RESUMO
The management of perforated non-faeculent diverticulitis has traditionally involved performing a colonic resection (CR). Laparoscopic lavage (LL) has emerged as a less invasive alternative in recent years. The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the role of LL in the surgical treatment of perforated non-faeculent diverticulitis. To that end, we conducted a search on Embase, Medline, and Cochrane databases for comparative studies in the English language published till June 2021 [PROSPERO (CRD42021269410)]. The risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2) and the methodological index for non-randomised studies (MINORS). Data were analysed using Cochrane RevMan. Pooled odds ratio (POR) and cumulative weighted ratios (CWR) were calculated. A total of 13 studies involving 1061 patients were found eligible, including seven studies based on three randomised control trials (RCTs). LL was associated with a reduced risk of wound infection, stoma formation, and need for further surgery by 77% [POR: 0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.07-0.74], 83% (POR: 0.17, 95% CI: 0.05-0.56), and 53% (POR: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.23-0.97) respectively. Duration of surgery and hospitalisation was reduced by 54% and 43% respectively. However, LL was associated with higher rates of unplanned reoperations (POR: 2.05, 95% CI: 1.22-3.42), recurrence (POR: 9.47, 95% CI: 3.24-27.67), and peritonitis (POR: 8.92, 95% CI: 2.71-29.33). No differences in mortality or readmission rates were observed. LL in Hinchey III diverticulitis lowers the incidence of stoma formation and overall reoperations without an increase in mortality but at the cost of higher recurrence rates and peritonitis. A limitation of this study was the inclusion of non-RCTs. An elective resection should be considered after LL. Guidelines for surgical techniques in LL need to be standardised.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Practice variations exist amongst parathyroid surgeons depending on their expertise and resources. Our study aims to elucidate the choice of surgical techniques and adjuncts used in parathyroid surgery by surgeons in the Asia-Pacific region. METHODS: A 25-question online survey was sent to members of five endocrine surgery associations. Questions covered training background, practice environment and preferred techniques in parathyroid surgery. Respondents were divided into three regions: Australia/New Zealand, South/South East Asia and East Asia, and responses were analysed according to region, specialty, case volume and years in practice. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-six surgeons returned the questionnaire. Most surgeons (98%) routinely perform preoperative imaging, with 75% preferring dual imaging with 99mTcsestamibi and ultrasound. Ten per cent of surgeons use parathyroid 4DCT as first-line imaging, more commonly in East Asia (p = 0.038). Minimally invasive parathyroidectomy is the favoured technique of choice (97%). Most surgeons reporting robotic or endoscopic approaches are from East Asia. Rapid intraoperative parathyroid hormone is accessible to just under half of the surgeons but less available in Australian/New Zealand (p < 0.001). The use of intraoperative neuromonitoring is not commonly used, even less so amongst Asian surgeons (p = 0.048) and surgeons with low case load (p = 0.013). CONCLUSION: Dual localisation techniques are the preferred choice of investigations in preparation for parathyroid surgery, with minimally invasive surgery without neuromonitoring the preferred approach. Use of adjuncts is sporadic and limited to certain centres.
