Gastroesophageal reflux disease following laparoscopic vertical sleeve gastrectomy and laparoscopic roux-en-Y gastric bypass: meta-analysis and systematic review of 5-year data.

To compare 5-year gastroesophageal reflux outcomes following Laparoscopic Vertical Sleeve Gastrectomy (LVSG) and Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) based on high quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We conducted a sub-analysis of our systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs of primary LVSG and LRYGB procedures in adults for 5-year post-operative complications (PROSPERO CRD42018112054). Electronic databases were searched from January 2015 to July 2021 for publications meeting inclusion criteria. The Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman random effects model was utilized to estimate weighted mean differences where meta-analysis was possible. Bias and certainty of evidence was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2 and GRADE. Four RCTs were included (LVSG n = 266, LRYGB n = 259). An increase in adverse GERD outcomes were observed at 5 years postoperatively in LVSG compared to LRYGB in all outcomes considered: Overall worsened GERD, including the development de novo GERD, occurred more commonly following LVSG compared to LRYGB (OR 5.34, 95% CI 1.67 to 17.05; p = 0.02; I2 = 0%; (Moderate level of certainty); Reoperations to treat severe GERD (OR 7.22, 95% CI 0.82 to 63.63; p = 0.06; I2 = 0%; High level of certainty) and non-surgical management for worsened GERD (OR 3.42, 95% CI 1.16 to 10.05; p = 0.04; I2 = 0%; Low level of certainty) was more common in LVSG patients. LVSG is associated with the development and worsening of GERD symptoms compared to LRYGB at 5 years postoperatively leading to either introduction/increased pharmacological requirement or further surgical treatment. Appropriate patient/surgical selection is critical to minimize these postoperative risks.

Late (≥5 y) Complications of Laparoscopic Vertical Sleeve Gastrectomy (LVSG) and Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (LRYGB): A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of data that compares the relative complication profiles of laparoscopic vertical sleeve gastrectomy (LVSG) and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) at 5 years. OBJECTIVES: The aim was to compare late complications of LVSG and LRYGB. METHODS: We updated our previous systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of primary LVSG and LRYGB procedures in adults, to review late (5 years) complication outcomes (PROSPERO 112054). Electronic databases were searched from January 2015 to July 2021 for publications meeting inclusion criteria. The Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman random effects model was utilized to estimate weighted mean differences where meta-analysis was possible. Bias and certainty of evidence was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations. RESULTS: Four randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria (n=531; LVSG=272, LRYGB=259). No late treatment-related mortality was reported with either procedure. A significant reduction in surgical reoperations (odds ratio: 0.47, 95% confidence interval: 0.27-0.82, P =0.01) and endoscopic interventions (odds ratio: 0.29, 95% confidence interval: 0.12-0.71, P =0.02) were reported at 5 years post-LVSG relative to LRYGB. Reoperations were more frequently performed for reflux management in LVSG and for internal hernia repairs in LRYGB. Complications requiring medical management were common following both procedures. Limitations included few eligible studies for inclusion, and varying definitions of medically managed complications. CONCLUSIONS: LRYGB is associated with a higher proportion of surgical and endoscopic interventions at 5 years compared with LVSG. More high-quality, long-term studies are required to further elucidate both surgical and nutritional long-term outcomes post these procedures.

Systematic Reviews: Understanding the Best Evidence For Clinical Decision-making in Health Care: Pros and Cons.

In the era of evidence-based decision-making, systematic reviews (SRs) are being widely used in many health care policies, government programs, and academic disciplines. SRs are detailed and comprehensive literature review of a specific research topic with a view to identifying, appraising, and synthesizing the research findings from various relevant primary studies. A SR therefore extracts the relevant summary information from the selected studies without bias by strictly adhering to the review procedures and protocols. This paper presents all underlying concepts, stages, steps, and procedures in conducting and publishing SRs. Unlike the findings of narrative reviews, the synthesized results of any SRs are reproducible, not subjective and bias free. However, there are a number of issues related to SRs that directly impact on the quality of the end results. If the selected studies are of high quality, the criteria of the SRs are fully satisfied, and the results constitute the highest level of evidence. It is therefore essential that the end users of SRs are aware of the weaknesses and strengths of the underlying processes and techniques so that they could assess the results in the correct perspective within the context of the research question.

Perioperative Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy Versus Open Esophagectomy: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: To explore the perioperative outcomes, safety, and effectiveness of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) versus open esophagectomy (OE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Randomized controlled comparing MIE versus OE were searched from PubMed and other electronic databases between January 1991 and March 2019. Thirteen outcome variables were analyzed. Random effects model was used to calculate the effect size. The meta-analysis was prepared in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS: Four randomized controlled trials totaling 569 patients were analyzed. For MIE, there was a significantly reduction of 67% in the odds of pulmonary complications. For operating time, MIE was nonsignificantly 29 minutes longer. MIE was associated with nonsignificantly less blood loss of 443.98 mL. There was nonsignificant 60% reduction in the odds of total complications and 51% reduction in the odds of medical complications favoring MIE group. For delayed gastric emptying, there was a nonsignificant reduction of 75% in the odds ratio favoring the MIE group. For postoperative anastomotic leak, there was a nonsignificant increase of 48% in the odds ratio for MIE group. For gastric necrosis, chylothorax, reintervention and 30-day mortality, no difference was observed for both groups. There was a nonsignificant reduction in the length of hospital stay of 7.98 days and intensive care unit stay of 2.7 days favoring MIE. CONCLUSIONS: MIE seems to be superior to OE for only pulmonary complications. All the other perioperative variables were comparable however, the trend is favoring the MIE. Therefore, the routine use of MIE presently may only be justifiable in high volume esophagogastric units.

Five-Year Weight Loss Outcomes in Laparoscopic Vertical Sleeve Gastrectomy (LVSG) Versus Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (LRYGB) Procedures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic vertical sleeve gastrectomy (LVSG) has overtaken the laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) as the most frequently performed bariatric surgical procedure. To date little has been reported on the long-term outcomes of the LVSG procedure comparative to the traditionally favoured LRYGB. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to review the 5-year outcomes of comparing LVSG and LRYGB. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare 5-year weight loss outcomes of randomized controlled trials comparing LVSG to LRYGB. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Searches of electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane) were undertaken for randomized controlled trials describing weight loss outcomes in adults at 5 years postoperatively. Where sufficient data was available to undertake meta-analysis, the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman estimation method for random effects model was utilized. The review was registered with PROSPERO and reported following in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. RESULTS: Five studies met the inclusion criteria totaling 1028 patients (LVSG=520, LRYGB=508). Moderate but comparable levels of bias were observed within studies. Statistically significant body mass index loss ranged from -11.37 kg/m (range: -6.3 to -15.7 kg/m) in the LVSG group and -12.6 kg/m (range: -9.5 to -15.4 kg/m) for LRYGB at 5 years (P<0.001). Systematic review suggested that LRYGB produced a greater weight loss expressed as percent excess weight and percent excess body mass index loss than LVSG: this was not corroborated in the meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Five year weight loss outcomes suggest both LRYGB and LVSG are effective in achieving significant weight loss at 5 years postoperatively, however, differences in reporting parameters limit the ability to reliably compare the outcomes using statistical methods. Furthermore, results may be impacted by large dropout rates and per protocol analysis of the 2 largest included studies. Further long-term studies are required to contradict or validate the results of this meta-analysis.

Meta-analysis: a critical appraisal of the methodology, benefits and drawbacks.

Meta-analysis has become an integral part of evidence-based decision-making processes and is being increasingly used in medical and non-medical disciplines. Aggregate data or summary statistics continue to be the mainstay of meta-analysis and are used by many professional societies to support clinical practice guidelines. Meta-analyses synthesize the summary statistics from independent trials by pooling them to estimate the underlying common effect size. The results represent the highest level of evidence but only if the chosen studies are of high quality and the selection criteria are fully satisfied. It is important to address the issues of defining an explicit and relevant question, exhaustively searching for the totality of evidence, meticulous and unbiased data transfer or extraction, assessment of between study heterogeneity and the use of appropriate statistical methods for estimating summary effect measures. This article reviews the methodology, benefits and drawbacks of performing a meta-analysis.

Suture Cruroplasty Versus Mesh Hiatal Herniorrhaphy for Large Hiatal Hernias (HHs): An Updated Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: To explore the clinical outcomes, safety and effectiveness of suture cruroplasty versus mesh repair for large hiatal hernias (HHs) by an updated meta-analysis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Randomized controlled trials evaluating the effects of these 2 treatment modalities were searched from PubMed and other electronic databases between January 1991 and July 2018. The outcome variables analyzed included operating time, complications, recurrence of HH or wrap migration, reoperation, hospital stay and quality of life. RESULTS: Five randomized controlled trials totaling 478 patients (suture=222, mesh=256) were analyzed. For reoperation variable, the odds ratio was significantly 3.26 times higher for the suture group. For recurrence of HH, the odds ratio for the suture group was nonsignificantly 1.65 times higher compared with the mesh group. Comparable effects were noted for all other variables. CONCLUSIONS: Mesh repair seems to be superior to suture cruroplasty for large HH repair. Therefore, the routine use of mesh may be advantageous in selected cases.

A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of Perioperative Outcomes of Laparoscopic-assisted Rectal Resection (LARR) Versus Open Rectal Resection (ORR) for Carcinoma.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The aim was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the randomized evidence to determine the relative merits of perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic-assisted (LARR) versus open rectal resection (ORR) for proven rectal cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A search of the Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index, Current Contents and PubMed databases identified English-language randomized clinical trials comparing LARR and ORR. The meta-analysis was prepared in accordance with the PRISMA statement. Thirteen outcome variables were analyzed. Random effects meta-analyses were performed due to heterogeneity. RESULTS: A total of 14 randomized clinical trials that included 3843 rectal resections (LARR 2096, ORR 1747) were analyzed. The summary point estimates favored LARR for the intraoperative blood loss, commencement of oral intake, first bowel movement, and length of hospital stay. There was significantly longer duration of operating time of 38.29 minutes for the LARR group. Other outcome variables such as total complications, postoperative pain, postoperative ileus, abdominal abscesses, postoperative anastomotic leak, reintervention and postoperative mortality rates were found to have comparable outcomes for both cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: LARR was associated with significantly reduced blood loss, quicker resumption of oral intake, earlier return of gastrointestinal function, and shorter length of hospital stay at the expense of significantly longer operating time. Postoperative morbidity and mortality and analgesia requirement for both these groups were comparable. LARR seems to be a safe and effective alternative to ORR; however, it needs to be performed in established colorectal units with experienced laparoscopic surgeons.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Perioperative Outcomes of Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy (POEM) and Laparoscopic Heller Myotomy (LHM) for Achalasia.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM) is the preferred surgical method for treating achalasia. However, peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is providing good short-term results. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the safety and efficacy of LHM and POEM. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A search of PubMed, Cochrane database, Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index, and current contents for English-language articles comparing LHM and POEM between 2007 and 2016 was performed. Variables analyzed included prior endoscopic treatment, prior medical treatment, prior Heller myotomy, operative time, overall complications rate, postoperative gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), length of hospital stay, postoperative pain score, and long-term GERD. RESULTS: Seven trials consisting of 483 (LHM=250, POEM=233) patients were analyzed. Preoperative variables, for example, prior endoscopic treatment [odds ratio (OR), 1.32; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.23-4.61; P=0.96], prior medical treatment [weighted mean difference (WMD), 1.22; 95% CI, 0.52-2.88; P=0.65], and prior Heller myotomy (WMD, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.13-1.67; P=0.25) were comparable. Operative time was 26.28 minutes, nonsignificantly longer for LHM (WMD, 26.28; 95% CI, -11.20 to 63.70; P=0.17). There was a comparable overall complication rate (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.56-2.77; P=0.59), postoperative GERD rate (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.70-2.30; P=0.44), length of hospital stay (WMD, 0.30; 95% CI, -0.24 to 0.85; P=0.28), postoperative pain score (WMD, -0.26; 95% CI, -1.58 to 1.06; P=0.70), and long-term GERD (WMD, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.27-4.1; P=0.08) for both procedures. There was a significantly higher short-term clinical treatment failure rate for LHM (OR, 9.82; 95% CI, 2.06-46.80; P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: POEM compares favorably to LHM for achalasia treatment in short-term perioperative outcomes. However, there was a significantly higher clinical treatment failure rate for LHM on short-term postoperative follow-up. Presently long-term postoperative follow-up data for POEM beyond 1 year are unavailable and eagerly awaited.

Weight Loss Outcomes in Laparoscopic Vertical Sleeve Gastrectomy (LVSG) Versus Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (LRYGB) Procedures: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.

PURPOSE: Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) and laparoscopic vertical sleeve gastrectomy (LVSG) have been proposed as cost-effective strategies to manage morbid obesity. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the postoperative weight loss outcomes reported in randomized control trials (RCTs) for LVSG versus LRYGB procedures. MATERIAL AND METHODS: RCTs comparing the weight loss outcomes following LVSG and LRYGB in adult population between January 2000 and November 2015 were selected from PubMed, Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index, Current Contents, and the Cochrane database. The review was prepared in accordance with Preferred Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). RESULTS: Nine unique RCTs described over 10 publications involving a total of 865 patients (LVSG, n=437; LRYGB, n=428) were analyzed. Postoperative follow-up ranged from 3 months to 5 years. Twelve-month excess weight loss (EWL) for LVSG ranged from 69.7% to 83%, and for LRYGB, ranged from 60.5% to 86.4%. A number of studies reported slow weight gain between the second and third years of postoperative follow-up ranging from 1.4% to 4.2%EWL. This trend was seen to continue to 5 years postoperatively (8% to 10%EWL) for both procedures. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, LRYGB and LVSG are comparable with regards to the weight loss outcomes in the short term, with LRYGB achieving slightly greater weight loss. Slow weight recidivism is observed after the first postoperative year following both procedures. Long-term reporting of outcomes obtained from well-designed studies using intention-to-treat analyses are identified as a major gap in the literature at present.

Late Postoperative Complications in Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy (LVSG) Versus Laparoscopic Roux-en-y Gastric Bypass (LRYGB): Meta-analysis and Systematic Review.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) and laparoscopic vertical sleeve gastrectomy (LVSG), have been proposed as cost-effective strategies to manage obesity-related chronic disease. The objectives of this meta-analysis and systematic review were to analyze the "late postoperative complication rate (>30 days)" for these 2 procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 2000 and 2015 comparing the late complication rates, that is, >30 days following LVSG and LRYGB in adult population (ie, 16 y and above) were selected from PubMed, Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index, Current Contents, and the Cochrane database. The outcome variables analyzed included mortality rate, major and minor complications, and interventions required for their management and readmission rates. Random effects model was used to calculate the effect size of both binary and continuous data. Heterogeneity among the outcome variables of these trials was determined by the Cochran Q statistic and I index. The meta-analysis was prepared in accordance with the Preferred Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. RESULTS: Six RCTs involving a total of 685 patients (LVSG, n=345; LRYGB, n=340) reported late major complications. A nonstatistical reduction in relative odds favoring the LVSG procedure was observed [odds ratio (OR), 0.64; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.21-1.97; P=0.4]. Four RCTs representing 408 patients (LVSG, n=208; LRYGB, n=200) reported late minor complications. A nonstatistically significant reduction of 36% in relative odds favoring the LVSG procedure was observed (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.28-1.47; P=0.3). A 37% relative reduction in odds was observed in favor of the LVSG for the need for additional interventions to manage late postoperative complications that did not reach statistical significance (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.19-2.05; P=0.4). No study specifically reported readmissions required for the management of late complication. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis and systematic review of RCTs shows that the development of late (major and minor) complications is similar between LVSG and LRYGB procedures, 6 months to 3 years postoperatively, and they do not lead to higher readmission rate or reoperation rate for either procedure. However longer-term surveillance is required to accurately describe the patterns of late complications in these patients.

Carbon Dioxide Versus Air Insufflation for Elective Colonoscopy: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing 2 methods of colonic insufflation for elective colonoscopy, that is, carbon dioxide (CO2) or air, and to evaluate their efficiency, safety, and side effects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospective RCTs comparing CO2 versus air insufflation for colonic distension during colonoscopy were selected by searching PubMed, Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index, Current Contents, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials published between January 1980 and October 2014. The outcome variables analyzed included procedural and immediate postprocedural pain (during, end, or within 15 min after procedure), early postprocedural pain (between 30 and 120 min), intermediate postprocedural pain (360 min) and late postprocedural pain (720 to 1140 min), cecal/ileal intubation rate, cecal/ileal intubation time, and total colonoscopy examination time. These outcomes were unanimously decided to be important as they influence the practical approach toward patient management within and outside of hospital. Random effects model was used to calculate the effect size of both binary and continuous data. Heterogeneity among the outcome variables of these trials was determined by the Cochran Q statistic and I2 index. The meta-analysis was prepared in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS: Twenty-four RCTs totaling 3996 patients (CO2=2017, Air=1979) were analyzed. Statistically significant differences for the pooled effect size were observed for procedural and immediate postprocedural pain [weighted mean difference (WMD)=0.49; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.32, 0.73; P=0.0005], early postprocedural pain between 30 and 120 minutes (WMD=0.25; 95% CI, 0.12, 0.49; P<0.0001), intermediate postprocedural pain, that is, 360 minutes after completion (WMD=0.35; 95% CI, 0.23, 0.52; P<0.0001), and late postprocedural pain between 720 and 1440 minutes (WMD=0.53; 95% CI, 0.34, 0.84; P=0.0061). Comparable effects were noted for cecal/ileal intubation rate (WMD=0.86; 95% CI, 0.61, 1.22; P=0.3975), cecal/ileal intubation time (WMD=-0.64; 95% CI, -1.38, 0.09; P=0.0860), and total examination time (WMD=-0.20; 95% CI, -0.96, 0.57; P=0.6133). CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of our meta-analysis and systematic review, we conclude that CO2 insufflation significantly reduces abdominal pain during and following the procedure lasting up to 24 hours. There is no difference in the cecal/ileal intubation rate and time and total examination time between the 2 methods. CO2 retention with CO2 insufflation during and after the colonoscopy shows inconsequential variation compared with air insufflation and has no adverse effect on patients. CO2 instead of air should be routinely utilized for colonoscopy.

Meta-Analysis of Early Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) ± Endoscopic Sphincterotomy (ES) Versus Conservative Management for Gallstone Pancreatitis (GSP).

CONTEXT: The utility of early endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) ± endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) in the treatment of gallstone pancreatitis (GSP) is still contentious. OBJECTIVES: The aim was to conduct a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the treatment of GSP by early ERCP ± ES versus conservative management and analyzing the patient outcomes. DATA SOURCES: A search of Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index, Current Contents, PubMed, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews identified all RCTs comparing early ERCP to conservative management in GSP published between January 1970 and January 2014. Search terms included "Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)"; "Endoscopic sphincterotomy"; "Gallstones"; "Bile duct stones"; "Gallstone pancreatitis"; "Biliary pancreatitis"; "Randomize/Randomised controlled trials"; "Conservative management/treatment"; "Human"; "English." STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS, AND INTERVENTIONS: Only prospective RCTs comparing early intervention (ie, between 24 and 72 h) with ERCP ± ES versus conservative management in GSP were included. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Data extraction and critical appraisal was carried out independently by 2 authors (M.J.B. and M.A.M.) using predefined data fields. Variables analyzed included severity of pancreatitis (mild or severe), overall mortality, overall complications which included pseudocyst formation, organ failure (renal, respiratory, and cardiac), abnormal coagulation, biliary sepsis, and development of pancreatic abscess/phlegmon. The quality of RCTs was assessed using Jadad's scoring system. Random-effects model was used to calculate the outcomes of both binary and continuous data. Heterogeneity among the outcome variables of these trials was determined by the Cochran Q statistic and I2 index. The meta-analysis was prepared in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines. RESULTS: Eleven RCTs consisting of 1314 patients (conservative management=662, ERCP=652) were analyzed. There was a near significant decrease in mortality for ERCP group compared with conservatively managed patients with severe pancreatitis [odds ratio (OR) 0.45; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.19, 1.09; P=0.08]. In patients with mild pancreatitis, mortality results were comparable for both groups (OR 0.66; 95% CI, 0.02, 28.75; P=0.83). Overall complications were significantly reduced in the ERCP group in severe pancreatic patients (OR 0.32; 95% CI, 0.17, 0.61; P=0.00). In those with mild disease, a strong trend to decreased complications in the ERCP group was seen, however, this was not significant (OR 0.67; 95% CI, 0.43, 1.03; P=0.06). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis demonstrates a significant decrease in complications in patients with severe GSP managed with early ERCP/ES compared with conservative management. As far as the mortality is concerned, no significant decrease was observed in mortality even in severe GSP patients treated with early ERCP/ES.

Delayed duodenal hematoma and pancreatitis from a seatbelt injury.

Traumatic duodenal hematoma is a rare condition that is encountered in the paediatric age group following blunt abdominal trauma. It poses both a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge. The main concern is increased morbidity secondary to delayed diagnosis and associated occult injuries to the adjacent structures. Most of these hematomas resolve spontaneously with conservative management, and the prognosis is good. We present a case of a 15-year-old boy who had a delayed presentation of duodenal hematoma and acute pancreatitis, which was treated conservatively with complete resolution.

Metastatic duodenal GIST: role of surgery combined with imatinib mesylate.

BACKGROUND: The best possible treatment of metastatic high grade large duodenal GIST is controversial. Surgery (with or without segmental organ resection) remains the principal treatment for primary and recurrent GIST. However, patients with advanced duodenal GIST have a high risk of early tumour recurrence and short life expectancy. METHOD: We present a case of a young man treated with a combined modality of surgery and imatinib for an advanced duodenal GIST. RESULTS: He remains asymptomatic and disease free 42 months following this combined approach. CONCLUSION: Treatment with imatinib has dramatically improved the outlook for patients with advanced, unresectable and/or metastatic disease.

Predicting iatrogenic gall bladder perforation during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a multivariate logistic regression analysis of risk factors.

BACKGROUND: Seventeen independent risk factors were examined using multivariate logistic regression analysis to develop a profile of patients most likely at risk from iatrogenic gall bladder perforation (IGBP) during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. METHODS: Since 1989, a prospectively maintained database on 856 (women, 659; men, 197) consecutive laparoscopic cholecystectomies by a single surgeon (R. J. F.) was analysed. The mean age was 48 years (range, 17-94 years). The mean operating time was 88 min (range, 25-375 min) and the mean postoperative stay was 1 day (range, 1-24 days). There were 311 (women, 214; men, 97) IGBP. Seventeen independent variables, which included sex, race, history of biliary colic, dyspepsia, history of acute cholecystitis, acute pancreatitis and jaundice, previous abdominal surgery, previous upper abdominal surgery, medical illness, use of intraoperative laser or electrodiathermy, performance of intraoperative cholangiogram, positive intraoperative cholangiogram, intraoperative common bile duct exploration, presence of a grossly inflamed gall bladder as seen by the surgeon intraoperatively and success of the operation, were analysed using multivariate logistic regression for predicting IGBP. RESULTS: Multivariate logistic regression analysis against all 17 predictors was significant (chi(2) = 94.5, d.f. = 17, P = 0.0001), and the variables male sex, history of acute cholecystitis, use of laser and presence of a grossly inflamed gall bladder as seen by the surgeon intraoperatively were individually significant (P < 0.05) by the Wald chi(2)-test. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy, using laser, in a male patient with a history of acute cholecystitis or during an acute attack of cholecystitis is associated with a significantly higher incidence of IGBP.

The uses and abuses of drains in abdominal surgery.

Controversy surrounds the indications for and effectiveness of the abdominal drain. There are a variety of factors which mitigate against formulating rigid guidelines for the indications of drains, but surgeons should understand the benefits and applications of drainage and the tissue responses to the constituent materials. Drains are not a substitute for meticulous surgical technique.