ABSTRACT
Incisional hernias are a common problem following major abdominal surgery. There are numerous surgical techniques described in the existing English scientific literature with different planes for mesh placement. The current review aims to compare onlay versus sublay repair in managing incisional hernias. A systematic literature search was conducted on Embase, the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Medline to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing onlay versus sublay mesh repair for incisional hernias. We identified six RCTs that included 986 patients, of whom 503 were in the onlay group and 485 were in the sublay group. There was no statistically significant difference in hernia recurrence between the onlay and sublay groups (odds ratio (OR): 1.3 (0.49-3.47), 95% confidence interval (CI), p=0.60). Seroma formation was significantly higher in the onlay group (OR: 2.85 (1.74-4.67), 95% CI, p<0.0001). There were 45 reported cases of surgical site infection (SSI). There was no significant difference between the two groups (OR: 1.46 (0.44-4.84), 95% CI, p=0.54). Haematomas were reported in 11 cases, and there was no significant difference between the two groups (OR: 2.13 (0.56-8.19), 95% CI, p=0.27). Four RCTs reported the length of the hospital stay. There was no significant difference between the two groups (mean difference (MD): 0.53 (-0.16-1.22), 95% CI, p=0.13). We failed to draw conclusive clinical recommendations due to the variability in the included RCTs. We recommend well-structured, large-volume RCTs to better compare these two surgical techniques.
ABSTRACT
The gold standard treatment for benign gallbladder disease is laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). LC is commonly performed using monopolar diathermy with ligation of the cystic duct and artery with clips. The aim of the current systematic review was to compare harmonic scalpel (HS) with clips in LC. Eligible studies were identified from PubMed, Cochrane library, Embase and Medline and meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.4. The primary outcome evaluated was bile leak while secondary outcomes evaluated were overall postoperative complications, operative time, conversion to open surgery and gall bladder perforation. Eight randomized control trials met the eligibility criteria which included a total of 1,205 patients. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of bile leak (p = 0.56, I2=0%). With respect to the operative time (p = 0.004, I2=97%), conversion to open surgery (p = 0.02, I2=0%) and gall bladder perforation (p = 0.0001, I2=26%) HS was superior to clips. HS is an acceptable alternative to the use of clips when ligating the cystic duct.
ABSTRACT
The present systematic review compares single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) with conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC) with the aim of assessing early postoperative pain and morbidity. The secondary outcomes assessed were the duration of surgery, length of hospital stay, and conversion to open surgery. A systematic search for medical records was conducted on PubMed, Embase, Medline, and the Cochrane Library. Meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.4. A total of 14 randomized control trials met the eligibility criteria, involving a total of 1762 patients. Early postoperative pain (four to six hours) (mean difference (MD): -0.86; 95%; confidence interval (CI): -1.16 to -0.55) showed significantly better results in the SILC group but showed no difference on the first or second postoperative day. There were significantly fewer complications (relative risk (RR): 1.7; 95%; CI: 1.16-2.50) recorded in the CLC group as compared to the SILC group. Operative time (MD: 19.66; 95% CI: 13.21-26.11) was significantly longer in the SILC group, while the duration of hospital stay (MD: -0.01; 95% CI: -0.28-0.26) and conversion to open surgery (RR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.20-4.82) showed no significant difference. SILC had a significantly longer operative time and more complications as compared to CLC. However, it was associated with significantly lower early post-operative pain.
ABSTRACT
Introduction Tumor staging plays an important role in determining treatment in colorectal cancer. In the recent past, the neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) has been used as a predictive marker of inflammation for different types of clinical entities. Our study aims to determine if NLR can predict tumor staging in patients with colorectal cancer. Materials and methods We retrospectively analyzed all cases that underwent surgical treatment for colorectal cancer from 2014 to 2020. The NLR, tumor stage, and histology report for all patients were reviewed. Recommended cut-off values for NLR for tumor stage (T), lymph node stage (N), and metastatic stage (M) were determined using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Results NLR was found to be significantly higher in patients with T3-T4 tumors as compared to T1-T2 tumors (mean: 5.8 vs. 2.6, respectively p < 0.001). The NLR values were higher in cases of N1-N2 groups as compared to N0 groups (mean: 5.7 vs. 3.5, p = 0.07). The NLR was also higher in M1 patients as compared to M0 patients (32.1 vs. 4.5, respectively, p = 0.24) but failed to show a statistical significance. Conclusion NLR is a useful predictor of colorectal cancer which can give us some information about the type of tumor we may encounter during surgery.
