Laparoscopic versus open repair for peptic ulcer perforation: a systematic review, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomised controlled trials. Time to conclude!

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to investigate comparative outcomes of laparoscopic and open repair for peptic ulcer perforation (PUP). METHODS: A PRISMA-compliant systematic review with a PROSPERO-registered protocol (registration number CRD42024529286) was conducted. All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving PUP patients managed by laparoscopic or open repair were identified and their risk of bias assessed. Outcome syntheses for perioperative mortality and morbidities, need for reoperation, procedure time and length of hospital stay were conducted using random-effects modelling to calculate risk ratios (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). FINDINGS: Nine RCTs met the inclusion criteria, enrolling 670 patients of whom 317 were randomised to receive laparoscopic surgery and 353 were managed with open surgery. Laparoscopic repair of PUP significantly reduced mortality (RR 0.37, p = 0.03), total complications (RR 0.57, p = 0.0009), ileus (RR 0.43, p = 0.04), wound complications (RR 0.36, p < 0.0001) and length of hospital stay (MD -2.37, p = 0.0003) compared with the open approach. There were no significant differences in rate of postoperative leak (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.74-5.41, p = 0.17), abdominal collection (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.46-3.07, p = 0.72), sepsis (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.39-3.52, p = 0.65), respiratory complications (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.32-1.46, p = 0.32), reoperation (RR 1.74, 95% CI 0.57-5.30, p = 0.33) and operating time (MD 15.31, 95% CI -4.86 to 35.47, p = 0.14) between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic repair of PUP is associated with significantly lower mortality and morbidity and shorter length of stay compared with the open approach. The laparoscopic approach should be the management of choice subject to the existence of laparoscopic expertise.

Peri-operative, oncological and functional outcomes of robotic versus transanal total mesorectal excision in patients with rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Comparative outcomes of robotic low anterior resection (rTME) and trans-anal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) in patients with low rectal cancer were evaluated. METHODS: 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 of rTME versus TaTME for low rectal cancer were included. Primary outcomes were postoperative complications, including anastomotic leak, surgical site infection, and Clavien-Dindo complication rate. Total operative time, conversion to open surgery, intra-operative blood loss, intensive therapy unit (ITU) and total hospital length of stay (LOS), oncological outcomes and functional outcomes were the other evaluated outcome parameters. RESULTS: A total of 12 studies with a total number of 3025 patients divided between rTME (n = 1881) and TaTME (n = 1144) groups were included. There was no significant difference between the two groups for total operative time (P = 0.39), conversion to open surgery (P = 0.29) and intra-operative blood loss (P = 0.62). Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3 complication rate (P = 0.47), anastomotic leak (P = 0.89), rates of re-operation (P = 0.62) and re-admission (P = 0.92), R0 resections (P = 0.52), ITU LOS (P = 0.63) and total hospital LOS (P = 0.30) also showed similar results between the two groups. However, the rTME group had higher rates of total harvested lymph nodes (P = 0.04) and complete total mesorectal excision (TME) resections (P = 0.05). Albeit with a limited dataset, the Wexner and low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) scores showed better functional results in the rTME group compared with the TaTME group (P = 0.0009 and P = 0.00001, respectively). CONCLUSION: Compared with TaTME, rTME seems to provide better functional outcomes, higher lymph node yield and more complete TME resections with a similar post-operative complications profile.

Should routine surgical wound drainage after ventral hernia repair be avoided? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: To evaluate outcomes of drain use vs. no-drain use during ventral hernia repair. METHODS: A PRISMA-compliant systematic review was conducted using the following databases: PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane database, The Virtual Health Library, Clinical trials.gov and Science Direct. Studies comparing use of drains with no-drain during ventral hernia repair (primary or incisional) were included. Wound-related complications, operative time, need for mesh removal and early recurrence were the evaluated outcome parameters. RESULTS: Eight studies reporting a total number of two thousand four hundred and sixty-eight patients (drain group = 1214; no-drain group = 1254) were included. The drain group had a significantly higher rate of surgical site infections (SSI) and longer operative time compared with the no-drain group [odds ratio (OR): 1.63, P = 0.01] and [mean difference (MD): 57.30, P = 0.007], respectively. Overall wound-related complications [OR: 0.95, P = 0.88], seroma formation [OR: 0.66, P = 0.24], haematoma occurrence [OR: 0.78, P = 0.61], mesh removal [OR: 1.32, P = 0.74] and early hernia recurrence [OR: 1.10, P = 0.94] did not differ significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSION: The available evidence does not seem to support the routine use of surgical drains during primary or incisional ventral hernia repairs. They are associated with increased rates of SSIs and longer total operative time with no significant advantage in terms of wound-related complications.