Indocyanine green fluorescence angiography versus standard intraoperative methods for prevention of anastomotic leak in colorectal surgery: meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of anastomotic blood perfusion with intraoperative indocyanine green fluorescence angiography (ICG-FA) may be effective in preventing anastomotic leak compared with standard intraoperative methods in colorectal surgery. METHODS: MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Cochrane Library were searched for RCTs and observational studies on intraoperative ICG-FA to May 2020. Odds ratios (ORs), risk differences and mean differences (MDs) were calculated with 95 per cent c.i. based on intention-to-treat analysis. The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome was also estimated. RESULTS: Twenty-five comparative studies included a total of 7735 patients. The use of intraoperative ICG fluorescence angiography was linked with a significant reduction in all grades anastomotic leak (OR 0.39 (95 per cent c.i. 0.31 to 0.49), P < 0.001; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 23) and length of hospital stay (MD -0.72 (95 per cent c.i. -1.22 to -0.21) days, P = 0.006). A significantly lower incidence of grade A (OR 0.33 (0.18 to 0.60), P < 0.001), grade B (OR 0.58 (0.35 to 0.97), P = 0.04) and grade C (OR 0.59 (0.38 to 0.92), P = 0.02) anastomotic leak was demonstrated in favour of ICG-FA. For low or ultra-low rectal resection, the odds of developing anastomotic leakage was 0.32 (0.23 to 0.45) (P < 0.001; NNTB 14). There were no differences in duration of surgery, and no adverse events related to ICG fluorescent injection. CONCLUSION: The use of ICG-FA instead of standard intraoperative methods to assess anastomosis blood perfusion in colorectal surgery leads to a significant reduction in anastomotic leakage and in the need for surgical reintervention for anastomotic leak, especially in patients with low or ultra-low rectal resections.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

BACKGROUND: Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) may offer advantages over conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized clinical trials on SILC versus LC until May 2012. Odds ratio (OR) and weight mean difference (WMD) were calculated with 95 per cent confidence intervals (c.i.) based on intention-to-treat analysis. RESULTS: Thirteen randomized clinical trials included a total of 923 procedures. SILC had a higher procedure failure rate than LC (OR 8·16, 95 per cent c.i. 3·42 to 19·45; P < 0·001), required a longer operating time (WMD 16·55, 95 per cent c.i. 9·95 to 23·15 min; P < 0·001) and was associated with greater intraoperative blood loss (WMD 1·58, 95% of c.i. 0·44 to 2·71 ml; P = 0·007). There were no differences between the two approaches in rate of conversion to open surgery, length of hospital stay, postoperative pain, adverse events, wound infections or port-site hernias. Better cosmetic outcomes were demonstrated in favour of SILC as measured by Body Image Scale questionnaire (WMD -0·97, 95% of c.i. -1·51 to -0·43; P < 0·001) and Cosmesis score (WMD -2·46, 95% of c.i. -2·95 to -1·97; P < 0·001), but this was based on comparison with procedures in which multiple and often large ports (10 mm) were used. CONCLUSION: SILC has a higher procedure failure rate with more blood loss and takes longer than LC. No trial was adequately powered to assess safety.

Is inferior mesenteric artery ligation during sigmoid colectomy for diverticular disease associated with increased anastomotic leakage? A meta-analysis of randomized and non-randomized clinical trials.

AIM: A meta-analysis was conducted to compare preservation with ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) during sigmoidectomy for diverticular disease. METHOD: Randomized and non-randomized clinical trials were identified using the following electronic databases: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, BioMed Central, Science Citation Index, Greynet, SIGLE, National Technological Information Service, British Library Integrated Catalogue. The analysed end-points were the anastomotic leakage rate, overall morbidity and 30-day postoperative mortality. RESULTS: Four studies were included involving 400 patients. The anastomotic leakage rate was 7.3% in the preservation group and 11.3% in the ligation group. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.11-4.76; P=0.73). Overall morbidity and 30-day postoperative mortality were not compared since these data were reported in only one study. CONCLUSION: The meta-analysis did not show any advantage for preservation of the IMA during sigmoid colectomy for diverticular disease in terms of anastomotic leakage.

Is laparoscopic right colectomy more effective than open resection? A meta-analysis of randomized and nonrandomized studies.

AIM: The aim of this systematic review was to compare laparoscopic and/or laparoscopic-assisted right colectomy (LRC) with open right colectomy (ORC). Many randomized clinical trial have shown that laparoscopic colectomy benefits patients with improved short-term outcomes and comparable overall survival in respect to the open approach. These results, however, could not be applied to right colectomy owing to its wide range of resection and more complicated vascular regional anatomy. METHOD: We performed a meta-analysis of the literature in order to compare LRC vs ORC by examining 21 end-points including operative and recovery outcomes, early postoperative mortality and morbidity, and oncological parameters. A subgroup analysis of patients undergoing right colectomy for cancer was carried out. The meta-analysis was conducted following all aspects of the Cochrane Handbook for systematic reviews and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Metanalysis (PRISMA) statement. The search strategies were developed using the following electronic databases: PubMed, EMBASE, OVID, Medline, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EBM reviews and CINAHL until March 2011. We included randomized and non randomized studies that compared the LRC vs ORC for benign disease and malignant neoplasm irrespective of publication status. Only studies in English, French, German, Spanish and Italian languages were considered for inclusion. Emergency right colectomies were excluded. To perform the statistical analysis we used the odds ratio (OR) for categorical variables and the weighted mean difference (WMD) for continuous variables. An intention-to-treat analysis was performed. RESULTS: Seventeen studies, 15 nonrandomized clinical trials and two randomized clinical trials, involving a total of 1489 patients, were identified. The mean operative time was longer in the group of patients undergoing LRC [weighted mean difference (WMD) = 37.94, 95% CI: 25.01 to 50.88; P < 0.00001]. Intra-operative blood loss (WMD = -96.61; 95% CI: -150.68 to -42.54; P = 0.0005), length of hospital stay (WMD = -2.29; 95% CI: -3.96 to -0.63; P = 0.007) and short-term postoperative morbidity (OR = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.49 to 0.83; P = 0.0009) were significantly in favour of LRC. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic-assisted right colectomy results in less blood loss, a shorter length of hospital stay and lower postoperative short-term morbidity compared with ORC.

Laparoscopic vs open resection for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

AIM: Laparoscopic and open rectal resection for cancer were compared by analysing a total of 26 end points which included intraoperative and postoperative recovery, short-term morbidity and mortality, late morbidity and long-term oncological outcomes. METHOD: We searched for published randomized clinical trials, presenting a comparison between laparoscopic and open rectal resection for cancer using the following electronic databases: PubMed, OVID, Medline, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EBM Reviews, CINAHL and EMBASE. RESULTS: Nine randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were included in the meta-analysis incorporating a total of 1544 patients, having laparoscopic (N = 841) and open rectal resection (N = 703) for cancer. Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer was associated with a statistically significant reduction in intraoperative blood loss and in the number of blood transfusions, earlier resuming solid diet, return of bowel function and a shorter duration of hospital stay. We also found a significant advantage for laparoscopy in the reduction of post-operative abdominal bleeding, late intestinal adhesion obstruction and late morbidity. No differences were found in terms of intra-operative and late oncological outcomes. CONCLUSION: The meta-analysis indicates that laparoscopy benefits patients with shorter hospital stay, earlier return of bowel function, reduced blood loss and number of blood transfusions and lower rates of abdominal postoperative bleeding, late intestinal adhesion obstruction and other late morbidities.

Elective sigmoid colectomy for diverticular disease. Laparoscopic vs open surgery: a systematic review.

AIM: A meta-analysis of nonrandomized studies and one randomized trial was conducted to compare laparoscopic surgery with open surgery in the elective treatment of patients with diverticular disease. METHOD: Published randomized and controlled clinical trials that directly compared elective open (OSR) with laparoscopic surgical resection (LSR) in patients with diverticular disease were identified using the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE. End-points included 30-day mortality and morbidity and were compared by determining the relative risk ratio, odds ratio, and the absolute effects. RESULTS: Eleven nonrandomized studies of 1430 patients were identified and included in the meta-analysis. There was only one randomized study, which included 104 patients. The meta-analysis suggested that elective LSR was a safe and appropriate option for patients with diverticular disease and was associated with lower overall morbidity (P = 0.01) and minor complication rate (P = 0.008). CONCLUSION: The results of the nonrandomized study generally agreed with those of the randomized study, except for the incidence of minor complications, which was higher in both the LSR and OSR groups of the randomized study. In this study, the high overall morbidity of 42.3% reported in the LSR group is a cause for concern.

Rectal washout and local recurrence in rectal resection for cancer: a meta-analysis.

AIM: The effectiveness of rectal washout was compared with no washout for the prevention of local recurrence after anterior rectal resection for rectal cancer. METHOD: The following electronic databases were searched: PubMed, OVID Medline, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EBM Reviews, CINAHL and EMBASE. RESULTS: Five nonrandomized studies including a total of 5012 patients were identified. Meta-analysis suggested that rectal washout significantly reduced the local recurrence rate (P < 0.0001; OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.43-0.74). It was also significantly lower after washout in patients having radical resection only (P = 0.0004; OR 0.54; 95% CI 0.39-0.76), patients treated by a curative resection (P < 0.0001; OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.42-0.72) and those undergoing preoperative radiotherapy (P = 0.04; OR 0.62; 95% CI 0.39-0.98). CONCLUSION: Taking into account the limitations of the design of the included studies the meta-analysis showed that rectal washout is associated with reduced local recurrence and therefore should be routine during anterior resection for rectal cancer.

Robotic resection compared with laparoscopic rectal resection for cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of short-term outcome.

AIM: The study aimed to compare robotic rectal resection with laparoscopic rectal resection for cancer. Robotic surgery has been used successfully in many branches of surgery but there is little evidence in the literature on its use in rectal cancer. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of the available literature in order to evaluate the feasibility, safety and effectiveness of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. We compared robotic and laparoscopic surgery with respect to twelve end-points including operative and recovery outcomes, early postoperative mortality and morbidity, and oncological parameters. A subgroup analysis of patients undergoing full-robotic or robot-assisted rectal resection and robotic total mesorectal excision was carried out. All aspects of Cochrane Handbook for systematic reviews and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Metanalysis (PRISMA) statement were followed to conduct this systematic review. Comprehensive electronic search strategies were developed using the following electronic databases: PubMed, EMBASE, OVID, Medline, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EBM reviews and CINAHL. Randomized and nonrandomized clinical trials comparing robotic and laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer were included. No language or publication status restrictions were imposed. A data-extraction sheet was developed based on the data extraction template of the Cochrane Group. The statistical analysis was performed using the odd ratio (OR) for categorical variables and the weighted mean difference (WMD) for continuous variables. RESULTS: Eight non randomized studies were identified that included 854 patients in total, 344 (40.2%) in the robotic group and 510 (59.7%) in the laparoscopic group. Meta-analysis suggested that the conversion rate to open surgery in the robotic group was significantly lower than that with laparoscopic surgery (OR = 0.26, 95% CI: 0.12-0.57, P = 0.0007). There were no significant differences in operation time, length of hospital stay, time to resume regular diet, postoperative morbidity and mortality, and the oncological accuracy of resection. CONCLUSION: Robotic surgery for rectal cancer has a lower conversion rate and a similar operative time compared with laparoscopic surgery, with no difference in recovery, oncological and postoperative outcomes.

Ovarian hydatid cyst: A case report.

Discovering an hydatid cyst in pelvic region, especially as primary localization, is a rare event; as a matter of fact according to data provided by literature the incidence is between 0.2 and 2.25%. The ovarian involvement is often secondary to a cyst's dissemination localized in a different site. When possible the optimal treatment is represented by radical laparotomic cystectomy. We report a case of an old woman affected by this pathology that we have treated with a cyst's marsupialization after a draining and irrigation of cyst cavity with hypertonic saline solutions.

[The sentinel lymph node mapping in colon cancer]. / Il linfonodo sentinella nei tumori del colon.

BACKGROUND: malignant tumors of the colon can metastases along the lymphatic system in a sequential way, which means that there will be a first node to be involved and then from this disease will pass to another node and so gradually. The sentinel lymph node is the first lymph node or group of nodes reached by metastasizing cancer cells from a tumor. OBJECTIVES: the present work aims to determine the predictive value of the sentinel lymph node procedure in the staging of non-metastatic colon cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: in this prospective study joined up only 26 patients with adenocarcinoma of the colon T2-T3, without systemic metastases, and with these criteria for inclusion: a) minimum age: 18 years old; b) staging by total colonoscopy, chest X-ray and CT scan; c) patients classified as ASA 1-3; d) informed consent. Within 20 minutes from the colic resection, the bowel was cut completely along the antimesenteric margin and is performed submucosal injection of vital dye within 5 mm from the lesion at the level of the four cardinal points; then the lymph nodes are placed in formalin and sent to the pathologist. The lymph nodes were subjected to histological examination with haematoxylin-eosin and with the immunohistochemistry technique. RESULTS: from January to December 2008 only 26 patients joined up in this prospective study. From the study were excluded the 4 patients with T4 and M1 tumour. Also 7 patients with stenotic lesions were excluded. Patients considered eligible for our study were only 14. The histopathological examination of haematoxylin-eosin revealed: a) in 4 cases were detected mesocolic lymph node metastases; b) in 10 cases were not detected mesocolic lymph node metastases. In cases there were no metastases, the mesocolic sentinel lymph nodes lymph nodes were examined with immunohistochemical technique; in 2 cases were revealed the presence of micrometastases. In one case was identified aberrant lymphatic drainage patterns (skip metastasis); the sentinel lymph node (negative examination wit eaematoxylin-eosin) was studied with immunohistochemical technique that has not revealed the presence of micrometastases. CONCLUSIONS: the examination of the sentinel node is feasible with the ex vivo method. Using the immunohistochemical technique we detect micrometastasis in 20% of the cases, not revealed with the classical haematoxylin-eosin examination. The study of sentinel lymph node with multilevel microsections and immunohistochemical techniques allow a better histopathological staging.

[The abdominal compartment syndrome and the importance of decompressive re-laparotomy]. / La sindrome compartimentale addominale ed il ruolo della re-laparotomia decompressiva.

BACKGROUND: the Abdominal Compartment Syndrome (ACS) is an increasingly recognized complication of both medical and surgical patients. The World Society of the Abdominal Compartmental Syndrome defined Intra Abdominal Hypertension (IAH) as a mean Intra Abdominal Pressure (IAP) ≥ 12 mm Hg and the ACS as IAP ≥ 20 mmHg (with or without an abdominal perfusion pressure < 60 mm Hg) that is associated with dysfunction or failure of one or more organ systems that was not previously present. The IAH contributes to organ failure in patients with abdominal trauma and sepsis and leads to the development of ACS. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to investigate the clinical significance of IAH, the prevalence of ACS and the importance to the effects to the abdominal decompressive re-laparotomy. Patients and methods. The study included 10 patients, 4 men and 6 women with an average age of 68 years (range, 38-86) operated and and treated with xifo-pubic laparotomy between January 2007 and December 2008. According to gold-standard methods, we measured the IAP by indirect measurement using the transvescical route via Foley bladder catheter. RESULTS: among 10 patients with laparotomy, 8 patients (80%) developed IAH < 20 mm Hg but they have not reported significant organ dysfunction , while 2 patients (20%) developed an IAH > 20 mm Hg associated whit organ dysfunction. For this reason, the last 2 patients were undergoing to the decompressive re-laparotomy with temporary closure. CONCLUSION: in according to our experience and the results of the literature, we believe essential monitoring abdominal pressure in patients with abdominal laparotomy. The abdominal decompressive re-laparotomy is a useful procedure to reduce symptoms and improve the health of the patient.

Colovesical fistulae in the sigmoid diverticulitis.

In most cases Colovesical fistulae are complications of diverticular disease and representing the most common kind of colodigestive fistula; less common are colovaginal, colocutaneous, coloenteric and colouterine fistula. In this article we review the literature concerning colovesical fistulae in colorectal surgery for sigmoid diverticulitis and report on two cases that required a surgical treatment, one elective and the other in emergency. In both cases we performed a sigmoid resection with a primary anastomosis and small vesical window-ectomy placing a Foley catheter for about 10 days.