Minimally invasive surgery for Inflammatory Bowel Disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic surgical techniques.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate outcomes of robotic versus conventional laparoscopic colorectal resections in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). METHODS: Comparative studies of robotic versus laparoscopic colorectal resections in patients with IBD were included. Primary outcome was total post-operative complication rate. Secondary outcomes included operative time, conversion to open surgery, anastomotic leaks, intra-abdominal abscess formation, ileus occurrence, surgical site infection, re-operation, re-admission rate, length of hospital stay, and 30-day mortality. Combined overall effect sizes were calculated using random-effects model and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess risk of bias. RESULTS: Eleven non-randomised studies (n=5,566 patients) divided between those undergoing robotic (n=365) and conventional laparoscopic (n=5,201) surgery were included. Robotic platforms were associated with a significantly lower overall post-operative complication rate compared with laparoscopic surgery (P=0.03).Laparoscopic surgery was associated with a significantly shorter operative time (P=0.00001). No difference was found in conversion rates to open surgery (P=0.15), anastomotic leaks (P=0.84), abscess formation (P=0.21), paralytic ileus (P=0.06), surgical site infections (P=0.78), re-operation (P=0.26), re-admission rate (P=0.48), and 30-day mortality (P=1.00) between the groups.Length of hospital stay was shorter following a robotic sub-total colectomy compared with conventional laparoscopy (P=0.03). CONCLUSION: Outcomes in the surgical management of IBD are comparable between traditional laparoscopic techniques and robotic-assisted minimally invasive surgery demonstrating the safety and feasibility of robotic platforms. Larger studies investigating the use of robotic technology in Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis separately may be of benefit with specific focus on important IBD-related metrics.

Does Omentopexy Make a Difference in Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy for Obesity Treatment? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the comparative outcomes of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy with omentopexy (LSGO) versus conventional laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) for obesity treatment. A systematic online search was conducted using the available online databases, and Revman software was used for data analysis. Twenty-two eligible comparative studies were included (n = 9,321). LSGO showed a significantly lower rate of gastric leak (P = 0.0001), staple line bleeding (P = 0.00001), and gastric torsion (P = 0.002) in comparison to the LSG group. Operative time was significantly shorter in the LSG group (P = 0.00001); however, the length of hospital stay was in favour of the LSGO (P = 0.00001). Compared to LSG without omentopexy, LSG with omentopexy provides a significantly lower rate of postoperative complications and shorter LOS at the expense of operative time.

Comparing Thoracic Epidural Anaesthesia to Rectus Sheath Catheter Analgesia for Postoperative Pain After Major Abdominal Surgeries: A Systematic Review.

Controlling postoperative pain is essential for the greatest recovery following major abdominal surgery. Thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) has traditionally been considered the preferred method of providing pain relief after major abdominal surgeries. Thoracic epidural analgesia has a wide range of complications, including residual motor blockade, hypotension, urine retention with the need for urinary catheterisation, tethering to infusion pumps, and occasional failure rates. In recent years, rectus sheath catheter (RSC) analgesia has been gaining popularity. The purpose of this review is to compare the effectiveness of TEA and RSC in reducing pain following major abdominal surgeries. Four randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting outcomes of the visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score were included according to the set criteria. A total of 351 patients undergoing major abdominal surgery were included in this meta-analysis. There were 176 patients in the TEA group and 175 patients in the RSC group. In the random effect model analysis, there was no significant difference in VAS pain score in 24 hours at rest (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.46; 95% CI -1.21 to 0.29; z=1.20, P=0.23) and movement (SMD -0.64; 95% CI -1.69 to -0.14; z=1.19, P=0.23) between TEA and RSC. Similarly, there was no significant difference in pain score after 48 hours at rest (SMD -0.14; 95% CI -0.36 to 0.08; z=1.29, P=0.20) or movement (SMD -0.69; 95% CI -2.03 to 0.64; z=1.02, P=0.31). In conclusion, our findings show that there was no significant difference in pain score between TEA and RSC following major abdominal surgery, and we suggest that both approaches can be used effectively according to the choice and expertise available.

Appendiceal Foreign Bodies in Adults: A Systematic Review of Case Reports.

Adults can accidentally swallow foreign bodies (FBs) with food. In rare occasions, these can lodge in the appendix lumen causing inflammation. This is known as foreign body appendicitis. We conducted this study to review different types and management of appendiceal FBs. A comprehensive search on PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar was performed to detect appropriate case reports for this review. Case reports eligible for this review included patients above 18 years of age with all types of FB ingestion causing appendicitis. A total of 64 case reports were deemed to be eligible for inclusion in this systematic review. The patient mean age was 44.3 ± 16.7 years (range, 18-77). Twenty-four foreign bodies were identified in the adult appendix. They were mainly lead shot pellet, fishbone, dental crown or filling, toothpick, and others. Forty-two percent of the included patients presented with classic appendicitis pain, while 17% were asymptomatic. Moreover, the appendix was perforated in 11 patients. Regarding modalities used for diagnosis, computed tomography (CT) scans confirmed the presence of FBs in 59% of cases while X-ray only managed to detect 30%. Almost all of the cases (91%) were treated surgically with appendicectomy and only six were managed conservatively. Overall, lead shot pellets were the most common foreign body found. Fishbone and toothpick accounted for most of the perforated appendix cases. This study concludes that prophylactic appendicectomy is recommended for the management of foreign bodies detected in the appendix, even if the patient is asymptomatic.