RESUMO
This analysis aims to evaluate the comparative outcomes of gallbladder extraction with a bag versus direct extraction in laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). A systematic online search was conducted using the following databases: PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane database, The Virtual Health Library, Clinical trials.gov, and Science Direct. Comparative studies comparing bag versus direct extraction of the gallbladder in LC were included. Outcomes were surgical site infection (SSI), the extension of fascial defect to extract the gallbladder, intra-abdominal collection, bile spillage, and port-site hernia. Revman 5.4 (Cochrane, London, United Kingdom) was used for the data analysis. The results show eight studies were eligible to be included in this review with a total number of 1805 patients divided between endo-bag (n=835) and direct extraction (n=970). Four of the included studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) while the rest were observational studies. The rate of SSI and bile spillage were significantly higher in the direct extraction group: odds ratio (OR)=2.50, p=0.006 and OR=2.83, p=0.01, respectively. Comparable results were observed regarding intra-abdominal collection between the two groups(OR=0.01, p=0.51). However, the extension of a fascial defect was higher in the endo-bag group (OR=0.22, p=0.00001), and no difference was observed regarding the port-site hernia rate (OR-0.70, p=0.55). In conclusion, extraction of the gallbladder with an endo-bag provides a lower rate of SSI and bile spillage with similar results regarding post-operative intra-abdominal collection. Although with the endo-bag, the fascial defect will more likely need to be increased to extract the gallbladder. However, the port-site hernia rate remains similar between the two groups.
RESUMO
This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the comparative outcomes of drain insertion versus no drain after appendicectomy for complicated appendicitis. A systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane Library and Scopus was conducted, and all studies comparing drain versus no drain after appendicectomy for complicated appendicitis were included. Abdominal collection, surgical site infection (SSI), bowel obstruction, faecal fistula, paralytic ileus, length of hospital stay (LOS) and mortality were the evaluated outcome parameters for the meta-analysis. Seventeen studies reporting a total number of 4,255 patients who underwent appendicectomy for complicated appendicitis with (n=1,580) or without (n=2,657) drain were included. There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding abdominal collection (odds ratio (OR)=1.41, P=0.13). No-drain group was superior to the drain group regarding SSI (OR=1.93, P=0.0001), faecal fistula (OR=4.76, P=0.03), intestinal obstruction (OR=2.40, P=0.04) and paralytic ileus (OR=2.07, P=0.01). There was a difference regarding mortality rate between the two groups (3.4% in the drain group vs 0.5% in the no-drain group, risk difference (RD)=0.01, 95% CI (-0.01, 0.04), P=0.36). In conclusion, this meta-analysis has shown that drains have no effect on the development of intra-abdominal collections in complicated appendicitis, but it can significantly increase the risk of postoperative complications such as fistula, surgical site infection (SSI), bowel obstruction, ileus and length of hospital stay.