Effect of complete mesocolic excision (cme) on long-term survival after right colectomy for cancer: multivariate meta-analysis and restricted mean survival time estimation.

INTRODUCTION: Debate exists concerning the impact of complete mesocolic excision (CME) on long-term oncological outcomes. The aim of this review was to condense the updated literature and assess the effect of CME on long-term survival after right colectomy for cancer. METHODS: PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched through July 2023. The included studies evaluated the effect of CME on survival. The primary outcome was long-term overall survival. Restricted mean survival time difference (RMSTD), hazard ratio (HR), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used as pooled effect size measures. GRADE methodology was used to summarize the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: Ten studies (3665 patients) were included. Overall, 1443 (39.4%) underwent CME. The RMSTD analysis shows that at 60-month follow-up, stage I-III CME patients lived 2.5 months (95% CI 1.1-4.1) more on average compared with noCME patients. Similarly, stage III patients that underwent CME lived longer compared to noCME patients at 55-month follow-up (6.1 months; 95% CI 3.4-8.5). The time-dependent HRs analysis for CME vs. noCME (stage I-III disease) shows a higher mortality hazard in patients with noCME at 6 months (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.29-0.71), 12 months (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.43-0.73), and 24 months (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.57-0.92) up to 27 months. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that CME is associated with unclear OS benefit in stage I-III disease. Caution is recommended to avoid overestimation of the effect of CME in stage III disease since the marginal benefit of a more extended resection may have been influenced by tumor biology/molecular profile and multimodal adjuvant treatments.

Impact of pulmonary complications following esophagectomy on long-term survival: multivariate meta-analysis and restricted mean survival time assessment.

Pulmonary complications (PC) are common after esophagectomy and their impact on long-term survival is not defined yet. The present study aimed to assess the effect of postoperative PCs on long-term survival after esophagectomy for cancer. Systematic review of the literature through February 1, 2023, was performed. The included studies evaluated the effect of PC on long-term survival. Primary outcome was long-term overall survival (OS). Cancer-specific survival (CSS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were secondary outcomes. Restricted mean survival time difference (RMSTD), hazard ratio (HR), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used as pooled effect size measures. Eleven studies were included (3423 patients). Overall, 674 (19.7%) patients developed PC. The RMSTD analysis shows that at 60-month follow-up, patients not experiencing PC live an average of 8.5 (95% CI 6.2-10.8; p < 0.001) months longer compared with those with PC. Similarly, patients not experiencing postoperative PC seem to have significantly longer CSS (8 months; 95% CI 3.7-12.3; p < 0.001) and DFS (5.4 months; 95% CI 1.6-9.1; p = 0.005). The time-dependent HRs analysis shows a reduced mortality hazard in patients without PC at 12 (HR 0.6, 95% CI 0.51-0.69), 24 (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.55-0.73), 36 (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.55-0.79), and 60 months (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.51-0.89). This study suggests a moderate clinical impact of PC on long-term OS, CSS, and DFS after esophagectomy. Patients not experiencing PC seem to have a significantly reduced mortality hazard up to 5 years of follow-up.

Long-Term Impact of D2 Lymphadenectomy during Gastrectomy for Cancer: Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis and Restricted Mean Survival Time Estimation.

BACKGROUND: Debate exists concerning the impact of D2 vs. D1 lymphadenectomy on long-term oncological outcomes after gastrectomy for cancer. METHODS: PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) analyzing the effect of D2 vs. D1 on survival were included. Overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and disease-free survival (DFS) were assessed. Restricted mean survival time difference (RMSTD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used as effect size measures. RESULTS: Five RCTs (1653 patients) were included. Overall, 805 (48.7%) underwent D2 lymphadenectomy. The RMSTD OS analysis shows that at 60-month follow-up, D2 patients lived 1.8 months (95% CI -4.2, 0.7; p = 0.14) longer on average compared to D1 patients. Similarly, 60-month CSS (1.2 months, 95% CI -3.9, 5.7; p = 0.72) and DFS (0.8 months, 95% CI -1.7, 3.4; p = 0.53) tended to be improved for D2 vs. D1 lymphadenectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to D1, D2 lymphadenectomy is associated with a clinical trend toward improved OS, CSS, and DFS at 60-month follow-up.

Short-term Outcomes of Different Techniques for Gastric Ischemic Preconditioning Before Esophagectomy: A Network Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Ischemia at the anastomotic site plays a critical role determinant in the development of anastomosis-related complications after esophagectomy. Gastric ischemic conditioning (GIC) before esophagectomy has been described to improve the vascular perfusion at the tip of the gastric conduit with a potential effect on anastomotic leak (AL) and stenosis (AS) risk minimization. Laparoscopic (LapGIC) and angioembolization (AngioGIC) techniques have been reported. PURPOSE: Compare short-term outcomes among different GIC techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. One-step esophagectomy (noGIC), LapGIC, and AngioGIC were compared. Primary outcomes were AL, AS, and gastric conduit necrosis (GCN). Risk ratio (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) were used as pooled effect size measures, whereas 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were used to assess relative inference. RESULTS: Overall, 1760 patients (14 studies) were included. Of those, 1028 patients (58.4%) underwent noGIC, 593 (33.6%) LapGIC, and 139 (8%) AngioGIC. AL was reduced for LapGIC versus noGIC (RR=0.68; 95% CrI 0.47-0.98) and AngioGIC versus noGIC (RR=0.52; 95% CrI 0.31-0.93). Similarly, AS was reduced for LapGIC versus noGIC (RR=0.32; 95% CrI 0.12-0.68) and AngioGIC versus noGIC (RR=1.30; 95% CrI 0.65-2.46). The indirect comparison, assessed with the network methodology, did not show any differences for LapGIC versus AngioGIC in terms of postoperative AL and AS risk. No differences were found for GCN, pulmonary complications, overall complications, hospital length of stay, and 30-day mortality among different treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to noGIC, both LapGIC and AngioGIC before esophagectomy seem equivalent and associated with a reduced risk for postoperative AL and AS.

Safety profile of magnetic sphincter augmentation for gastroesophageal reflux disease.

Background: The magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) procedure is an effective treatment for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Adverse events requiring MSA device removal are rare, but the true prevalence and incidence may be underestimated. Methods: Retrospective study on a prospectively collected database. Patients who underwent MSA procedure between March 2007 and September 2021 in two tertiary-care referral centers for esophageal surgery were included. The trend of MSA explant, the changes in the sizing technique and crura repair over the years, the technique of explant, and the clinical outcomes of the revisional procedure were reviewed. Results: Out of 397 consecutive patients, 50 (12.4%) underwent MSA removal, with a median time to explant of 39.5 [IQR = 53.7] months. Main symptoms leading to removal were dysphagia (43.2%), heartburn (25%), and epigastric pain (13.6%). Erosion occurred in 2.5% of patients. Smaller (12- and 13-bead) devices were the ones most frequently explanted. The majority of the explants were performed laparoscopically with endoscopic assistance. There was no perioperative morbidity, and the median length of stay was 2.8 ± 1.4 days. After 2014, changes in sizing technique and crura repair resulted in a decreased incidence of explants from 23% to 5% (p < 0.0001). Multivariate analysis confirmed the protective role of added bead units [HR 0.06 (95% CI = 0.001-0.220); p < 0.000]. Conclusion: Oversizing and full mediastinal dissection with posterior hiatoplasty may improve the outcomes of the MSA procedure and possibly reduce removal rates.

Intraoperative endomanometric laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication improves postoperative outcomes in large sliding hiatus hernias with severe gastroesophageal reflux disease: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication (LNF) is the gold standard surgical intervention for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). LNF can be followed by recurrent symptoms or complications affecting patient satisfaction. The aim of this study is to assess the value of the intraoperative endomanometric evaluation of esophagogastric competence and pressure combined with LNF in patients with large sliding hiatus hernia (>5 cm) with severe GERD (DeMeester score >100). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective, multicenter cohort study. Baseline characteristics, postoperative dysphagia and gas bloat syndrome, recurrent symptoms, and satisfaction were collected from a prospectively maintained database. Outcomes analyzed included recurrent reflux symptoms, postoperative side effects, and satisfaction with surgery. RESULTS: Three hundred sixty patients were stratified into endomanometric LNF (180 patients, LNF+) and LNF alone (180 patients, LNF). Recurrent heartburn (3.9 vs. 8.3%) and recurrent regurgitation (2.2 vs. 5%) showed a lower incidence in the LNF+ group ( P =0.012). Postoperative score III recurrent heartburn and score III regurgitations occurred in 0 vs. 3.3% and 0 vs. 2.8% cases in the LNF+ and LNF groups, respectively ( P =0.005). Postoperative persistent dysphagia and gas bloat syndrome occurred in 1.75 vs. 5.6% and 0 vs. 3.9% of patients ( P =0.001). Score III postoperative persistent dysphagia was 0 vs. 2.8% in the two groups ( P =0.007). There was no redo surgery for dysphagia after LNF+. Patient satisfaction at the end of the study was 93.3 vs. 86.7% in both cohorts, respectively ( P =0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative high-resolution manometry and endoscopic were feasible in all patients, and the outcomes were favorable from an effectiveness and safety standpoint.

Effect of gastric ischemic conditioning prior to esophagectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Ischemia at the anastomotic site is thought to be a protagonist in the development of anastomosis-related complications while different strategies to overcome this problem have been reported. Gastric ischemic conditioning (GIC) prior to esophagectomy has been described with this intent. Evaluate the effect of GIC on anastomotic complications after esophagectomy. Scopus, Web of Science, MEDLINE, and PubMed were investigated up to March 31st, 2023. We considered articles that appraised short-term outcomes after GIC vs. no GIC in patients undergoing esophagectomy. Anastomotic leak (AL), anastomotic stricture (AS), and gastric conduit necrosis (GCN) were primary outcomes. Risk ratio (RR) and standardized mean difference (SMD) were used as pooled effect size measures, whereas 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were used to calculate related inference. Fourteen studies (1760 patients) were included. Of those, 732 (41.6%) underwent GIC, while 1028 (58.4%) underwent one-step esophagectomy. Compared with no GIC, GIC was related to a reduced RR for AL (R RR = 0.63; 95% CI 0.47-0.86; p < 0.01) and AS (RR = 0.51; 95% CI 0.29-0.91; p = 0.02), whereas no differences were found for GCN (RR = 0.56; 95% CI 0.19-1.61; p = 0.28). Postoperative pneumonia (RR = 1.09; p = 0.99), overall complications (RR = 0.87; p = 0.19), operative time (SMD - 0.58; p = 0.07), hospital stay (SMD 0.66; p = 0.09), and 30-day mortality (RR = 0.69; p = 0.22) were comparable. GIC prior to esophagectomy seems associated with a reduced risk for AL and AS. Further studies are necessary to identify the subset of patients who can benefit from this procedure, the optimal technique, and the timing of GIC prior to esophagectomy.

Short-term outcomes of different esophagojejunal anastomotic techniques during laparoscopic total gastrectomy: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Different techniques have been described for esophagojejunostomy (EJ) during laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG) for gastric cancer. Linear stapled techniques include overlap (OL) and functional end-to-end anastomosis (FEEA) while single staple technique (SST), hemi-double staple technique (HDST), and OrVil® are circular stapled approaches. Nowadays, the choice among techniques for EJ depends on operating surgeon personal preference. PURPOSE: To compare short-term outcomes of different EJ techniques during LTG. METHODS: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. OL, FEEA, SST, HDST, and OrVil® were compared. Primary outcomes were anastomotic leak (AL) and stenosis (AS). Risk ratio (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) were used as pooled effect size measures, whereas 95% credible intervals (CrI) were used to measure relative inference. RESULTS: Overall, 3177 patients (20 studies) were included. The technique for EJ was SST (n = 1026; 32.9%), OL (n = 826; 26.5%), FEEA (n = 752; 24.1%), OrVil® (n = 317; 10.1%), and HDST (n = 196; 6.4%). AL was comparable for OL vs. FEEA (RR = 0.82; 95% CrI 0.47-1.49), OL vs. SST (RR = 0.55; 95% CrI 0.27-1.21), OL vs. OrVil® (RR = 0.54; 95% CrI 0.32-1.22), and OL vs. HDST (RR = 0.65; 95% CrI 0.28-1.63). Similarly, AS was similar for OL vs. FEEA (RR = 0.46; 95% CrI 0.18-1.28), OL vs. SST (RR = 0.89; 95% CrI 0.39-2.15), OL vs. OrVil® (RR = 0.36; 95% CrI 0.14-1.02), and OL vs. HDST (RR = 0.61; 95% CrI 0.31-1.21). Anastomotic bleeding, time to soft diet resumption, pulmonary complications, hospital length of stay, and mortality were comparable while operative time was reduced for FEEA. CONCLUSIONS: This network meta-analysis shows similar postoperative AL and AS risk when comparing OL, FEEA, SST, HDST, and OrVil® techniques. Similarly, no differences were found for anastomotic bleeding, operative time, soft diet resumption, pulmonary complications, hospital length of stay and 30-day mortality.

Effect of Anastomotic Leak on Long-Term Survival After Esophagectomy: Multivariate Meta-analysis and Restricted Mean Survival Times Examination.

BACKGROUND: Anastomotic leak (AL) is a serious complication after esophagectomy. It is associated with prolonged hospital stay, increased costs, and increased risk for 90-day mortality. Controversy exists concerning the impact of AL on survival. This study was designed to investigate the effect of AL on long-term survival after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. METHODS: PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched through October 30, 2022. The included studies evaluated the effect of AL on long-term survival. Primary outcome was long-term overall survival. Restricted mean survival time difference (RMSTD), hazard ratio (HR), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used as pooled effect size measures. RESULTS: Thirteen studies (7118 patients) were included. Overall, 727 (10.2%) patients experienced AL. The RMSTD analysis shows that at 12, 24, 36, 48, and 60 months, patients not experiencing AL live an average of 0.7 (95% CI 0.2-1.2; p < 0.001), 1.9 (95% CI 1.1-2.6; p < 0.001), 2.6 (95% CI 1.6-3.7; p < 0.001), 3.4 (95% CI 1.9-4.9; p < 0.001), and 4.2 (95% CI 2.1-6.4; p < 0.001) months longer compared with those with AL, respectively. The time-dependent HRs analysis for AL versus no AL shows a higher mortality hazard in patients with AL at 3 (HR 1.94, 95% CI 1.54-2.34), 6 (HR 1.56, 95% CI 1.39-1.75), 12 (HR 1.47, 95% CI 1.24-1.54), and 24 months (HR 1.19, 95% CI 1.02-1.31). CONCLUSIONS: This study seems to suggest a modest clinical impact of AL on long-term OS after esophagectomy. Patients who experience AL seem to have a higher mortality hazard during the first 2 years of follow-up.

Impact of postoperative NSAIDs administration on anastomotic leak after esophago-gastric surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Anastomotic leak (AL) is a feared complication of esophago-gastric surgery. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely used to treat postoperative pain. Previous analyses conveyed heterogeneous data for colorectal surgery with a tendency toward high risk for AL after NSAIDs administration. In the setting of upper gastrointestinal (GI) surgery data are even more puzzled. The purpose of the present study was to assess whether an association exists between postoperative NSAIDs administration and AL after esophago-gastric surgery. PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched up to November 2022. The included studies evaluated outcomes for NSAIDs vs. no NSAIDs administration after esophago-gastric surgery. The primary outcome was anastomotic leak (AL). Risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were used to assess pooled effect size and relative inference. Six studies (43,784 patients) were included. The patient age ranged from 31 to 84 years, 82.4% were males and preoperative BMI ranged from 15 to 31 kg/m2. Esophagectomy was performed in 95% of patients. NSAIDs were administered in 18,075 (41.3%) patients. The cumulative incidence of AL was similar for NSAIDs vs. no NSAIDs (13.6% vs. 13.4%). The risk for postoperative AL was similar for NSAIDs vs. no NSAIDs administration (RR 1.49; 95% CI 0.81-2.75; p = 0.19). The cumulative incidence of postoperative gastrointestinal bleeding (0.36% vs. 0.39%), acute kidney injury (0.62% vs. 0.71%), and in-hospital mortality (2.39% vs. 2.66%) were comparable. NSAIDs administration for postoperative analgesia seems not associated with an increased risk for AL after esophago-gastric surgery.

What is the ideal mesh location for incisional hernia prevention during elective laparotomy? A network meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Incisional hernia (IH) represents an important complication after surgery. Prophylactic mesh reinforcement (PMR) with different mesh locations [onlay (OL), retromuscular (RM), preperitoneal (PP), and intraperitoneal (IP)] has been described to possibly reduce the risk of postoperative IH. However, data reporting the 'ideal' mesh location are sparse. The aim of this study was to evaluate the optimal mesh location for IH prevention during elective laparotomy. METHODS: Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). OL, RM, PP, IP, and no mesh (NM) were compared. The primary aim was postoperative IH. Risk ratio (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) were used as pooled effect size measures, whereas 95% credible intervals (CrI) were used to assess relative inference. RESULTS: Fourteen RCTs (2332 patients) were included. Overall, 1052 (45.1%) had no mesh (NM) while 1280 (54.9%) underwent PMR stratified in IP ( n =344 pts), PP ( n =52 pts), RM ( n =463 pts), and OL ( n =421 pts) placement. Follow-up ranged from 12 months to 67 months. RM (RR=0.34; 95% CrI: 0.10-0.81) and OL (RR=0.15; 95% CrI: 0.044-0.35) were associated with significantly reduced IH RR compared to NM. A tendency toward reduced IH RR was noticed for PP versus NM (RR=0.16; 95% CrI: 0.018-1.01), while no differences were found for IP versus NM (RR=0.59; 95% CrI: 0.19-1.81). Seroma, hematoma, surgical site infection, 90-day mortality, operative time and hospital length of stay were comparable among treatments. CONCLUSIONS: RM or OL mesh placement seems associated with reduced IH RR compared to NM. PP location appears promising; however, future studies are warranted to corroborate this preliminary indication.

Linear- Versus Circular-Stapled Esophagojejunostomy During Total Gastrectomy: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: While numerous techniques have been defined for esophagojejunostomy (EJ) during total gastrectomy including hand-sewn and stapled anastomoses, mechanical linear-stapled (LS) and circular-stapled (CS) anastomoses are widely adopted. However, there are scarce data on the optimal stapled technique for EJ during total gastrectomy. Materials and Methods: Scopus, Web of Science, MEDLINE, and PubMed were investigated up to October 30, 2022. We considered articles that appraised short-term outcomes after LS versus CS anastomosis in patients undergoing total gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Anastomotic leak (AL), anastomotic stricture (AS), and anastomotic bleeding (AB) were primary outcomes. Risk ratio (RR) and standardized mean difference (SMD) were used as pooled effect size measures, whereas 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were used to calculate related inference. Results: Sixteen studies (3156 patients) were incorporated. Overall, 1540 (48.8%) underwent CS, whereas 1616 (51.2%) underwent LS. Compared with CS, LS was related to a condensed RR for AS (RR: 0.27; 95% CI 0.15-0.49; P < .01), whereas no differences were found for AL (RR: 0.75; 95% CI 0.51-1.10; P = .14) and AB (RR: 0.59; 95% CI 0.24-1.44; P = .25). Postoperative pneumonia (RR: 0.98; P = .94), operative time (SMD: 0.51; P = .31), days to soft diet (SMD: -0.08; P = .36), hospital stay (SMD: 0.19; P = .46), and 30-day mortality (RR: 1.76; P = .31) were comparable between LS and CS. Conclusions: For EJ during total gastrectomy, our results suggest that LS seems related to a reduced risk of AS compared with CS, although no significant differences were found for the risk of AL and AB between the two techniques. Clinical Trial Registration number: CRD42022381221.