The first international Delphi consensus statement on Laparoscopic Gastrointestinal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic surgery has almost replaced open surgery in many areas of Gastro-Intestinal (GI) surgery. There is currently no published expert consensus statement on the principles of laparoscopic GI surgery. This may have affected the training of new surgeons. This exercise aimed to achieve an expert consensus on important principles of laparoscopic GI surgery. METHODS: A committee of 38 international experts in laparoscopic GI surgery proposed and voted on 149 statements in two rounds following a strict modified Delphi protocol. RESULTS: A consensus was achieved on 133 statements after two rounds of voting. All experts agreed on tailoring the first port site to the patient, whereas 84.2% advised avoiding the umbilical area for pneumoperitoneum in patients who had a prior midline laparotomy. Moreover, 86.8% agreed on closing all 15 mm ports irrespective of the patient's body mass index. There was a 100% consensus on using cartridges of appropriate height for stapling, checking the doughnuts after using circular staplers, and keeping the vibrating blade of the ultrasonic energy device in view and away from vascular structures. An 84.2% advised avoiding drain insertion through a ≥10 mm port site as it increases the risk of port-site hernia. There was 94.7% consensus on adding laparoscopic retrieval bags to the operating count and ensuring any surgical specimen left inside for later removal is added to the operating count. CONCLUSION: Thirty-eight experts achieved a consensus on 133 statements concerning various aspects of laparoscopic GI Surgery. Increased awareness of these could facilitate training and improve patient outcomes.

Research priorities in emergency general surgery (EGS): a modified Delphi approach.

BACKGROUND: Emergency general surgery (EGS) patients account for more than one-third of admissions to hospitals in the National Health Service (NHS) in England. The associated mortality of these patients has been quoted as approximately eight times higher than that of elective surgical admissions. This study used a modified Delphi approach to identify research priorities in EGS. The aim was to establish a research agenda using a formal consensus-based approach in an effort to identify questions relevant to EGS that could ultimately guide research to improve outcomes for this cohort. METHODS: Three rounds were conducted using an electronic questionnaire and involved health care professionals, research personnel, patients and their relatives. In the first round, stakeholders were invited to submit clinical research questions that they felt were priorities for future research. In rounds two and three, participants were asked to score individual questions in order of priority using a 5-point Likert scale. Between rounds, an expert panel analysed results before forwarding questions to subsequent rounds. RESULTS: Ninety-two EGS research questions were proposed in Phase 1. Following the first round of prioritisation, forty-seven questions progressed to the final phase. A final list of seventeen research questions were identified from the final round of prioritisation, categorised as condition-specific questions of high interest within general EGS, emergency colorectal surgery, non-technical and health services research. A broad range of research questions were identified including questions on peri-operative strategies, EGS outcomes in older patients, as well as non-technical and technical influences on EGS outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides a consensus delivered framework that should determine the research agenda for future EGS projects. It may also assist setting priorities for research funding and multi-centre collaborative strategies within the academic clinical interest of EGS.

Early versus delayed defunctioning ileostomy closure after low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of safety and functional outcomes.

PURPOSE: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis (TSA) to answer whether early closure of defunctioning ileostomy may be suitable after low anterior resection. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched, up to October 2021, for RCTs comparing early closure (EC ≤ 30 days) and delayed closure (DC ≥ 60 days) of defunctioning ileostomy. The risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI was calculated for dichotomous variables and the mean difference (MD) with 95% CI for continuous variables. The GRADE methodology was implemented for assessing Quality of Evidence (QoE). TSA was implemented to address the risk of random error associated with sparse data and/or multiple testing. RESULTS: Seven RCTs were included for quantitative synthesis. 599 patients were allocated to either EC (n = 306) or DC (n = 293). EC was associated with a higher rate of wound complications compared to DC (RR 2.56; 95% CI 1.33 to 4.93; P = 0.005; I2 = 0%, QoE High), a lower incidence of postoperative small bowel obstruction (RR 0.46; 95% CI 0.24 to 0.89; P = 0.02; I2 = 0%, QoE moderate), and a lower rate of stoma-related complications (RR 0.26; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.42; P < 0.00001; I2 = 0%, QoE moderate). The rate of minor low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) (RR 1.13; 95% CI 0.55 to 2.33; P = 0.74; I2 = 0%, QoE low) and major LARS (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.59 to 1.09; P = 0.16; I2 = 0%, QoE low) did not differ between the two groups. TSA demonstrated inconclusive evidence with insufficient sample sizes to detect the observed effects. CONCLUSION: EC may confer some advantages compared with a DC. However, TSA advocated a cautious interpretation of the results. PROSPERO REGISTER ID: CRD42021276557.

The use of polymeric clips in securing the appendiceal stump during laparoscopic appendicectomy: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: A key step during laparoscopic appendicectomy is securing the appendiceal stump. This has traditionally been achieved using vicryl endoloops, but increasing evidence suggests that the use of polymeric clips (Hem-o-lok) may be a safe and viable method. Current evidence for its clinical use in laparoscopic appendicectomy is unknown. We performed a systematic review of the literature examining the clinical outcomes of laparoscopic appendicectomy using polymeric clips compared to other methods of stump closure. METHODS: A systematic literature review based on PRISMA guidelines was performed using MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane library databases between 2000 and 2017. All studies analysing appendiceal stump closure during laparoscopic appendicectomy using polymeric clips compared to other methods of stump closure were included. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews. The review was registered with the PROSPERO register of systematic reviews. RESULTS: Ten studies were included, involving 702 patients, 7 of which were prospective studies and 1 a randomised control trial. Polymeric clips were found to be the cheapest method (€20.47 average per patient) and also had the lowest rate of complications (2.7%) compared to other commonly used closure methods. Meanwhile, operative time and duration of in-patient stay were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence suggests that polymeric clips are an effective and cost-efficient method for stump closure in laparoscopic appendicectomy for acute appendicitis. Further high-quality evidence is required before polymeric clips can be recommended as the gold standard for appendiceal stump closure.

Systematic review with meta-analysis of studies comparing primary duct closure and T-tube drainage after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration for choledocholithiasis.

BACKGROUND: With advances in laparoscopic instrumentation and acquisition of advanced laparoscopic skills, laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is technically feasible and increasingly practiced by surgeons worldwide. Traditional practice of suturing the dochotomy with T-tube drainage may be associated with T-tube-related complications. Primary duct closure (PDC) without a T-tube has been proposed as an alternative to T-tube placement (TTD) after LCBDE. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of PDC when compared to TTD after LCBDE for choledocholithiasis. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases for studies comparing primary duct closure and T-tube drainage. Studies were reviewed for the primary outcome measures: overall postoperative complications, postoperative biliary-specific complications, re-interventions, and postoperative hospital stay. Secondary outcomes assessed were: operating time, median hospital expenses, and general complications. RESULTS: Sixteen studies comparing PDC and TTD qualified for inclusion in our meta-analysis, with a total of 1770 patients. PDC showed significantly better results when compared to TTD in terms of postoperative biliary peritonitis (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.06-0.76, P = 0.02), operating time (WMD, -22.27, 95% CI -33.26 to -11.28, P < 0.00001), postoperative hospital stay (WMD, -3.22; 95% CI -4.52 to -1.92, P < 0.00001), and median hospital expenses (SMD, -1.37, 95% CI -1.96 to -0.77, P < 0.00001). Postoperative hospital stay was significantly decreased in the primary duct closure with internal biliary drainage (PDC + BD) group when compared to TTD group (WMD, -2.68; 95% CI -3.23 to -2.13, P < 0.00001). CONCLUSIONS: This comprehensive meta-analysis demonstrates that PDC after LCBDE is feasible and associated with fewer complications than TTD. Based on these results, primary duct closure may be considered as the optimal procedure for dochotomy closure after LCBDE.