A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Single-Incision Versus Multiport Laparoscopic Complete Mesocolic Excision Colectomy for Colon Cancer.

Background. Our aim was to compare the emerging technique of single-incision laparoscopic surgery complete mesocolic excision (SILS CME) colectomy with the standard multiport laparoscopic CME (MPL CME) colectomy. Methods. MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, EMBASE, Ovid, and the Cochrane library were searched. Studies comparing the SILS CME with MPL CME in adults with colon adenocarcinoma were included. The Jadad and Newcastle Ottawa Scales were used to critically appraise the studies. The presence of statistical heterogeneity or publication bias was examined. Results. Seven studies (3 randomized) with a total number of 1344 patients were included (546 SILS CME and 798 MPL CME). No difference was found in anastomotic leakage (odds ratio [OR] = 0.79 [0.31 to 2.03]; P = .63), number of lymph nodes (weighted mean difference [WMD] = 0.85 [-0.97 to 2.66]; P = .36), hospital stay (WMD = 0.01 [-0.19 to 0.20]; P = .96), overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.19 [0.29 to 4.80]; P = .81), and disease-free survival (HR = 1.30 [0.30 to 5.61]; P = .72). Skin incision was shorter in SILS CME group (WMD = -3.02 [-3.25 to -2.80]; P < .00001) but with no difference in pain reported in postoperative day 1 (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.21 [-0.50 to 0.09]; P = .17) or day 2 (SMD = 0.16 [-0.52 to 0.84]; P = .64). Conclusions. SILS CME, although technically more demanding, has equivalent short- and long-term outcomes when compared with MPL CME. Potential benefits in cosmesis or postoperative pain need to be further explored by high-quality randomized controlled trials.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Laparoscopic Versus Open Appendicectomy in Adults with Complicated Appendicitis: an Update of the Literature.

AIMS: To review and compare the outcomes of laparoscopic (LA) versus open appendicectomy (OA) in complicated appendicitis in adult patients, eight years after the last literature review. METHODS: The PRISMA guidelines were adhered to. Pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria were used to search the PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane databases and extract relevant data. Methodological and quality assessment was undertaken with outcome meta-analysis and subgroup analyses of methodological quality, type of study and year of study. Assessment of clinical and statistical heterogeneity and publication bias was conducted. RESULTS: Three randomised control trials (RCTs) (154LA vs 155OA) and 23 case-control trials were included (2034LA vs 2096OA). Methodological quality was low to average but with low statistical heterogeneity. Risk of publication bias was low, and meta-regression indicated shorter length of hospital stay (LOS) in more recent studies, Q = 7.1, P = 0.007. In the combined analysis LA had significantly less surgical site infections [OR = 0.30 (0.22,0.40); p < 0.00001] with reduced time to oral intake [WMD = -0.98 (-1.09,-0.86); P < 0.00001] and LOS [WMD = -3.49(-3.70,-3.29); p < 0.00001]. There was no significant difference in intra-abdominal abscess rates [OR = 1.11(0.85,1.45); p = 0.43]. Operative time was longer during LA [WMD = 10.51 (5.14,15.87); p = 0.0001] but did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.13) in the RCT subgroup analysis. CONCLUSIONS: LA appears to have significant benefits with improved morbidity compared to OA in complicated appendicitis (level of evidence II).

Laparoscopic vs open approach for transverse colon cancer. A systematic review and meta-analysis of short and long term outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Transverse colon malignancies have been excluded from all randomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopic against open colectomies, potentially due to the advanced laparoscopic skills required for dissecting around the middle colic vessels and the associated morbidity. Concerns have been expressed that the laparoscopic approach may compromise the oncological clearance in transverse colon cancer. This study aimed to comprehensively compare the laparoscopic (LPA) to the open (OPA) approach by performing a meta-analysis of long and short term outcomes. METHODS: Medline, Embase, Cochrane library, Scopus and Web of Knowledge databases were interrogated. Selected studies were critically appraised and the short-term morbidity and long term oncological outcomes were meta-analyzed. Sensitivity analysis according to the quality of the study, type of procedure (laparoscopic vs laparoscopically assisted) and level of lymphadenectomy was performed. Statistical heterogeneity and publication bias were also investigated. RESULTS: Eleven case control trials (1415 patients) were included in the study. There was no difference between the LPA and the OPA in overall survival [Hazard Ratio (HR) = 0.83 (0.56, 1.22); P = 0.34], disease free survival (p = 0.20), local recurrence (p = 0.81) or distant metastases (p = 0.24). LPA was found to have longer operative time [Weighted mean difference (WMD) = 45.00 (29.48, 60.52); P < 0.00001] with earlier establishment of oral intake [WMD = -1.68 (-1.84, -1.53); P < 0.00001] and shorter hospital stay [WMD = -2.94 (-4.27, -1.62); P = 0.0001]. No difference was found in relation to anastomotic leakage (p = 0.39), intra-abdominal abscess (p = 0.25), lymph nodes harvested (p = 0.17). CONCLUSIONS: LPA seems to be safe with equivalent oncological outcomes to OPA and better short term outcomes in selected patient populations. High quality Randomized control trials are required to further investigate the role of laparoscopy in transverse colon cancer.

Meta-analysis of handsewn versus stapled reversal of loop ileostomy.

BACKGROUND: The morbidity associated with closure of loop ileostomy (LI) may be attributed to the various surgical techniques employed for the closure. The purpose of this review was to review the hand-sutured (HS) versus the stapled anastomosis (SA) techniques, used in the reversal of LI. METHODS: The MEDLINE, PubMed, CINHAL, Cochrane library and Web of Knowledge databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and case-control trials (CCTs), evaluating HS and SA in reversal of LI. Data extraction with risk of bias assessment was followed by subgroup and pooled data meta-analysis where applicable per outcome. RESULTS: Four RCTs (HS: 321, SA: 328) and 10 CCTs (HS: 2808, SA: 1044) were identified, with a total of 4508 patients. Regardless of subgroup analysis, no difference was seen between the two techniques with regard to anastomotic leaks (P = 0.24, odds ratio (OR): 1.37, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.81-2.29) or re-operation. The stapled group showed a significantly lower rate of conservatively managed small bowel obstruction (SBO)/ ileus at 30 days (P < 0.001, OR: 2.27, 95% CI: 1.59-2.96) (P < 0.001) and SBO during combined short- and long-term follow-up (P < 0.001). The SA also showed significant shorter operative time (P = 0.02; WMD 11.52 min), time to first bowel opening (P < 0.001; WMD 0.52 days) and length of hospital stay (P = 0.03; WMD 0.70 days). CONCLUSION: The stapled technique offers an advantage in terms of lower post-operative subacute SBO rates, a faster operative technique and shorter hospitalization times. These perceived benefits make it potentially superior to HS for the reversal of LI.