Self-expandable metallic stent as bridge to surgery vs. emergency resection in obstructive right-sided colon cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Emergency resection is common for malignant right-sided obstructive colon cancer. As there is evidence showing a potential benefit of self-expandable metal stents as a bridge to surgery, a new debate has been initiated. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare self-expandable metal stents with emergency resection in right-sided obstructive colon cancer. DATA SOURCE: A systematic search was conducted accessing Medline/PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. STUDY SELECTION: Studies reporting either emergency surgery or stent placement in right-sided obstructive colon cancer were included. INTERVENTION: Stent or emergency resection in right-sided obstructive colon cancer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Morbidity rate, mortality rate, stoma rate, laparoscopic resection rate, anastomotic insufficiency rate, success rate of stent. RESULTS: A total of 6343 patients from 16 publications were analyzed. The stent success rate was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.87 to 0.95) with perforation of 0.03 (95% CI, 0.01 to 0.06). Emergency resection was performed laparoscopically at a rate of 0.15 (95% CI, 0.09 to 0.24). Primary anastomosis rate in emergency resection was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.91 to 0.97) with an anastomotic insufficiency rate of 0.07 (95% CI, 0.04 to 0.11). The mortality rate after emergency resection was 0.05 (95% CI, 0.02 to 0.09). Primary anastomosis and anastomotic insufficiency rate were similar between the two groups (RR: 1.02; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.1; p = 0.56 and RR: 0.53; 95% CI, 0.14 to 1.93; p = 0.33). The mortality rate in emergency resection was higher compared to stent (RR: 0.51, 95% CI 0.30 to 10.89, p = 0.016). LIMITATION: No randomized controlled trials are available. CONCLUSION: Stent is a safe and successful alternative to emergency resection and may increase the rate of minimally invasive surgery. Emergency resection, however, remains safe and did not result in higher rate of anastomotic insufficiency. Further high-quality comparative studies are warranted to assess long-term outcomes.

Prophylactic Use of Negative Pressure Therapy in General Abdominal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: Surgical site infections (SSIs) represent an economic burden to healthcare systems. The use of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) for SSI prophylaxis remains uncertain. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in Medline/PubMed, CINAHL, and Web of Science for relevant studies. The primary outcome was the evaluation of the effectiveness of NPWT for prophylaxis of SSI rates in general abdominal surgery. Secondary outcomes were rates of seroma and wound dehiscence, length of hospital stay, and re-admission rates. The statistical analysis was performed with random effect models. Results: A total of 3,193 patients from 20 articles (six randomized controlled trials [RCT], three prospective, eight retrospective, and three ambispective studies) were analyzed. Negative pressure wound therapy was associated with decreased rate of SSIs compared with standard dressing in a pooled analysis of non-randomized studies and RCTs (0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.4 to 0.8; p < 0.001). This result, however, needs to be challenged because of a significant statistical heterogeneity of the included studies (I2 = 71%; p < 0.01). A separate analysis of the six RCTs failed to confirm the superiority of NPWT (0.64; 95% CI, -0.4 to 1.04; p = 0.07), also disclosing significant heterogeneity. The analysis of secondary outcomes was only possible in combination of randomized and non-randomized studies because of incomplete datasets in RCTs. Re-admission rates were lower after NPWT and no difference was observed for the incidence of seroma, wound dehiscence, and length of hospital stay. Conclusions: Based on available evidence, the routine use of NPWT for SSI prophylaxis after laparotomy in general abdominal surgery cannot be generally recommended.

Are We Ready for Bariatric Surgery in a Liver Transplant Program? A Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Obesity-related non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) are two main causes of end-stage liver disease requiring a liver transplantation. Studies exploring bariatric surgery in the liver transplantation setting have increased in recent years; however, a systematic analysis of the topic is lacking to date. This meta-analysis was conducted to explore the perioperative and long-term outcomes of bariatric surgery in obese patients undergoing liver transplantation. METHODS: Electronic databases were systematically searched for studies reporting bariatric surgery in patients undergoing liver transplantation. The primary outcomes were postoperative complications and mortality. We also extracted data about excess weight loss, body mass index, and improvement of comorbidities after bariatric surgery. RESULTS: A total of 96 patients from 8 articles were included. Bariatric surgery-related morbidity and mortality rates were 37% (95% CI 0.27-0.47) and 0.6% (95% CI 0.02-0.13), respectively. Body mass index at 24 months was 31.02 (95% CI 25.96-36.09) with a percentage excess weight loss at 12 and 24 months of 44.08 (95% CI 27.90-60.26) and 49.2 (95% CI 31.89-66.66), respectively. After bariatric surgery, rates of improvement of arterial hypertension and diabetes mellitus were 61% (95% CI 0.45-0.75) and 45% (95% CI 0.25-0.66), respectively. In most patients, bariatric surgery was performed after liver transplant and the most frequent technique was sleeve gastrectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Bariatric surgery can be performed safely in the setting of liver transplantation resulting in improvement of obesity-related comorbidities. The optimal timing and technique require further studies.