Limberg flap for the management of pilonidal sinus reduces disease recurrence compared to Karydakis and Bascom procedure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study is to compare the effectiveness of Limberg flap (LF) versus Karydakis and Bascom procedure to reduce the recurrence of pilonidal sinus disease. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: The data retrieved from the published randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing the effectiveness of LF versus Karydakis and Bascom procedure was analyzed using the principles of meta-analysis. The summated outcome of the dichotomous data was presented in risk ratio (RR). EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Eighteen RCTs on 2073 patients comparing the effectiveness of LF versus Karydakis and or Bascom procedure for the surgical excision of pilonidal sinus disease were analyzed. In the random effects model analysis using the statistical software Review Manager 5.3, the LF was associated with the reduced risk (RR, 0.52; 95% CI: 0.29, 0.93; z=2.19; P=0.03) of disease recurrence after pilonidal sinus excision compared to Karydakis and Bascom procedure. On subgroup analysis the LF was still superior to Karidakys procedure (RR, 0.52; 95% CI: 0.23, 1.17; z=1.57; P=0.12) and Bascom procedure (RR, 0.49; 95% CI: 0.19, 1.29; z=1.44; P=0.15) but statistically it was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: LF seems to have clinical advantage over Karydakis and Bascom procedure in terms of reduced recurrence rate following surgical excision of pilonidal sinus. Although, this advantage was clinically persisted on subgroup analysis but failed to achieve statistical significance.

Epigastric port retrieval of the gallbladder following laparoscopic cholecystectomy is associated with the reduced risk of port site infection and port site incisional hernia: An updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

AIMS: The objective of this article is to compare the surgical outcomes for epigastric port or umbilical port retrieval of the gallbladder (GB) following laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). METHODS: The data retrieved from the published randomized, controlled trials (RCT) comparing the surgical outcomes for epigastric port or umbilical port retrieval of the GB following LC was analysed using the principles of meta-analysis. The summated outcome of continuous variables was expressed as standardized mean difference (SMD) and dichotomous data was presented in odds ratio (OR). RESULTS: Eight RCTs on 2676 patients comparing the surgical outcomes for epigastric port or umbilical port retrieval of the GB following LC were analysed. In the random effects model analysis using the statistical software Review Manager 5.3, the GB retrieval through epigastric port was associated with the reduced duration of operation (SMD, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.18, 0.64; z = 3.52; P = 0.0004). Epigastric retrieval was also associated with reduced risk of surgical site infection (OR, 1.95; 95% CI, 0.75, 5.11; z = 1.36; P = 0.17), and port site incisional hernia (OR, 4.22; 95% CI, 0.43, 41.40; z = 1.24; P = 0.22) compared to umbilical port retrieval though it did not reach statistical significance. The need for port enlargement to retrieve the GB was similar in both groups. In contrast, the umbilical port retrieval of the GB was associated with significantly less post-operative pain (SMD, -0.51; 95% CI, -0.95, -0.06; z = 2.24; P = 0.03), reduced GB perforation rate, reduced port site bleeding rate and reduced difficulty in GB retrieval. CONCLUSION: GB retrieval through epigastric port following LC has clinically proven advantage of reduced retrieval site infection rate, lower operation time and incisional hernia rate but at the cost of increased pain at 24 h, higher risk of GB perforation, port site bleeding and technical difficulties.

South Coast appendicular mass management (SCAM) survey.

BACKGROUND: Management of appendicular mass and interval appendicectomy remains a controversial issue. Recent publication of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) reported the incidence of around 20% neoplastic lesions in the age group of more than forty years among the interval appendicectomy group against magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) surveillance only which led to trial termination. The objective of this study is to evaluate the current practice of the management of appendicular mass in five major hospitals of South Coast of the England. METHODS: A proforma was designed and emailed to the general surgical department of five hospitals in the South Coast of England. The proforma completion rate and compliance were improved by direct telephone call to the on-call registrars and consultants to collect data. RESULTS: Fifty-three surgeons (22 consultants, 27 ST3-ST8 grade surgical trainees and 4 SAS grades) completed the proforma. The clinical, hematological and computerized tomography (CT) based diagnostic criteria, and in-patient intravenous antibiotics (IV ABTXs) in addition to the radiological drainage in amenable cases for appendicular mass/abscess were mostly agreed initial management plan among surgeons. Normalization of inflammatory markers and radiological resolution were agreed discharge indicators. Agreed follow up investigations were CT scan (by 23%), Colonoscopy (by 13%), and both CT and colonoscopy (by 57%) after discharging patients. Only 17% surgeons offered planned interval appendicectomy and 62% surgeons offered interval appendectomy in selective cases of appendicular mass within 6 weeks to 6 months after discharge. CONCLUSIONS: South Coast appendicular mass management (SCAM) survey confirms diverse practice to manage appendicular mass/abscess among surgeons working in South Coast hospitals. A substantial percentage of surgeons do not offer interval appendectomy to patients potentially leaving neoplastic lesions in situ.

Robotic total meso-rectal excision for rectal cancer: A systematic review following the publication of the ROLARR trial.

AIM: To compare outcomes in patients undergoing rectal resection by robotic total meso-rectal excision (RTME) vs laparoscopic total meso-rectal excision (LTME). METHODS: Standard medical electronic databases such as PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Scopus were searched to find relevant articles. The data retrieved from all types of included published comparative trials in patients undergoing RTME vs LTME was analysed using the principles of meta-analysis. The operative, post-operative and oncological outcomes were evaluated to assess the effectiveness of both techniques of TME. The summated outcome of continuous variables was expressed as standardized mean difference (SMD) and dichotomous data was presented in odds ratio (OR). RESULTS: One RCT (ROLARR trial) and 27 other comparative studies reporting the non-oncological and oncological outcomes following RTME vs LTME were included in this review. In the random effects model analysis using the statistical software Review Manager 5.3, the RTME was associated with longer operation time (SMD, 0.46; 95%CI: 0.25, 0.67; z = 4.33; P = 0.0001), early passage of first flatus (P = 0.002), lower risk of conversion (P = 0.00001) and shorter hospitalization (P = 0.01). The statistical equivalence was seen between RTME and LTME for non-oncological variables like blood loss, morbidity, mortality and re-operation risk. The oncological variables such as recurrence (P = 0.96), number of harvested nodes (P = 0.49) and positive circumferential resection margin risk (P = 0.53) were also comparable in both groups. The length of distal resection margins was similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: RTME is feasible and oncologically safe but failed to demonstrate any superiority over LTME for many surgical outcomes except early passage of flatus, lower risk of conversion and shorter hospitalization.

Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials only exploring the role of single incision laparoscopic surgery versus conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery for colorectal resections.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this article is to evaluate the surgical outcomes in patients undergoing single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) versus conventional multi-incision laparoscopic surgery (MILS) for colorectal resections. METHODS: The data retrieved from the published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting the surgical outcomes in patients undergoing SILS versus MILS for colorectal resections was analysed using the principles of meta-analysis. The combined outcome of dichotomous data was represented as risk ratio (RR) and continuous data was shown as standardized mean difference (SMD). RESULTS: Five RCTs on 525 patients reported the colorectal resections by SILS versus MILS technique. In the random effects model analysis using the statistical software Review Manager 5.3, the operation time (SMD, 0.20; 95% CI, -0.11 to 0.52; z=1.28; P=0.20), length of in-patient stay (SMD, -0.18; 95% CI, -0.51 to 0.14; z=1.10; P=0.27) and lymph node harvesting (SMD, 0.09; 95% CI, -0.14 to 0.33; z=0.76; P=0.45) were comparable between both techniques. Furthermore, post-operative complications (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.65-1.54; z=0.02; P=0.99), post-operative mortality, surgical site infection rate (RR, 3.00; 95% CI, 0.13-70.92; z=0.68; P=0.50), anastomotic leak rate (RR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.11-1.63; z=1.24; P=0.21), conversion rate (P=0.13) and re-operation rate (P=0.43) were also statistically similar following SILS and MILS. CONCLUSIONS: SILS failed to demonstrate any superiority over MILS for colorectal resections in all post-operative surgical outcomes.

A critical appraisal of the cost effectiveness of laparoscopic colorectal surgery for oncological and non-oncological resections.

The aim of this study was to critically appraise the cost effectiveness of the laparoscopic colorectal (LCRS) surgery using published randomised, control trials (RCTs). Published RCTs comparing the cost effectiveness of LCRS with conventional open surgery were selected from the search of standard electronic databases and the extracted data were analysed using the statistical software RevMan 5.3. Seven RCTs on 2197 patients reported the cost effectiveness of the LCRS. There was significant heterogeneity (τ 2 = 161,772.25, χ 2 = 166.69, df = 6, p = 0.00001, I 2 = 96%) among included randomised, controlled trials. In the random effects model analysis (MD 320.37, 95% CI -38.21, 678.95, z = 1.75, p < 0.08), the LCRS was costing £320.37 more than open colorectal resection but it failed to reach the statistical significance indicating that LCRS is as much cost effective as the open approach. LCRS is a cost effective intervention and should be offered routinely to all patients requiring colorectal resections provided the resources and expertise are available.

A systematic review comparing laparoscopic vs open adhesiolysis in patients with adhesional small bowel obstruction.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether surgical outcomes differ between laparoscopic vs open approach for adhesiolysis in patients presenting with adhesional small bowel obstruction (ASBO). DATA SOURCE: A systematic review of literature on published studies reporting the surgical outcomes after laparoscopic vs open adhesiolysis for ASBO was undertaken using the principles of meta-analysis. RESULTS: Fourteen comparative studies on 38,057 patients, evaluating the surgical outcomes in patients undergoing laparoscopic vs open adhesiolysis for ASBO were analyzed. Laparoscopic adhesiolysis resulted in the reduced risk of morbidity (P < .00001), mortality (P < .0001), and surgical infections (P = .003). In addition, the risk of respiratory complications, cardiac complications, bowel resection, and venous thromboembolism was lower with shorter hospitalization in laparoscopic adhesiolysis group. However, statistical equivalence was seen in variables of duration of operation and iatrogenic enterotomies. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic adhesiolysis for ASBO seems to have clinically proven advantage over open approach.

Systematic review of absorbable vs non-absorbable sutures used for the closure of surgical incisions.

AIM: To report a systematic review of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the role of absorbable suture (AS) against non-AS (NAS) used for the closure of surgical incisions. METHODS: RCTs investigating the use of AS vs NAS for the closure of surgical incisions were statistically analysed based upon the principles of meta-analysis and the summated outcomes were represented as OR. RESULTS: The systematic search of medical literature yielded 10 RCTs on 1354 patients. Prevalence of wound infection (OR = 0.97; 95%CI: 0.56, 1.69; Z = 0.11; P = 0.92) and operative morbidity (P = 0.45) was comparable in both groups. Nonetheless, the use of AS lead to lower risk of wound break-down (OR = 0.12; 95%CI: 0.04, 0.39; Z = 3.52; P < 0.0004). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis of 10 RCTs demonstrates that the use of AS is similar to NAS for skin closure for surgical site infection and other operative morbidities. AS do not increase the risk of skin wound dehiscence, rather lead to a reduced risk of wound dehiscence compared to NAS.

Specimen retrieval approaches in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal resections: a literature-based review of published studies.

OBJECTIVE: To review the published studies reporting various specimen retrieval incisions being used by colorectal surgeons in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal resections (LCR). METHODS: Standard medical electronic databases were searched to find relevant articles and a summary conclusion was generated. RESULTS: There were 43 studies reporting various approaches used for the purpose of specimen retrieval in 2388 patients undergoing LCR. The most common approaches were periumbilical midline incision (1260 reported case in the literature), transverse incision (583 reported cases in the literature) in the right- or left iliac fossa, depending on the side of colonic resection, and Pfannensteil incision (293 reported cases in the literature). Periumbilical midline incision was associated with the higher risk of developing incisional hernia (odds ratio 53.72; 95% confidence interval 7.48-386.04; Z = 3.96; P = 0.0001). In terms of surgical site infection (SSI), there was no difference between the three common approaches to specimen retrieval. Transanal and transvaginal approaches were associated with higher risk of SSI. CONCLUSIONS: Midline, transverse and Pfannensteil incisions were the most commonly used approaches for specimen retrieval following LCR. Midline incision was associated with higher risk of incisional hernia. Risk of SSI was similar in all three common approaches. The transanal and transvaginal approaches pose a higher risk of SSI. These conclusions are based on the combined outcome of published case series, case reports and comparative studies. Randomized, controlled trials with longer follow-up are required before recommending the routine use of any approach for specimen retrieval in patients undergoing LCR.

Diagnostic laparoscopy through deep inguinal ring: a literature-based review on the forgotten approach to visualize the abdominal cavity during emergency and elective groin hernia repair.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the published literature on the role of diagnostic laparoscopy through deep inguinal ring (DL-DR) during groin hernia repair. METHODS: Standard electronic databases were searched reporting article in any language on the role of DL-DR during groin hernia repair regardless of the age and sex of patients. RESULTS: Thirty-one articles on 5745 patients undergoing DL-DR during groin hernia repair were retrieved from the electronic databases. There was 1 randomized, controlled trial, 7 case reports and 2 case series on 58 adult patients mainly targeting assessment of bowel viability following spontaneous reduction of the strangulated groin hernia. Twenty-one articles, either retrospective or prospective case series on 5687 were reported on pediatric patients aiming to detect a contralateral patent processus vaginalis or synchronous groin hernia. Overall, the laparoscopy group had a reduced operative time, reduced length of hospital stay, lower complication rate, and earlier return to normal activity. DL-DR success rates were reported in >95% of patients. Contralateral patent processus vaginalis indicative of inguinal hernia was found in >48% of children. There was no major morbidity reported in any group. CONCLUSIONS: DL-DR during groin hernia repair may be performed safely when indicated. The routine use of DL-DR is an established practice in pediatric surgery. There is still insufficient evidence to recommend the routine use of DL-DR in adults.

A systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the effectiveness of lightweight mesh against heavyweight mesh in influencing the incidence of chronic groin pain following laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair.

BACKGROUND: A systematic analysis was conducted of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing lightweight mesh (LWM) with heavyweight mesh in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. METHODS: Data extracted from the included RCTs were analyzed according to the principles of meta-analysis. RESULTS: Eleven RCTs encompassing 2,189 patients were analyzed. In a fixed-effects model, operating time, postoperative pain, and recurrence rate were statistically similar between LWM and heavyweight mesh. LWM was associated with fewer perioperative complications and a reduced risk for developing chronic groin pain. There was also a reduced risk for developing other groin symptoms, such as foreign body sensations, but it was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The use of LWM for laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair is not associated with an increased risk for hernia recurrence. LWM reduces the incidence of chronic groin pain, groin stiffness, and foreign body sensations. Therefore, LWM may routinely be used in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. However, high-quality RCTs with longer follow-up periods are required to validate these findings.

A meta-analysis examining the use of tacker mesh fixation versus glue mesh fixation in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to systematically analyze the randomized trials comparing tacker mesh fixation with glue mesh fixation (GMF) in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (LIHR). METHODS: Standard electronic database were searched to retrieve relevant randomized trials comparing tacker mesh fixation with GMF in LIHR, which were analyzed systematically using RevMan. RESULTS: Five randomized controlled trials encompassing 1,001 patients were retrieved from the electronic databases. In a random-effects model, operating time, postoperative pain, postoperative complications, length of hospital stay and risk for hernia recurrence were statistically comparable between the 2 techniques of mesh fixation in LIHR. However, GMF was associated with a reduced risk for developing chronic groin pain. CONCLUSIONS: GMF in LIHR does not increase the risk for hernia recurrence and reduces the risk for developing chronic groin pain. It is comparable with tacker mesh fixation in terms of operation time, postoperative pain, postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, and risk for hernia recurrence.

Spontaneous splenic rupture secondary to metastatic malignant spindle cell tumour.

We report a case of pathological splenic rupture as a manifestation of malignant metastatic spindle cell tumour. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first case report of an atraumatic-pathological rupture of the spleen secondary to metastatic malignant spindle cell tumour. A 63-year-old man with a previous history of right upper limb amputation for an axillary malignant spindle cell tumour was admitted with an acute abdomen. Computed tomography showed a ruptured spleen. The patient subsequently underwent splenectomy. Histopathology confirmed the presence of malignant metastatic spindle cell tumour. Pathological splenic rupture is a rare manifestation of metastatic malignant spindle cell tumour. Background oncological history and thorough examination of the musculoskeletal system may provide important clues to make a prompt diagnosis.