A Meta-analysis of Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery versus Total Mesorectal Excision in the Treatment of Rectal Cancer.

Background Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEMS) has been suggested as an alternative to total mesorectal excision (TME) in the treatment of early rectal cancers. The extended role of TEMS for higher stage rectal cancers after neoadjuvant therapy is also experimented. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the oncological outcomes and report on the evidence-based clinical supremacy of either technique. Methods Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for the randomized controlled trials comparing the oncological and perioperative outcomes of TEMS and a radical TME. A local recurrence and postoperative complications were analyzed as primary end points. Intraoperative blood loss, operation time, and duration of hospital stay were compared as secondary end points. Results There was no statistical difference in the local recurrence or postoperative complications with a risk ratio of 1.898 and 0.753 and p -values of 0.296 and 0.306, respectively, for TEMS and TME. A marked statistical significance in favor of TEMS was observed for secondary end points. There was standard difference in means of -4.697, -6.940, and -5.685 with p -values of 0.001, 0.005, and 0.001 for blood loss, operation time, and hospital stay, respectively. Conclusion TEMS procedure is a viable alternative to TME in the treatment of early rectal cancers. An extended role of TEMS after neoadjuvant therapy may also be offered to a selected group of patients. TME surgery remains the standard of care in more advanced rectal cancers.

Meta-analysis of biological mesh reconstruction versus primary perineal closure after abdominoperineal excision of rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) of rectal cancer has been proposed to achieve better oncological outcomes. The resultant wide perineal wound, however, presents a challenge for primary closure and subsequent wound healing. This meta-analysis compared the outcomes of primary perineal closure with those of biological mesh reconstruction. METHODS: The Medline and Embase search was performed for the publications comparing primary perineal closure to biological mesh reconstruction. Early perineal wound complications (seroma, infection, dehiscence) and late perineal wound complications (perineal hernia, chronic pain, and chronic sinus) were analyzed as primary endpoints. Intraoperative blood loss, operation time, and hospital stay were compared as secondary endpoints. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the overall early wound complications after primary closure or biological mesh reconstruction (odds ratio (OR) of 0.575 with 95% confidence interval (CI) of 0.241 to 1.373 and a P value of 0.213). The incidence of perineal hernia after 1 year was significantly high after primary closure of the perineal wounds (OR of 0.400 with 95% CI of 0.240 to 0.665 and a P value of 0.001). No significant differences were observed among other early and late perineal wound complications. The operation time and hospital stay were shorter after primary perineal closure (p 0.001). CONCLUSION: A lower incidence of perineal hernia and comparable early perineal wound complications after biological mesh reconstruction show a relative superiority over primary closure. More randomized studies are required before a routine biological mesh reconstruction can be recommended for closure of perineal wounds after ELAPE.

A meta-analysis of the role of diverting ileostomy after rectal cancer surgery.

PURPOSE: Anastomotic leak is a feared complication of rectal cancer surgery. A diverting stoma is believed to act as a safety mechanism against this undesirable outcome. This meta-analysis aimed to examine the role of loop ileostomy in the prevention of this complication. METHODS: The Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing anastomotic complications after rectal cancer surgery in the presence or absence of diverting ileostomy. The need for reoperation and postoperative complications were also analysed. The length of hospital stay, intraoperative blood loss and operating time were analysed as secondary endpoints. RESULTS: A significantly higher number of anastomotic leaks was detected in patients with no diverting ileostomies than in those with diversion (odds ratio (OR) 0.292 and 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.177-0.481), and more patients required reoperations in this group (OR 0.219 and 95% CI 0.114-0.422). The rate of complications other than anastomotic leak was significantly higher in patients with diverting ileostomies than in those without (OR 3.337 and 95% CI of 1.570-7.093). The operating time was longer in the ileostomy group than in the no ileostomy group (P 0.001), but no significant differences in the intraoperative blood loss or postoperative hospital stay length were observed between the two groups(P 0.199 and 0.191 respectively). CONCLUSION: A lower leak rate in the presence of diverting ileostomy is supported by relatively weak evidence. While mitigating the consequences of leakage, diverting ileostomies lead to numerous other complications. High-quality RCTs are needed before routine ileostomy diversions can be recommended after rectal cancer surgery.

Predictors of remission of type 2 diabetes mellitus after laparoscopic gastric banding and bypass.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is associated with obesity and results in considerable morbidity and mortality. Our objectives were to evaluate the effect of laparoscopic bariatric surgery on the control of T2DM in morbidly obese patients in a U.K. population and to determine the predictors of T2DM remission after bariatric surgery. The study was performed at teaching university hospitals and affiliated private hospitals. METHODS: Of 487 patients who underwent laparoscopic bariatric procedures from 2002 to 2007, 74 patients (15.2%) had established T2DM. The results are presented as the mean values. Multivariate analysis was used to identify the factors predictive of remission of T2DM after bariatric surgery. RESULTS: The body mass index before laparoscopic gastric bypass (LGB; n = 48) and laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB; n = 26) were comparable (52 versus 51 kg/m(2), P = .508). At a mean follow-up of 16.9 months, 41% had remission and 59% had experienced improvement in T2DM. Although the duration of follow-up was significantly longer for the patients who had undergone LAGB than for those who had undergone LGB (23 versus 13.4 months, P = .001), the percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL) was significantly greater after LGB than after LAGB (59.4% versus 48.8%, P = .031), with an associated greater remission rate of T2DM (50% versus 24%, P = .034). Multivariate analysis revealed a greater %EWL and younger age to be independent predictors of postoperative remission of T2DM, and LGB, longer follow-up, and female gender were independent predictors of a greater %EWL. CONCLUSION: The %EWL was the only predictor of remission of T2DM that was influenced by the choice of bariatric procedure. In our study, LGB offered greater weight loss and a chance of remission of T2DM compared with LAGB and within 2 years of surgery.

Revision laparoscopic gastric bypass: an effective approach following failure of primary bariatric procedures.

BACKGROUND: The laparoscopic approach plays an important role in the primary surgical management of morbid obesity. This study evaluated the potential role of the laparoscopic approach to revision Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) in the management of selected patients who fail to lose adequate weight or regain weight after primary bariatric surgery. METHODS: Revision LRYGB was carried out to remedy early or delayed failure of primary bariatric procedures. Patients who underwent laparoscopic revision surgery to re-establish a functioning gastric band were not included in this report. The results are presented as mean (SD). RESULTS: Between April 2002 and March 2009, 21 patients underwent 21 laparoscopic revision procedures. The initial bariatric operations were laparoscopic gastric band (n = 10), open vertical banded gastroplasty (n = 6), open Magenstrasse and Mill (n = 2), open gastric bypass with pouch dilatation (n = 2), and open gastric band (n = 1). All revision procedures were completed laparoscopically and included conversion to LRYGB (n = 19), and others (n = 2). The postoperative hospital stay was 2.0 (1.3) days. The anastomotic leak, morbidity, and mortality rates were 0%, 4.8%, and 0% respectively. At a follow-up of 12.9 (7.9) months, the prerevision body mass index has decreased significantly from 43.9 (7.4) to 32.7 (6.6) kg/m(2) (p < 0.001) with a percentage excess weight loss of 61.1 (21.2). CONCLUSIONS: The laparoscopic approach to revision Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is safe and effective even in patients with previous open bariatric surgery and is associated with rapid recovery and short hospital stay.

An "all 5-mm ports" versus conventional ports approach to laparoscopic cholecystectomy and Nissen fundoplication: a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Although needlescopic surgery may reduce postoperative pain, the use of 3-mm instruments is cumbersome and has not gained popularity. We have described an "all 5-mm ports" approach to laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) and Nissen fundoplication (LNF). METHODS: Selected patients were randomized to undergo LC or LNF using either the "all 5-mm ports" approach (group 1) or the conventional approach (group 2) that used two 10-mm ports and two or three 5-mm ports. The patients and investigator were blinded to the size of ports used. RESULTS: Forty patients (20 in each group) were randomized. The groups were comparable for age, sex, and type and duration of surgery. No significant reductions in analgesic requirements at 7 days or in pain scores at 4 and 24 hours postoperatively were detected with the "all 5-mm ports" approach. However, the cosmetic satisfaction scores with the body (P=0.029), incisions (P=0.015), and scars (P=0.023) 4 weeks after surgery were significantly higher in group 1. CONCLUSIONS: The "all 5-mm ports" approach to LC and LNF in selected patients did not offer clear advantages over the conventional approach in terms of postoperative pain or analgesic requirements. Nevertheless, the former approach enjoyed a superior cosmetic outcome and patient acceptability.