Is systematic histological examination of the cholecystectomy specimen always necessary?

INTRODUCTION: The histological examination (HE) of all cholecystectomy specimens removed for cholelithiasis is a widespread practice to rule out unrecognized gallbladder cancer. (GBC). But this dogmatic practice has been called into question by recent published data. The aim of this literature review was to answer two questions: (1) can HE be omitted in specific cases; (2) under what conditions is a selective strategy indicated? METHODS: A review of the literature was carried out that included selected multicenter studies, registry studies, or meta-analyses. A reliable technique for the surgeon's macroscopic examination of the specimen would allow the selection of dubious cases for HE. The cost-effectiveness of selective HE was discussed. The PICO methodology (population, intervention, comparator, outcome) was used in the selection of articles that compared routine and selective histological examination. RESULTS: If cases from countries with a high prevalence of gallbladder cancer are excluded and in the absence of high-risk situations (advanced age, female gender, calcified or porcelain gallbladder, acute cholecystitis, polyps, abnormalities noted intra-operatively), the macroscopic examination of the gallbladder in the operating room has a reliability approaching 100% in the majority of published studies. This would make it possible to omit systematic HE without compromising the diagnosis and prognosis of patients with unsuspected GBC and with a very favorable cost-effectiveness ratio. CONCLUSION: Through a selection of patients at very low risk of incidentally-discovered cancer and a routine macroscopic examination of the opened gallbladder, the strategy of selective HE could prove useful in both clinical and economic terms.

Efficacy of perioperative immunonutrition in visceral surgery: an umbrella review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Immunonutrition (IN) is generally used before major visceral surgery with the intent to reduce postoperative complications, especially infectious ones. However, the conclusions of published meta-analyses are conflicting. The purpose of this review is to synthesise the data of published systematic reviews on the effectiveness of IN. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Protocols guidelines. This is an umbrella review of systematic reviews comparing IN (delivered orally 5-7 days preoperatively) with normal diet or isocaloric isonitrogenous feeding before visceral surgery performed on any of several viscera (colorectum, stomach, pancreas, liver, oesophagus). We search the systematic reviews included in the main bibliographic databases. To assess the efficacy of IN, several outcomes will be considered: the main outcome is infectious complications (surgical site infections, pulmonary infections or urinary infections) and secondary outcomes are overall morbidity, hospital length of stay and mortality. Identified reviews will be screened by two independent assessors. The methodological quality of relevant included reviews will be assessed using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) instrument. The data extracted from included reviews will be synthesised using the r-Metafor package considering separate groups according to the viscus of interest. Publication bias will be evaluated, and subgroup analyses will be performed according to the quality of studies and preoperative nutritional status. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: An umbrella review based on published data from systematic reviews needs no ethical approval. Furthermore, no patient will be involved in the review. Once terminated, the review will be submitted for publication in an open access journal to ensure wide dissemination of the findings. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021255177.

The wave of "opinion articles" in the coverage of COVID-19 in surgical literature.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic is having a deep impact on our surgical practice and scientific publishing output. METHODS: The 100 best-ranked "surgery journals" were selected. The contents of the March, April, May, and June 2020 issues and ahead-of-print articles were screened. The retrieved articles on COVID-19 were separated into two categories: "opinion articles" and "scientific articles," i.e., randomized trials and original articles with structured methods and results. The number of COVID articles published in the TOP-10 journals was compared with that of COVID articles published elsewhere. RESULTS: There were 59 COVID original articles (8%). The great majority of articles were opinion articles (83.4%). Almost 40% of COVID articles were published in the TOP-10 journals. CONCLUSION: Original COVID articles (the core of our knowledge) are scant. Faced with a novel disease, neither the authors nor the editors should be criticized regarding this situation. The future step should be to publish high-quality papers in the setting of a major health crisis.