Post-hemorrhoidectomy pain: can surgeons reduce it? A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials.

PURPOSE: Hemorrhoidectomy remains the gold standard treatment for grade III-IV hemorrhoids. However, despite strong recommendations for the suitability of outpatient surgery, post-operative pain has been a limitation to the widespread inclusion of this condition in day surgery programs. The aims of the study were to analyze and compare the post-operative pain of conventional open hemorrhoidectomy, considered the reference technique, against other surgical procedures such as closed hemorrhoidectomy, open hemorrhoidectomy using bipolar or ultrasonic sealant, hemorrhoidopexy, or HAL-RAR, when performed exclusively as outpatients. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to PRISMA methodology. All prospective and randomized studies of patients operated on for hemorrhoids in day surgery and specifying the value of post-operative pain, using a validated scale, were included. Conventional meta-analyses and a random-effects network meta-analysis were carried out. RESULTS: Twenty-nine studies were included (3309 patients). None of the procedures described severe pain in the post-operative period. Hemorrhoidopexy was the least painful. Conventional open hemorrhoidectomy was the most painful on the first and seventh post-operative days. Pain was reduced after closed hemorrhoidectomy technique and when bipolar or harmonic scalpel was used. Furthermore, transfixive ligation of the hemorrhoidal pedicle was associated with increased post-operative pain. CONCLUSION: Hemorrhoidal surgery is feasible in day surgery units and post-operative pain can be adequately managed in an outpatient setting. Hemorrhoidopexy was the least painful; however, data should be carefully evaluated by the high rate of long-term recurrence described in literature. Closed hemorrhoidectomy, performed with bipolar or ultrasonic sealing, avoiding transfixive ligation of the hemorrhoidal pedicle, may improve post-operative pain control. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CRD42020185160.

D3-lymphadenectomy enhances oncological clearance in patients with right colon cancer. Results of a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: D3-Lymphadenectomy, together with complete mesocolic excision (CME), were introduced to provide oncological results after right colon cancer. The aim of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to assess the short and long-term outcomes of right-sided hemicolectomy with CME + D3 as compared with classic right hemicolectomy. Secondary aims included the prevalence of D3-metastasis and skip metastasis when performing CME + D3. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted, according to PRISMA methodology. RESULTS: 29 studies were enrolled (2592 patients). No differences were accounted in morbidity variables associated with the measured techniques. CME + D3 was significantly associated with a greater distance between the tumour and the closest vascular tie, a longer colonic resection, a wider resection of mesentery and an increased number of harvested lymph nodes. Regarding to long-terms outcomes, we found a significant decrease in local recurrence in patients undergoing CME + D3 (HR:0.17) and a significant improvement in 3-year and 5-year overall survival rates (HR:0.53 vs. HR:0.57, respectively), as well as an improving survival in patients with stage II and III disease. Overall prevalence of patients with lymphatic metastases in D3-territory was of 8.6% and 2.2% of skip metastases. CONCLUSIONS: CME + D3 is a feasible surgical procedure that allows to obtain specimens with higher quality oncological resection, without greater associated morbidity, thus improving survival in patients with stage II and III right colon cancer.

Ambulatory laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Systematic review and meta-analysis of predictors of failure.

BACKGROUND: Outpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy has proven to be a safe and cost-effective technique; however, it is not yet a universally widespread procedure. The aim of the study was to determine the predictive factors of outpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy failure. METHOD: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis methodology. MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Ovid, and ISRCTN Registry were searched. The main variables were demographic (age, sex), clinical (weight, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, previous complicated biliary pathology, history of abdominal surgery in supramesocolic compartment, gallbladder wall thickness), and surgical factors (operative time, afternoon surgery). The secondary variables were the prevalence rates of outpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy failure due to pain or postoperative nausea and vomiting. RESULTS: Fourteen studies (4,194 patients) were included, with a mean outpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy failure rate of 23.4%. The predictors of outpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy failure were: age ≥65 years (odds ratio: 2.34; 95% confidence interval, 1.42-3.86; P = .0009), body mass index ≥30 (odds ratio: 1.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-2.45; P = .03), American Society of Anesthesiologists score ≥III (odds ratio: 2.89; 95% confidence interval, 1.72-4.87; P < .0001), previous complicated biliary pathology (odds ratio: 2.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.40-4.06; P = .001), gallbladder wall thickening (odds ratio: 2.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.34-4.04; P = .003), surgical time exceeding 60 minutes (mean difference: -16.03; 95% confidence interval,-21.25 to -10.81; P < .00001), and the beginning of surgery after 1:00 pm (odds ratio: 4.20; 95% confidence interval, 1.97-11.96; P = .007). Sex (odds ratio: 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-1.57, P = .73) and history of abdominal surgery in the supramesocolic compartment (odds ratio: 2.32; 95 confidence interval, 0.92-5.82, P = .07) were not associated with outpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy failure. CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis allowed us to identify the predictors of outpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy failure. The knowledge of these factors could help surgeons in their decision-making process for the selection of patients who are suitable for outpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Long-term outcomes of stent-related perforation in malignant colon obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The placement of self-expandable metallic stents as a bridge to surgery in malignant colon obstruction is concerning due to the long-term oncological results reported in recent published studies. The aim of this study was to evaluate the oncological consequences of stent-related perforations in patients with malignant colon obstruction and potentially curable disease. METHODS: MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Ovid and ISRCTN Registry were searched, with no restrictions. We performed five meta-analyses to estimate the pooled effect sizes by using a random-effect model. The outcomes were global, locoregional and systemic recurrence rate and 3 and 5 year-survival rate depending on the presence or absence of stent-related perforation. RESULTS: Thirteen studies (950 patients) were included. The overall rate of stent-related perforation was 8.9%. The global recurrence rate was significantly higher in stent-related perforation group (41.2 vs. 30.8%; OR 1.70; 95%CI: 1.02-2.84; p = 0.04). Locoregional recurrence rate was higher in the perforated group than in the non-perforated group (26.6 vs. 12.5%), with statistically significant differences (OR 2.41; 95% CI:1.33-4.34; p = 0.004). No significant differences were found in systemic recurrence rate (13.6 vs. 20.5%; OR 0.77; 95%CI: 0.35-1.7; p = 0.51); 3-year overall survival rate (65.4 vs. 74.8%; OR 0.63; 95% CI:0.29-1.39; p = 0.25) and 5-year overall survival rate (48.3 vs. 58.6%; OR 0.67; 95%CI: 0.27-1.65; p = 0.38). CONCLUSION: Stent-related perforation is associated with an increased risk of global and locoregional recurrence. The successful placement of the stent as a bridge to surgery in the curative purpose of patients with obstructed colon cancer does not exclude the presence of underlying perforation, with the consequent danger of disease spread. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020152817.

Rectal advancement flap for the treatment of complex cryptoglandular anal fistulas: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Rectal advancement flap is an accepted approach for treating complex fistula-in-ano. However, a diversity of technical modifications have been described. The aim of this study was to evaluate recurrence and fecal continence rates after performing rectal advancement flaps depending upon flap thickness (full-thickness, partial-thickness, or mucosal flaps) and treatment of the fistulous tract (core-out or curettage). METHODS: Medline (PubMed, Ovid), the Cochrane Library database, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched. Studies that involved patients with complex cryptoglandular fistulas who had been treated with rectal advancement flaps were included. The outcomes measured were recurrence and fecal continence. All of the statistical analyses were performed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software. A fixed model was used if there was no evidence of heterogeneity; otherwise, a random effects model was used. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies were included (1655 patients). The pooled rate of recurrence was 21%. Full-thickness flaps showed the best results concerning recurrence (7.4%), partial flaps revealed 19% and mucosal flaps 30.1%. Core-out and curettage had a similar recurrence (19 vs 21%). Regarding anal incontinence, the pooled rate was 13.3%. Mucosal- and partial-thickness flaps showed similar rates (9.3 vs 10.2%), while full-thickness flaps disturbed it in 20.4%. Most of these alterations were minor symptoms. Otherwise, core-out and curettage showed similar rates (14.3 vs 12%). CONCLUSIONS: 1. Full-thickness rectal advancement flaps offer better results regarding the recurrence than mucosal or partial flaps. 2. All flaps cause some incontinence, which increases with the thickness of the flap. 3. The results did not suggest differences in recurrence and incontinence between core-out and curettage.