Outcomes of Intraoperative Pyloric Drainage on Delayed Gastric Emptying Following Esophagectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Intraoperative pyloric drainage in esophagectomy may reduce delayed gastric emptying (DGE) but is associated with risk of biliary reflux and other complications. Existing evidence is heterogenous. Hence, this meta-analysis aims to compare outcomes of intraoperative pyloric drainage versus no intervention in patients undergoing esophagectomy. METHODS: PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane were searched from inception up to July 2022. Exclusion criteria were lack of objective evidence (e.g., symptoms of nausea or vomiting) of DGE. The primary outcome was incidence of DGE. Secondary outcomes were incidence of pulmonary complications, bile reflux, anastomotic leak, operative time, and mortality. RESULTS: There were nine studies including 1164 patients (pyloric drainage n = 656, no intervention n = 508). Intraoperative pyloric drainage included pyloroplasty (n = 166 (25.3%)), pyloromyotomy (n = 214 (32.6%)), botulinum toxin injection (n = 168 (25.6%)), and pyloric dilatation (n = 108 (16.5%)). Pyloric drainage is associated with reduced DGE (odds ratio (OR): 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.39-0.74, I2 = 50%). There was no significant difference in incidence of pulmonary complications (OR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.51-1.08; I2 = 0%), biliary reflux (OR: 1.43, 95% CI: 0.80-2.54, I2 = 0%), anastomotic leak (OR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.48-1.29; I2 = 0%), operative time (MD: + 22.16 min, 95% CI: - 13.27-57.59 min; I2 = 76%), and mortality (OR: 1.13, 95% CI: 0.48-2.64, I2 = 0%) between the pyloric drainage and no intervention groups. CONCLUSIONS: Pyloric drainage in esophagectomy reduces DGE but has similar post-operative outcomes. Further prospective studies should be carried out to compare various pyloric drainage techniques and its use in esophagectomy, especially minimally-invasive esophagectomy.

Mentoring in palliative medicine in the time of covid-19: a systematic scoping review : Mentoring programs during COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: The redeployment of mentors and restrictions on in-person face-to-face mentoring meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic has compromised mentoring efforts in Palliative Medicine (PM). Seeking to address these gaps, we evaluate the notion of a combined novice, peer-, near-peer and e-mentoring (CNEP) and interprofessional team-based mentoring (IPT) program. METHODS: A Systematic Evidence Based Approach (SEBA) guided systematic scoping review was carried out to study accounts of CNEP and IPT from articles published between 1st January 2000 and 28th February 2021. To enhance trustworthiness, concurrent thematic and content analysis of articles identified from structured database search using terms relating to interprofessional, virtual and peer or near-peer mentoring in medical education were employed to bring together the key elements within included articles. RESULTS: Fifteen thousand one hundred twenty one abstracts were reviewed, 557 full text articles were evaluated, and 92 articles were included. Four themes and categories were identified and combined using the SEBA's Jigsaw and Funnelling Process to reveal 4 domains - characteristics, mentoring stages, assessment methods, and host organizations. These domains suggest that CNEP's structured virtual and near-peer mentoring process complement IPT's accessible and non-hierarchical approach under the oversight of the host organizations to create a robust mentoring program. CONCLUSION: This systematic scoping review forwards an evidence-based framework to guide a CNEP-IPT program. At the same time, more research into the training and assessment methods of mentors, near peers and mentees, the dynamics of mentoring interactions and the longitudinal support of the mentoring relationships and programs should be carried out.