Minimally invasive surgery for Inflammatory Bowel Disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic surgical techniques.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate outcomes of robotic versus conventional laparoscopic colorectal resections in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). METHODS: Comparative studies of robotic versus laparoscopic colorectal resections in patients with IBD were included. Primary outcome was total post-operative complication rate. Secondary outcomes included operative time, conversion to open surgery, anastomotic leaks, intra-abdominal abscess formation, ileus occurrence, surgical site infection, re-operation, re-admission rate, length of hospital stay, and 30-day mortality. Combined overall effect sizes were calculated using random-effects model and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess risk of bias. RESULTS: Eleven non-randomised studies (n=5,566 patients) divided between those undergoing robotic (n=365) and conventional laparoscopic (n=5,201) surgery were included. Robotic platforms were associated with a significantly lower overall post-operative complication rate compared with laparoscopic surgery (P=0.03).Laparoscopic surgery was associated with a significantly shorter operative time (P=0.00001). No difference was found in conversion rates to open surgery (P=0.15), anastomotic leaks (P=0.84), abscess formation (P=0.21), paralytic ileus (P=0.06), surgical site infections (P=0.78), re-operation (P=0.26), re-admission rate (P=0.48), and 30-day mortality (P=1.00) between the groups.Length of hospital stay was shorter following a robotic sub-total colectomy compared with conventional laparoscopy (P=0.03). CONCLUSION: Outcomes in the surgical management of IBD are comparable between traditional laparoscopic techniques and robotic-assisted minimally invasive surgery demonstrating the safety and feasibility of robotic platforms. Larger studies investigating the use of robotic technology in Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis separately may be of benefit with specific focus on important IBD-related metrics.

Delorme's vs. Altemeier's in the management of rectal procidentia: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Rectal prolapse is a distressing condition for patients and no consensus exists on optimal surgical management. We compared outcomes of two common perineal operations (Delorme's and Altemeier's) used in the treatment of rectal prolapse. METHODS: A systematic search of multiple electronic databases was conducted. Peri- and post-operative outcomes following Delorme's and Altemeier's procedures were extracted. Primary outcomes included recurrence rate, anastomotic dehiscence rate and mortality rate. The secondary outcomes were total operative time, volume of blood loss, length of hospital stay and coloanal anastomotic stricture formation. Revman 5.3 was used to perform all statistical analysis. RESULTS: Ten studies with 605 patients were selected; 286 underwent Altemeier's procedure (standalone), 39 had Altemeier's with plasty (perineoplasty or levatoroplasty), and 280 had Delorme's. Recurrence rate [OR: 0.66; 95% CI [0.44-0.99], P = 0.05] was significantly lower and anastomotic dehiscence [RD: 0.05; 95% CI [0.00-0.09], P = 0.03] was significantly higher in the Altemeier's group. However, sub group analysis of Altemeier's with plasty failed to show significant differences in these outcomes compared with the Delorme's procedure. Length of hospital stay was significantly more following an Altemeier's operation compared with Delorme's [MD: 3.05, 95% CI [0.95 - 5.51], P = 0.004]. No significant difference was found in total operative time, intra-operative blood loss, coloanal anastomotic stricture formation and mortality rates between the two approaches. CONCLUSIONS: A direct comparison of two common perineal procedures used in the treatment of rectal prolapse demonstrated that the Altemeier's approach was associated with better outcomes. Future, well-designed high quality RCTs with long-term follow up are needed to corroborate our findings.

Comparison of Midline and Off-midline specimen extraction following laparoscopic left-sided colorectal resections: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Aims: This study aims to evaluate comparative outcomes following midline versus off-midline specimen extractions following laparoscopic left-sided colorectal resections. Methods: A systematic search of electronic information sources was conducted. Studies comparing 'midline' versus 'off midline' specimen extraction following laparoscopic left-sided colorectal resections performed for malignancies were included. The rate of incisional hernia formation, surgical site infection (SSI), total operative time and blood loss, anastomotic leak (AL) and length of hospital stay (LOS) was the evaluated outcome parameters. Results: Five comparative observational studies reporting a total of 1187 patients comparing midline (n = 701) and off-midline (n = 486) approaches for specimen extraction were identified. Specimen extraction performed through an off-midline incision was not associated with a significantly reduced rate of SSI (odds ratio [OR]: 0.71; P = 0.68), the occurrence of AL (OR: 0.76; P = 0.66) and future development of incisional hernias (OR: 0.65; P = 0.64) compared to the conventional midline approach. No statistically significant difference was observed in total operative time (mean difference [MD]: 0.13; P = 0.99), intraoperative blood loss (MD: 2.31; P = 0.91) and LOS (MD: 0.78; P = 0.18) between the two groups. Conclusions: Off-midline specimen extraction following minimally invasive left-sided colorectal cancer surgery is associated with similar rates of SSI and incisional hernia formation compared to the vertical midline incision. Furthermore, there were no statistically significant differences observed between the two groups for evaluated outcomes such as total operative time, intra-operative blood loss, AL rate and LOS. As such, we did not find any advantage of one approach over the other. Future high-quality well-designed trials are required to make robust conclusions.