Intraoperative bowel perfusion assessment methods and their effects on anastomotic leak rates: meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Anastomotic leak is one of the most feared complications of colorectal surgery, and probably linked to poor blood supply to the anastomotic site. Several technologies have been described for intraoperative assessment of bowel perfusion. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the most frequently used bowel perfusion assessment modalities in elective colorectal procedures, and to assess their associated risk of anastomotic leak. Technologies included indocyanine green fluorescence angiography, diffuse reflectance spectroscopy, laser speckle contrast imaging, and hyperspectral imaging. METHODS: The review was preregistered with PROSPERO (CRD42021297299). A comprehensive literature search was performed using Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science. The final search was undertaken on 29 July 2022. Data were extracted by two reviewers and the MINORS criteria were applied to assess the risk of bias. RESULTS: Some 66 eligible studies involving 11 560 participants were included. Indocyanine green fluorescence angiography was most used with 10 789 participants, followed by diffuse reflectance spectroscopy with 321, hyperspectral imaging with 265, and laser speckle contrast imaging with 185. In the meta-analysis, the total pooled effect of an intervention on anastomotic leak was 0.05 (95 per cent c.i. 0.04 to 0.07) in comparison with 0.10 (0.08 to 0.12) without. Use of indocyanine green fluorescence angiography, hyperspectral imaging, or laser speckle contrast imaging was associated with a significant reduction in anastomotic leak. CONCLUSION: Bowel perfusion assessment reduced the incidence of anastomotic leak, with intraoperative indocyanine green fluorescence angiography, hyperspectral imaging, and laser speckle contrast imaging all demonstrating comparable results.

A one-year cost-utility analysis of REBOA versus RTACC for non-compressible torso haemorrhage.

INTRODUCTION: Major trauma is a leading cause of death and disability in young adults, especially from massive non-compressible torso haemorrhage. The standard technique to control distal haemorrhage and maximise central perfusion is resuscitative thoracotomy with aortic cross-clamping (RTACC). More recently, the minimally invasive technique of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) has been developed to similarly limit distal haemorrhage without the morbidity of thoracotomy; cost-utility studies on this intervention, however, are still lacking. The aim of this study was to perform a one-year cost-utility analysis of REBOA as an intervention for patients with major traumatic non-compressible abdominal haemorrhage, compared to RTACC within the U.K.'s National Health Service. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the outcomes following REBOA and RTACC was conducted based on the published literature of survival and complication rates after intervention. Utility was obtained from studies that used the EQ-5D index and from self-conducted surveys. Costs were calculated using 2016/2017 National Health Service tariff data and supplemented from further literature. A cost-utility analysis was then conducted. RESULTS: A total of 12 studies for REBOA and 20 studies for RTACC were included. The mean injury severity scores for RTACC and REBOA were 34 and 39, and mean probability of death was 9.7 and 54%, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of REBOA when compared to RTACC was £44,617.44 per quality-adjusted life year. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, by exceeding the National Institute for Health and Clinical Effectiveness's willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000/quality-adjusted life year, suggests that this intervention is not cost-effective in comparison to RTACC. However, REBOA yielded a 157% improvement in utility with a comparatively small cost increase of 31.5%. CONCLUSION: Although REBOA has not been found to be cost-effective when compared to RTACC, ultimately, clinical experience and expertise should be the main factor in driving the decision over which intervention to prioritise in the emergency context.