely the risk has changed. Here, we performed an updated meta-analysis assessing the safety of laparoscopic appendicectomy in pregnant women. METHODS: A meta-analysis was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A search was undertaken between 2000 and 2017 on Ovid Medline and Embase. The primary outcome measures were foetal loss and preterm delivery, whereas secondary outcome measures were operative time and hospital length of stay. A random-effect model was performed to pool odds ratio (OR) and standardized mean difference (SMD). RESULTS: Seventeen observational studies were included, with 1886 patients in the laparoscopic and 4261 patients in the open group. Comparing laparoscopic versus open appendicectomy, there were 54 (5.96%) and 136 (3.73%) foetal losses, respectively. However, preterm delivery was much higher in the open approach (8.99%) compared to laparoscopic approach (2.84%). Pooled OR for foetal loss was 1.84 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.31-2.58, P < 0.001), whereas OR for preterm delivery was 0.39 (95% CI 0.27-0.55, P < 0.001). There was no significant difference between both approaches for operative time (SMD -0.07; 95% CI -0.43 to 0.30, P = 0.71) or hospital length of stay (SMD -0.34; 95% CI -0.83 to 0.16, P = 0.18). CONCLUSION: In a pooled analysis of level III evidence, laparoscopic appendicectomy posed a higher risk of foetal loss but lower risk of preterm delivery. Caution and informed consent are crucial when offering a laparoscopic approach.

Randomized controlled trial of probiotics after colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Up to 20% of patients have ongoing abdominal symptoms at day 2 and beyond following colonoscopy. It was hypothesized that some of these symptoms are related to alterations in gut microbiota secondary to bowel preparation and would improve with probiotics compared with placebo. METHODS: Patients were given either a probiotic or placebo capsule in the days following colonoscopy. Colonoscopy was performed with air insufflation. The probiotic capsule contained the strains Lactobacillus acidophilus NCFM and Bifidobacterium lactis Bi-07. Patients recorded their symptoms at 1 h, 1, 2, 4, 7 and 14 days post colonoscopy and returned results once their symptoms had resolved. The primary outcomes used were the length of days to resolution of bloating, abdominal pain and altered bowel function post colonoscopy. RESULTS: A total of 320 patients were randomized. After loss to follow-up and withdrawal, 133 patients were analysed in the probiotic group and 126 in the placebo group. Patients having probiotic had a lower number of pain days following colonoscopy, 1.99 versus 2.78 days (P < 0.033). There was no significant difference in bloating or return to normal bowel habit days (P = 0.139 and 0.265 respectively). Subgroup analysis revealed that patients with pre-existing abdominal pain benefited from probiotics in number of pain days, 2.16 versus 4.08 (P = 0.0498). CONCLUSION: Our study has shown a significant reduction in the duration of pain days post colonoscopy in patients taking probiotic compared with placebo. No significant effect was seen in terms of return to normal bowel function or bloating post colonoscopy.

Transanal minimally invasive surgery: an initial experience.

BACKGROUND: Transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) is a novel approach used for the resection of rectal lesions. The purpose of this study was to review our initial experience with TAMIS. METHODS: Between March 2012 and May 2012, we collected clinical data on patients who underwent the TAMIS procedure. This included patient demographics, tumour characteristics, operative technique, histological results and post-operative outcomes. RESULTS: Three patients successfully underwent TAMIS resection of rectal lesions. All tumours were tubulovillous adenomas with high-grade dysplasia, with one also having a small focus of adenocarcinoma. Clear margins were achieved in all cases. One case was complicated by a post-operative bleed, requiring a return to theatre. CONCLUSIONS: TAMIS is a feasible and cost-effective alternative to transanal endoscopic microsurgery for resection of rectal lesions. It may have a shorter learning curve, especially for laparoscopic surgeons already proficient in single-port procedures.