Appendectomy versus antibiotic treatment for acute appendicitis.

BACKGROUND: Acute appendicitis is one of the most common emergency general surgical conditions worldwide. Uncomplicated/simple appendicitis can be treated with appendectomy or antibiotics. Some studies have suggested possible benefits with antibiotics with reduced complications, length of hospital stay, and the number of days off work. However, surgery may improve success of treatment as antibiotic treatment is associated with recurrence and future need for surgery. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of antibiotic treatment for uncomplicated/simple acute appendicitis compared with appendectomy for resolution of symptoms and complications. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trial registers (World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov) on 19 July 2022. We also searched for unpublished studies in conference proceedings together with reference checking and citation search. There were no restrictions on date, publication status, or language of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) only. We included studies where most participants were adults with uncomplicated/simple appendicitis. Interventions included antibiotics (by any route) compared with appendectomy (open or laparoscopic). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodology expected by Cochrane. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. Primary outcomes included mortality and success of treatment, and secondary outcomes included number of participants requiring appendectomy in the antibiotic group, complications, pain, length of hospital stay, sick leave, malignancy in the antibiotic group, negative appendectomy rate, and quality of life. Success of treatment definitions were heterogeneous although mainly based on resolution of symptoms rather than incorporation of long-term recurrence or need for surgery in the antibiotic group. MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 studies in the review covering 1675 participants randomised to antibiotics and 1683 participants randomised to appendectomy. One study was unpublished. All were conducted in secondary care and two studies received pharmaceutical funding. All studies used broad-spectrum antibiotic regimens expected to cover gastrointestinal bacteria. Most studies used predominantly laparoscopic surgery, but some included mainly open procedures. Six studies included adults and children. Almost all studies aimed to exclude participants with complicated appendicitis prior to randomisation, although one study included 12% with perforation. The diagnostic technique was clinical assessment and imaging in most studies. Only one study limited inclusion by sex (male only). Follow-up ranged from hospital admission only to seven years. Certainty of evidence was mainly affected by risk of bias (due to lack of blinding and loss to follow-up) and imprecision. Primary outcomes It is uncertain whether there was any difference in mortality due to the very low-certainty evidence (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 4.95; 1 study, 492 participants). There may be 76 more people per 1000 having unsuccessful treatment in the antibiotic group compared with surgery, which did not reach our predefined level for clinical significance (risk ratio (RR) 0.91, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.96; I2 = 69%; 7 studies, 2471 participants; low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes At one year, 30.7% (95% CI 24.0 to 37.8; I2 = 80%; 9 studies, 1396 participants) of participants in the antibiotic group required appendectomy or, alternatively, more than two-thirds of antibiotic-treated participants avoided surgery in the first year, but the evidence is very uncertain. Regarding complications, it is uncertain whether there is any difference in episodes of Clostridium difficile diarrhoea due to very low-certainty evidence (Peto OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.24 to 3.89; 1 study, 1332 participants). There may be a clinically significant reduction in wound infections with antibiotics (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.68; I2 = 16%; 9 studies, 2606 participants; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether antibiotics affect the incidence of intra-abdominal abscess or collection (RR 1.58, 95% CI 0.61 to 4.07; I2 = 19%; 6 studies, 1831 participants), or reoperation (Peto OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.16; 1 study, 492 participants) due to very low-certainty evidence, mainly due to rare events causing imprecision and risk of bias. It is uncertain if antibiotics prolonged length of hospital stay by half a day due to the very low-certainty evidence (MD 0.54, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.01; I2 = 97%; 11 studies, 3192 participants). The incidence of malignancy was 0.3% (95% CI 0 to 1.5; 5 studies, 403 participants) in the antibiotic group although follow-up was variable. Antibiotics probably increased the number of negative appendectomies at surgery (RR 3.16, 95% CI 1.54 to 6.49; I2 = 17%; 5 studies, 707 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotics may be associated with higher rates of unsuccessful treatment for 76 per 1000 people, although differences may not be clinically significant. It is uncertain if antibiotics increase length of hospital stay by half a day. Antibiotics may reduce wound infections. A third of the participants initially treated with antibiotics required subsequent appendectomy or two-thirds avoided surgery within one year, but the evidence is very uncertain. There were too few data from the included studies to comment on major complications.

Intraoperative robotic-assisted low anterior rectal resection performance assessment using procedure-specific binary metrics and a global rating scale.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the use of binary metric-based (proficiency-based progression; PBP) performance assessments and global evaluative assessment of robotic skills (GEARS) of a robotic-assisted low anterior rectal resection (RA-LAR) procedure. METHOD: A prospective study of video analysis of RA-LAR procedures was carried out using the PBP metrics with binary parameters previously developed, and GEARS. Recordings were collected from five novice surgeons (≤30 RA-LAR previously performed) and seven experienced surgeons (>30 RA-LAR previously performed). Two consultant colorectal surgeons were trained to be assessors in the use of PBP binary parameters to evaluate the procedure phases, surgical steps, errors, and critical errors in male and female patients and GEARS scores. Novice and experienced surgeons were categorized and assessed using PBP metrics and GEARS; mean scores obtained were compared for statistical purpose. Also, the inter-rater reliability (IRR) of these assessment tools was evaluated. RESULTS: Twenty unedited recordings of RA-LAR procedures were blindly assessed. Overall, using PBP metric-based assessment, a subgroup of experienced surgeons made more errors (20 versus 16, P = 0.158) and critical errors (9.2 versus 7.8, P = 0.417) than the novice group, although not significantly. However, during the critical phase of RA-LAR, experienced surgeons made significantly fewer errors than the novice group (95% CI of the difference, Lower = 0.104 - Upper = 5.155, df = 11.9, t = 2.23, p = 0.042), and a similar pattern was observed for critical errors. The PBP metric and GEARS assessment tools distinguished between the objectively assessed performance of experienced and novice colorectal surgeons performing RA-LAR (total error scores with PBP metrics, P = 0.019-0.008; GEARS scores, P = 0.029-0.025). GEARS demonstrated poor IRR (mean IRR 0.49) and weaker discrimination between groups (15-41 per cent difference). PBP binary metrics demonstrated good IRR (mean 0.94) and robust discrimination particularly for total error scores (58-64 per cent). CONCLUSIONS: PBP binary metrics seem to be useful for metric-based training for surgeons learning RA-LAR procedures.

Poor anaerobic threshold and VO2 max recorded during cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) prior to cytoreductive surgery in advanced (stage 3/4) ovarian cancer (AOC) is associated with suboptimal cytoreduction but does not preclude maximum effort cytoreduction.

This study assessed Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing (CPET) in predicting oncological outcomes, post-operative recovery and complications in advanced ovarian cancer (AOC) cytoreductive surgery. We reviewed all patients who had CPET prior to AOC cytoreductive surgery with evidence of upper abdominal disease on preoperative imaging at the University Hospitals of Derby and Burton (UHDB) between August 2016 and July 2019. Patients were stratified by AT and maximum VO2 levels. 43 patients were identified. AT showed no relationship with major complications. 100% of patients in the AT ≥11 group received R0 (n = 21, 91.30%), or R1 (n = 2, 8.70%) cytoreduction, whereas in the AT <11 group, only 75.00% achieved and R0 or R1 resection (p = .02). Surgical complexity was higher in the AT ≥11 group (p = .001) and the VO2 ≥15 group (p = .0006). No other correlations were seen between AT or VO2 max and complications or readmissions. No difference in overall survival was seen if R0 resection was achieved.IMPACT STATEMENTWhat is already known on this subject? CPET testing allows pre-operative assessment of functional capacity to generate variables that can be used as a risk-stratification tool for major surgery. Whilst CPET testing has been shown to predict morbidity in non-gynaecological surgery, it remains unproven in cytoreductive surgery for ovarian cancer surgery despite being increasingly utilised.What do the results of study add? Our data suggest that CPET testing does not predict complication rates or survival in AOC. Patients with poor CPET performance are more likely to receive suboptimal cytoreductive outcomes from surgery.What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? CPET results should not be used to discount patients from cytoreductive surgery further research should address the interplay with nutrition, haematological markers, neoadjuvant chemotherapy and CPET performance.

Prophylactic antibiotics for penetrating abdominal trauma: duration of use and antibiotic choice.

BACKGROUND: Penetrating abdominal trauma (PAT) is a common type of trauma leading to admission to hospital, which often progresses to septic complications. Antibiotics are commonly administered as prophylaxis prior to laparotomy for PAT. However, an earlier Cochrane Review intending to compare antibiotics with placebo identified no relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Despite this, many RCTs have been carried out that compare different agents and durations of antibiotic therapy. To date, no systematic review of these trials has been performed. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of antibiotics in penetrating abdominal trauma, with respect to the type of agent administered and the duration of therapy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases for relevant randomised controlled trials, from database inception to 23 July 2019; Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, MEDLINE Ovid In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, MEDLINE Ovid Daily and Ovid OLDMEDLINE, Embase Classic + Embase Ovid, ISI Web of Science (SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, CPCI-S & CPSI-SSH), and two clinical trials registers. We also searched reference lists from included studies. We applied no restrictions on language or date of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs only. We included studies involving participants of all ages, which were conducted in secondary care hospitals only. We included studies of participants who had an isolated penetrating abdominal wound that breached the peritoneum, who were not already taking antibiotics. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two study authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We used standard Cochrane methods. We aggregated study results using a random-effects model. We also conducted trial sequential analysis (TSA) to help reduce type I and II errors in our analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We included 29 RCTs, involving a total of 4458 participants. We deemed 23 trials to be at high risk of bias in at least one domain. We are uncertain of the effect of a long course of antibiotic prophylaxis (> 24 hours) compared to a short course (≤ 24 hours) on abdominal surgical site infection (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.23; I² = 0%; 7 studies, 1261 participants; very low-quality evidence), mortality (Peto OR 1.67, 95% CI 0.73 to 3.82; I² = 8%; 7 studies, 1261 participants; very low-quality evidence), or intra-abdominal infection (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.80; I² = 0%; 6 studies, 111 participants; very-low quality evidence). Based on very low-quality evidence from fifteen studies, involving 2020 participants, which compared different drug regimens with activity against three classes of gastrointestinal flora (gram positive, gram negative, anaerobic), we are uncertain whether there is a benefit of one regimen over another. TSA showed the majority of comparisons did not cross the alpha adjusted boundary for benefit or harm, or reached the required information size, indicating that further studies are required for these analyses. However, in the three analyses which crossed the boundary for futility, further studies are unlikely to show benefit or harm. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Very low-quality evidence means that we are uncertain about the effect of either the duration of antibiotic prophylaxis, or the superiority of one drug regimen over another for penetrating abdominal trauma on abdominal surgical site infection rates, mortality, or intra-abdominal infections. Future RCTs should be adequately powered, test currently used antibiotics, known to be effective against gut flora, use methodology to minimise the risk of bias, and adequately report the level of peritoneal contamination encountered at laparotomy.

Fibrin glue for pilonidal sinus disease.

BACKGROUND: Pilonidal sinus disease is a common condition that mainly affects young adults. This condition can cause significant pain and impairment of normal activities. No consensus currently exists on the optimum treatment for pilonidal sinus and current therapies have various advantages and disadvantages. Fibrin glue has emerged as a potential treatment as both monotherapy and an adjunct to surgery. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of fibrin glue alone or in combination with surgery compared with surgery alone in the treatment of pilonidal sinus disease. SEARCH METHODS: In December 2016 we searched: the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; CENTRAL; MEDLINE; Embase and CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries and conference proceedings for ongoing and unpublished studies and scanned reference lists to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) only. We included studies involving participants of all ages and studies conducted in any setting. We considered studies involving people with both new and recurrent pilonidal sinus. We included studies which evaluated fibrin glue monotherapy or as an adjunct to surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two study authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We used standard methods expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included four RCTs with 253 participants, all were at risk of bias. One unpublished study evaluated fibrin glue monotherapy compared with Bascom's procedure, two studies evaluated fibrin glue as an adjunct to Limberg flap and one study evaluated fibrin glue as an adjunct to Karydakis flap.For fibrin glue monotherapy compared with Bascom's procedure, there were no data available for the primary outcomes of time to healing and adverse events. There was low-quality evidence of less pain on day one after the procedure with fibrin glue monotherapy compared with Bascom's procedure (mean difference (MD) -2.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.03 to -0.97) (evidence downgraded twice for risk of performance and detection bias). Fibrin glue may reduce the time taken to return to normal activities compared with Bascom's procedure (mean time 42 days with surgery and 7 days with glue, MD -34.80 days, 95% CI -66.82 days to -2.78 days) (very low-quality evidence, downgraded as above and for imprecision).Fibrin glue as an adjunct to the Limberg flap may reduce the healing time from 22 to 8 days compared with the Limberg flap alone (MD -13.95 days, 95% CI -16.76 days to -11.14 days) (very low-quality evidence, downgraded twice for risk of selection, performance and detection bias and imprecision). It is uncertain whether use of fibrin glue affects the incidence of postoperative seroma (an adverse event) (risk ratio (RR) 0.27, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.61; very low-quality evidence, downgraded twice for risk of selection, performance and detection bias and imprecision). There was low-quality evidence that fibrin glue, as an adjunct to Limberg flap, may reduce postoperative pain (median 2 versus 4; P < 0.001) and time to return to normal activities (median 8 days versus 17 days; P < 0.001). The addition of fibrin glue to the Limberg flap may reduce the length of hospital stay (MD -1.69 days, 95% CI -2.08 days to -1.29 days) (very low-quality evidence, downgraded twice for risk of selection, performance and detection bias and for unexplained heterogeneity).A single RCT evaluating fibrin glue as an adjunct to the Karydakis flap did not report data for the primary outcome of time to healing. It is uncertain whether fibrin glue with the Karydakis flap affects the incidence of postoperative seroma (adverse event) (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.67 to 13.46) (very low-quality evidence, downgraded twice for risk of selection, performance and detection bias and for imprecision). Fibrin glue as an adjunct to Karydakis flap may reduce length of stay but this is highly uncertain (mean 2 days versus 3.7 days; P < 0.001, low-quality evidence downgraded twice for risk of selection, performance and detection bias). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence is uncertain regarding any benefits associated with fibrin glue either as monotherapy or as an adjunct to surgery for people with pilonidal sinus disease. We identified only four RCTs and each was small and at risk of bias resulting in very low-quality evidence for the primary outcomes of time to healing and adverse events. Future studies should enrol many more participants, ensure adequate randomisation and blinding, whilst measuring clinically relevant outcomes.

Surgery for complete (full-thickness) rectal prolapse in adults.

BACKGROUND: Complete (full-thickness) rectal prolapse is a lifestyle-altering disability that commonly affects older people. The range of surgical methods available to correct the underlying pelvic floor defects in full-thickness rectal prolapse reflects the lack of consensus regarding the best operation. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of different surgical repairs for complete (full-thickness) rectal prolapse. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register up to 3 February 2015; it contains trials from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE in process, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) as well as trials identified through handsearches of journals and conference proceedings. We also searched EMBASE and EMBASE Classic (1947 to February 2015) and PubMed (January 1950 to December 2014), and we specifically handsearched theBritish Journal of Surgery (January 1995 to June 2014), Diseases of the Colon and Rectum (January 1995 to June 2014) and Colorectal Diseases (January 2000 to June 2014), as well as the proceedings of the Association of Coloproctology meetings (January 2000 to December 2014). Finally, we handsearched reference lists of all relevant articles to identify additional trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of surgery for managing full-thickness rectal prolapse in adults. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently selected studies from the literature searches, assessed the methodological quality of eligible trials and extracted data. The four primary outcome measures were the number of patients with recurrent rectal prolapse, number of patients with residual mucosal prolapse, number of patients with faecal incontinence and number of patients with constipation. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 RCTs involving 1007 participants in this third review update. One trial compared abdominal with perineal approaches to surgery, three trials compared fixation methods, three trials looked at the effects of lateral ligament division, one trial compared techniques of rectosigmoidectomy, two trials compared laparoscopic with open surgery, and two trials compared resection with no resection rectopexy. One new trial compared rectopexy versus rectal mobilisation only (no rectopexy), performed with either open or laparoscopic surgery. One new trial compared different techniques used in perineal surgery, and another included three comparisons: abdominal versus perineal surgery, resection versus no resection rectopexy in abdominal surgery and different techniques used in perineal surgery.The heterogeneity of the trial objectives, interventions and outcomes made analysis difficult. Many review objectives were covered by only one or two studies with small numbers of participants. Given these caveats, there is insufficient data to say which of the abdominal and perineal approaches are most effective. There were no detectable differences between the methods used for fixation during rectopexy. Division, rather than preservation, of the lateral ligaments was associated with less recurrent prolapse but more postoperative constipation. Laparoscopic rectopexy was associated with fewer postoperative complications and shorter hospital stay than open rectopexy. Bowel resection during rectopexy was associated with lower rates of constipation. Recurrence of full-thickness prolapse was greater for mobilisation of the rectum only compared with rectopexy. There were no differences in quality of life for patients who underwent the different kinds of prolapse surgery. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The lack of high quality evidence on different techniques, together with the small sample size of included trials and their methodological weaknesses, severely limit the usefulness of this review for guiding practice. It is impossible to identify or refute clinically important differences between the alternative surgical operations. Longer follow-up with current studies and larger rigorous trials are needed to improve the evidence base and to define the optimum surgical treatment for full-thickness rectal prolapse.

A randomized double-blind clinical trial of a continuous 96-hour levobupivacaine infiltration after open or laparoscopic colorectal surgery for postoperative pain management--including clinically important changes in protein binding.

BACKGROUND: Continuous local anesthetic infiltration has been used for pain management after open colorectal surgery. However, its application to patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery has not been examined. The aim of this prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial was to study the use of a commercial infiltration device in patients undergoing open or laparoscopic colorectal surgery, along with plasma concentrations of levobupivacaine, its acute-phase binding protein (alpha-1 acid glycoprotein, AAG), and the stress marker, cortisol. METHODS: Eligible patients were randomized (2:1) to receive a continuous infiltration of either levobupivacaine or placebo using a commercial device (ON-Q PainBuster) inserted in the preperitoneal layer at the end of surgery. Blood was sampled for determination of levobupivacaine and AAG and cortisol concentrations. Other outcomes measured were pain scores, morbidity and mortality, time to bowel movement, mobilization, and length of hospitalization. RESULTS: In patients having open surgery, the levobupivacaine treatment showed a trend toward reduced total opioid consumption. No patients reported adverse effects attributable to levobupivacaine, despite 11 patients having concentrations at some time(s) during the 96-hour infiltration of up to 5.5 mg/L exceeding a putative toxicity threshold of 2.7 mg/L. AAG concentrations measured postsurgery increased by a mean of 55% (P < 0.001) at 48 hours. Cortisol concentrations also increased significantly by a mean of 191% at 1 hour. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous local anesthetic infiltration may be more beneficial in open surgery. The threshold for adverse effects from highly bound local anesthetic drugs established in healthy volunteers is of limited usefulness in clinical scenarios in which AAG concentration increases in response to surgical stress. Hence, there is scope to adopt higher doses to enhance therapeutic benefit.

Energy source instruments for laparoscopic colectomy.

BACKGROUND: Colectomy is a common procedures for both benign and malignant conditions. Increasingly more colectomy has been performed laparoscopically and there are several available instruments being used for this procedure. Of which three common dissecting instruments are: monopolar electrocautery scissors (MES), ultrasonic coagulating shears (UCS) and electrothermal bipolar vessel sealers (EBVS).  OBJECTIVES: The aim is to assess the safety and effectiveness of these instruments. SEARCH STRATEGY: Studies were identified from PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Group Trials Register.  Major journals were specifically hand searched.  All randomised controlled trials were included. SELECTION CRITERIA: All patients underwent elective laparoscopic or laparoscopic-assisted right, left or total colectomy or anterior resection for either benign or malignant conditions were included in the study. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently selected studies from the literature searches, assessed the methodological quality of the trials and extracted data. The three primary outcomes were: overall blood loss, complications and operating time. MAIN RESULTS: Six randomised controlled trials including 446 participants. Two trials compared three types of instruments (MES vs UCS vs EBVS). One trial compared MES and UCS. One trial compared UCS and EBVS. One trial compared 5 mm versus 10 mm EBVS. One trial compared the technique of laparoscopic staplers and clips versus EBVS in pedicle ligation during laparoscopic colectomy. The limitation of this review is the heterogeneity of the trials included. The measured outcomes were covered by one to three studies with small number of participants. With this in mind, there was significant less blood loss in UCS compared to MES. The operating time was significantly shorter with the use of EBVS than MES. No difference between UCS and EBVS apart from EBVS appeared to be handling better than UCS in one study. Haemostatic control was better in UCS and EBVS over MES. No definite conclusion on the cost difference between these three instrument but this would lie in the balance between the instrument cost and the operating time. The handling of 5 mm EBVS was better than 10 mm and its main advantage was trocar flexibility. Laparoscopic staplers/clips used for pedicle ligation in colectomy associated with more failure in vessel ligation and cost more when compared to EBVS. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The limitations of this review is the small number of trials and heterogeneity of the studies included. With the current evidence it is not possible to demonstrate which is the best instrument in laparoscopic colectomy. Hopefully more data would follow and subsequent updates of this review could become more informative.

Incision and drainage of perianal abscess with or without treatment of anal fistula.

BACKGROUND: The perianal abscess is a common surgical problem. A third of perianal abscesses may manifest a fistula-in-ano which increases the risk of abscess recurrence requiring repeat surgical drainage. Treating the fistula at the same time as incision and drainage of the abscess may reduce the likelihood of recurrent abscess and the need for repeat surgery. However, this could affect sphincter function in some patients who may not have later developed a fistula-in-ano. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to review the available randomised controlled trial evidence comparing incision and drainage of perianal abscess with or without fistula treatment. SEARCH STRATEGY: Randomised trials were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and reference lists of published papers and reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials comparing outcome after fistula surgery with drainage of perianal abscess compared with drainage alone were included in the review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The primary outcomes were recurrent or persistent abscess/fistula which may require repeat surgery and short-term and long-term incontinence. Secondary outcomes were duration of hospitalisation, duration of wound healing, postoperative pain, quality of life scores. For dichotomous variables, relative risks and their confidence intervals were calculated. MAIN RESULTS: We identified six trials, involving 479 subjects, comparing incision and drainage of perianal abscess alone versus incision and drainage with fistula treatment. Metaanalysis showed a significant reduction in recurrence, persistent abscess/fistula or repeat surgery in favour of fistula surgery at the time of abscess incision and drainage (RR=0.13, 95% Confidence Interval of RR = 0.07-0.24). Transient manometric reduction in anal sphincter pressures, without clinical incontinence, may occur after treatment of low fistulae with abscess drainage. Incontinence at one year following drainage with fistula surgery was not statistically significant (pooled RR 3.06, 95% Confidence Interval 0.7-13.45) with heterogeneity demonstrable between the trials (Chi(2) =5.39,df=3, p=0.14, I(2) =44.4%). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The published evidence shows fistula surgery with abscess drainage significantly reduces recurrence or persistence of abscess/fistula, or the need for repeat surgery. There was no statistically significant evidence of incontinence following fistula surgery with abscess drainage. This intervention may be recommended in carefully selected patients.

Surgery for complete rectal prolapse in adults.

BACKGROUND: Complete rectal prolapse is a life-style altering disability that commonly affects older people. The range of surgical methods available to correct the underlying pelvic floor defects in complete rectal prolapse suggests that there is no agreement about the choice of the best operation. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of surgery on the treatment of rectal prolapse in adults. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register (searched 10 January 2008), the Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Group Trials Register (searched 10 January 2008), CENTRAL (Issue 1, 2008), PubMed (1 January 1950 to 10 January 2008) and EMBASE (1 January 1998 to 10 January 2008). The British Journal of Surgery (January 1995 to January 2008) and the Diseases of the Colon and Rectum (January 1995 to January 2008) were specifically hand searched. The proceedings of the Association of Coloproctology meetings held from 1999 to 2007 were perused. Reference lists of all relevant articles were searched for further trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised or quasi-randomised trials of surgery in the management of adult rectal prolapse. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three reviewers independently selected studies from the literature searches, assessed the methodological quality of eligible trials and extracted data. The four primary outcome measures were: number of patients with recurrent rectal prolapse, number of patients with residual mucosal prolapse, and number of patients with faecal incontinence or constipation. MAIN RESULTS: Twelve randomised controlled trials including 380 participants were identified and included in this review. One trial compared abdominal with perineal approaches to surgery, three trials compared fixation methods, three trials looked at the effects of lateral ligament division, one trial compared techniques of rectosigmoidectomy, two trials compared laparoscopic with open surgery and two trials compared resection with no resection rectopexy.The heterogeneity of the trial objectives, interventions and outcomes made analysis difficult. Many review objectives were covered by only one or two studies with small numbers of participants. With these caveats in mind there is insufficient data to say which of the abdominal and perineal approaches has a better outcome. There were no detectable differences between the methods used for fixation during rectopexy. Division, rather than preservation, of the lateral ligaments was associated with less recurrent prolapse but more post-operative constipation. Laparoscopic rectopexy was associated with fewer post-operative complications and shorter hospital stay than open rectopexy. Bowel resection during rectopexy was associated with lower rates of constipation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The small sample size of included trials together with their methodological weaknesses severely limit the usefulness of this review for guiding practice. It is impossible to identify or refute clinically important differences between the alternative surgical operations. Larger rigorous trials are needed to improve the evidence with which to define optimum surgical treatment for rectal prolapse: the results of one such trial are awaited.

Expression of angiogenic VEGF-A (soluble isoforms 121, 165) and lymphangiogenic VEGF-C in colorectal cancers with micro-satellite instability.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Colorectal cancers (CRC) with high-level micro-satellite instability (MSI-H) show reduced metastatic potential and better prognosis compared to stage-matched stable (MSS) cancers. Angiogenesis/lymphangiogenesis, central to tumour growth and spread, is mediated by vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) cytokines, but little is known of their relationship to MSI. METHODS: In this study, 67 sporadic CRC with identified MSI status, and 8 samples of normal colon were analysed for VEGF-A soluble isoforms (VEGF-121/VEGF-165) and VEGF-C gene transcription (by RT-PCR and scanning densitometry), and blood vessel density (BVD; measuring angiogenesis) and VEGF-C protein expression (measuring lymphangiogenesis). RESULTS: Compared to normal colon, VEGF-165 transcription was reduced (P < 0.05), but VEGF-121 transcription was higher in MSS (P < 0.06) and MSI-L (P < 0.01) cancers (but similar in MSI-H). VEGF-165 transcription was unrelated to MSI, but VEGF-121 transcription was elevated in MSI-L (P < 0.06). There was a weak inverse correlation with VEGF-121 transcription and Dukes stage (P < 0.09), and with BVD and MSI (P < 0.09). With a singular di-nucleotide loci mutation (MSI-L), VEGF-121 (P < 0.03) and VEGF-C (P < 0.04) transcription was elevated. CONCLUSIONS: MSI-H cancers have reduced angiogenic/lymphangiogenic potential, and transcription of VEGF-121 may be important in early growth and spread of CRC. Elevated VEGF-121 and VEGF-C transcription with singular di-nucleotide mutations may aid in the identification of distinct MSI-L cancers.