Clinical efficacy and safety of robotic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Robotic distal gastrectomy (RDG) is a new technique that is rapidly gaining popularity and may help overcome the limitations of laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG); however, its safety and therapeutic efficacy remain controversial. Therefore, this meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of RDG. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for studies that compared RDG and LDG and were published between the time of database inception and May 2021. We assessed the bias risk of the observational studies using ROBIN-I, and a random effect model was always applied. RESULTS: The meta-analysis included 22 studies involving 5386 patients. Compared with LDG, RDG was associated with longer operating time (Mean Difference [MD] = 43.88, 95% CI = 35.17-52.60), less intraoperative blood loss (MD = - 24.84, 95% CI = - 41.26 to - 8.43), a higher number of retrieved lymph nodes (MD = 2.41, 95% CI = 0.77-4.05), shorter time to first flatus (MD = - 0.09, 95% CI = - 0.15 to - 0.03), shorter postoperative hospital stay (MD = - 0.68, 95% CI = - 1.27 to - 0.08), and lower incidence of pancreatic fistula (OR = 0.23, 95% CI = 0.07-0.79). Mean proximal and distal resection margin distances, time to start liquid and soft diets, and other complications were not significantly different between RDG and LDG groups. However, in the propensity-score-matched meta-analysis, the differences in time to first flatus and postoperative hospital stay between the two groups lost significance. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the available evidence, RDG appears feasible and safe, shows better surgical and oncological outcomes than LDG and, comparable postoperative recovery and postoperative complication outcomes.

Efficacy and safety of preoperative biliary drainage in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the effect of preoperative biliary drainage (PBD) on outcomes of pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) in patients with biliary obstruction. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and Web of Science from database inception to 11 March 2021. We used the ROBINS-I tool and Cochrane risk of bias tool 2.0 to assess the risk of bias. The data were statistically analyzed using the RevMan software (Version 5.4). RESULTS: In all, 43 studies, including 23,076 patients, were analyzed, of which 13,922 patients were treated with PBD and 9154 were treated with no preoperative biliary drainage (NPBD). The morbidity     , infection morbidity      , and postoperative pancreatic fistulae (POPF)       in patients undergoing PBD, were significantly higher than those in patients undergoing NPBD. Further, PBD may lead to a significantly worse 2- and 3-year overall survival (OS) rates           . In subgroup meta-analysis, the differences in morbidity, POPF, and OS outcomes lost significance between the PBD and NPBD groups when the mean total serum bilirubin (TSB) concentration was below 15 mg/dl. CONCLUSIONS: Routine PBD still cannot be recommended because it showed no beneficial effect on postoperative outcomes. However, in patients with < 15 mg/dl TSB concentration, PBD tends to be a better choice.

Immune checkpoint blockade in the treatment of malignant tumor: current statue and future strategies.

After being stagnant for decades, there has finally been a paradigm shift in the treatment of cancer with the emergence and application of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). The most extensively utilized ICIs are targeting the pathways involving programmed death-1 (PD-1) and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte associated protein 4 (CTLA-4). PD-1, as an crucial immune inhibitory molecule, by and large reasons the immune checkpoint response of T cells, making tumor cells get away from immune surveillance. Programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) is exceptionally expressed in most cancers cells and approves non-stop activation of the PD-1 pathway in the tumor microenvironment. PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors can block the combination of PD-1 and PD-L1, inhibit hostile to regulatory signals, and restore the activity of T cells, thereby bettering immune response. The current researchers assume that the efficacy of these drugs is related to PD-L1 expression in tumor tissue, tumor mutation burden (TMB), and other emerging biomarkers. Although malignant tumors can benefit from the immunotherapy of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, formulating a customized medication model and discovering biomarkers that can predict efficacy are the new trend in the new era of malignant tumor immunotherapy. This review summarizes the mechanism of action of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, their clinical outcomes on various malignant tumors, their efficacy biomarkers, as well as predictive markers of irAEs.

Reduction of risk of infection during elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy using prophylactic antibiotics: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Whether perioperative administration is required in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) in patients with low risk of infection remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether perioperative use of prophylactic antibiotics during elective LC can reduce the incidence of postoperative infection using a meta-analysis. METHODS: Pubmed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and reference lists were searched up to October 26, 2020, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the perioperative use of antibiotics during LC. A systematic review with meta-analysis, meta-regression, and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) of the evidence was conducted. The Cochrane (RoB 2.0) tool was used to assess the risk of bias. RESULT: A total of 14 RCTs were ultimately included in the meta-analysis, involving a total of 4360 patients. The incidence of surgical site infections, distant infections, and overall infections was investigated and the relationship with the perioperative use of prophylactic antibiotics during LC analyzed. The results indicated that in low-risk patients undergoing elective LC, prophylactic antibiotics reduce the incidence of surgical site infections (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.45-0.98), with a moderate GRADE of evidence, distant infections (RR 0.34; 95% CI 0.16-0.73), with a low GRADE of evidence and overall infections (RR 0.57; 95% CI 0.40-0.80), with a moderate GRADE of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: The present meta-analysis demonstrates that the perioperative use of antibiotics in LC is effective in low-risk patients, possibly reducing the incidence of surgical site infections, distant infections, and overall infections. However, in view of the limitations of the study, it is recommended that studies with a more rigorous design (for downgraded factors) and larger sample size should be conducted in the future so that the conclusions above can be further verified through key result indicators.

Application of da Vinci robot with the"3 + 2" mode in radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

The aim of this study is to investigate the feasibility and advantages of the da Vinci robotic system with the "3 + 2" mode (3 robotic arms and 2 assistants) in radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer.The clinical data of 65 patients who underwent da Vinci robotic gastrectomy with the "3 + 2" mode from July 2016 to October 2019 were grouped into an observation group. An additional 65 patients who underwent robotic gastrectomy under the classic mode during the same period were grouped into a control group. The short-term surgical outcomes were compared between 2 different groups.Compared with the control group, the observation group had a significantly shorter operative time (176.18 ±â€Š15.49 vs 203.85 ±â€Š12.77 minutes, P < .001) and lower operation costs ($2761.19 ±â€Š$191.91 vs $3690.91 ±â€Š$162.82; P < .001). No statistical differences in other outcomes were observed (P > .05).We show that robotic gastrectomy with "3 + 2" mode is a safe and beneficial surgical procedure in new robotic surgery institutions.

Comparison of laparoscopic cholecystectomy with and without abdominal drainage in patients with non-complicated benign gallbladder disease: A protocol for systematic review and meta analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether conventional postoperative drainage is more effective than not providing drainage in patients with non-complicated benign gallbladder disease following laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). METHODS: A search of the electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of science, Cochrane Library, and Chinese Biomedical Database (CBM) was conducted for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting outcomes of LC surgery with and without an abdominal drain. RESULTS: Twenty-one RCTs involving 3246 patients (1666 with drains vs 1580 without) were included in the meta-analysis. There were no statistically significant differences in the rates of incidence of intra-abdominal fluid (RR: 1.10; 95% CI: 0.81-1.49; P = .54) or post-surgical mortality (RR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.04-4.72; P = .50) between the two groups. Abdominal drains did not reduce the overall incidence of nausea and vomiting (RR: 1.16; 95% CI: 0.95-1.42; P = .15) or shoulder tip pain (RR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.76-1.38; P = .86). The abdominal drain group displayed significantly higher pain scores (MD: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.69-1.46; P < .001) than the non-drainage patients. Abdominal drains prolonged the duration of the surgical procedure (MD: 5.69 min; 95% CI: 2.51-8.87; P = .005) and postoperative hospital stay (MD: 0.47 day; 95% CI: 0.14-0.80; P = .005). Wound infection was found to be associated with the use of abdominal drains (RR: 1.97; 95% CI: 1.11-3.47; P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Currently, there is no evidence to support the use of routine drainage after LC in non-complicated benign gallbladder disease. Further well-designed randomized clinical trials are required to confirm this finding.

Clinical, pathological, and oncologic outcomes of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic proctectomy for rectal cancer: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies.

Although several meta-analyses regarding robot-assisted proctectomy (RP) and laparoscopic proctectomy (LP) in patients with rectal cancer are constantly being published, meta-analyses considering randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are still rare. It is therefore necessary to conduct an appropriate meta-analysis to provide reliable evidence for clinical decision-making. Databases such as PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CCTR) and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) were used to collect RCTs assessing the effectiveness and safety of RP and LP. Article search was performed until August 2019. Data were extracted and the quality was evaluated by two reviewers independently, according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data were analyzed using R software. Eight RCTs were included involving 999 patients, 495 of them underwent RP and 504 underwent LP. The results showed that the RP group had a longer operative time (P < 0.01), a lower conversion rate (P = 0.03), a longer distance to the distal margin (DDM) (P = 0.001), and a lower incidence of erectile dysfunction (P = 0.02). No significant differences were found in perioperative mortality, complication rates, PRM, number of harvested lymph nodes, length of hospital stay and time to first bowel movement between the two groups. Current evidence suggests that RP is superior to LP in short-term clinical outcomes, which is similar to LP regarding pathological outcomes and has better DDM outcomes. However, the comparison between RP and LP regarding long-term oncology outcomes still require further multi-center and large RCT samples to confirm our evidences.

Safety and effectiveness of the da Vinci robot with the "3+2" mode for distal pancreatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Recently, no relevant research has focused on the relationship between the clinical efficacy of da Vinci robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) and the number of mechanical arms and assistants used for RDP. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and advantages of RDP with the "3 + 2" mode. METHODS: Clinical data from 53 patients (observation group) who received RDP using the "3 + 2" mode in our department, from March 2016 to September 2018, were reviewed. An additional 53 patients who received RDP using the classical mode were chosen at random for the control group. Short-term outcomes for the two groups were compared. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups for estimated blood loss, postoperative day of flatus passage, postoperative hospital stay, and postoperative complication (P > 0.05). Compared with the control group, the observation group had a significantly shorter operative time (166.9 ± 13.3 vs 192.6 ± 11.1 minutes, P < 0.001), lower surgical costs ($2827.79 ± $173.02 vs $3900.63 ± $317.29, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The RDP using the "3 + 2" mode can increase the exposure of surgical field, improve cooperation between assistants, lower the surgical costs, and shorten the operative time and learning curve. Moreover, the clinical effect is equal to that of RDP using the classical mode. These findings indicate that RDP using the "3 + 2" mode is safe and feasible for institutions that are equipped for robot-assisted surgery.

Lymph node yield, survival benefit, and safety of high and low ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery in colorectal cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare high inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) ligation (HL) with low IMA ligation (LL) for the treatment of colorectal cancer and to evaluate the lymph node yield, survival benefit, and safety of these surgeries. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and China Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) were systematically searched for relevant articles that compared HL and LL for sigmoid or rectal cancer. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes and the weighted mean difference (WMD) for continuous outcomes. RESULTS: In total, 30 studies were included in this analysis. There were significantly higher odds of anastomotic leakage and urethral dysfunction in patients treated with HL compared to those treated with LL (OR = 1.29; 95% CI = 1.08 to 1.55; OR = 2.45; 95% CI = 1.39 to 4.33, respectively). There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of the total number of harvested lymph nodes, the number of harvested lymph nodes around root of the IMA, local recurrence rate, and operation time. Further, no statistically significant group differences in 5-year overall survival rates and 5-year disease-free survival rates were detected among all patients nor among subgroups of stage II patients and stage III patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: LL can achieve equivalent lymph node yield to HL, and both procedures have similar survival benefits. However, LL is associated with a lower incidence of leakage and urethral dysfunction. Thus, LL is recommended for colorectal cancer surgery.

Efficacy and safety of laparoscopic holmium laser lithotripsy in the treatment of complicated biliary calculus: A PRISMA-compliant systematic reviews and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUD: The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic holmium laser lithotripsy (LHLL) in the treatment of complicated biliary calculus. METHODS: We systematically searched the electronic database (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, Web of science, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database) up to May 2018 to identify case-controlled studies that compared LHLL with laparoscopic bile duct exploration (LBDE) for complicated biliary calculus. RESULTS: Five case-controlled studies were included, with 541 patients (273 in the LHLL group and 268 in the LBDE group). Compared with LBDE, LHLL was associated with shorter operative time (weighted mean difference [WMD] = -40.04, P < .001) and lower estimated blood loss (EBL) (WMD = -56.42, P < .001), lesser duration of hospitalization (WMD = -3.93, P < .001) and lower rate of residual stone (OR = 0.13, P < .001). There was no statistically significant differences in bile leakage (OR = 0.48, P = .23) and hemobilia (OR = 0.49, 0.41). CONCLUSION: Current evidence suggests that the efficacy of LHLL is superior to that of LBDE but they are similarly safe for the treatment of complicated biliary calculus. Limited by the quantity and quality of the studies included, these conclusions need to be verified by more high-quality studies.

Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy for benign gallbladder diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Robotic surgery, an emerging technology, has some potential advantages in many complicated endoscopic procedures compared with laparoscopic surgery. But robot-assisted cholecystectomy (RAC) is still a controversial issue on its comparative merit compared with conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of RAC compared with LC for benign gallbladder disease. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted using the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases (from their inception to December 2017) to obtain comparative studies assessing the safety and efficacy between RAC and LC. The quality of the literature was assessed, and the data analyzed using R software, random effects models were applied. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies, including 5 RCTs and 21 NRCSs (3 prospective plus 18 retrospective), were included. A total of 4004 patients were included, of which 1833 patients (46%) underwent RAC and 2171 patients (54%) underwent LC. No significant differences were found in intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, readmission rate, hospital stay, estimated blood loss, and conversion rate between RAC and LC groups. However, RAC was related to longer operative time compared with LC (MD = 12.04 min, 95% CI 7.26-16.82) in RCT group, which was consistent with NRCS group; RAC also had a higher rate of incisional hernia in NRCS group (RR = 3.06, 95% CI 1.42-6.57), and one RCT reported that RAC was similar to LC (RR = 7.00, 95% CI 0.38-129.84). CONCLUSIONS: The RAC was not found to be more effective or safer than LC for benign gallbladder diseases, which indicated that RAC is a developing procedure instead of replacing LC at once. Given the higher costs, the current evidence is in favor of LC in cholecystectomy.