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.

Addressing Equity in Global Medical Education During the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Global Medical Education Collaborative.

PROBLEM: The COVID-19 pandemic has presented a unique set of challenges to medical education globally. Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) have faced unique barriers in transitioning to virtual modalities, and many medical students in LMICs experienced dramatically reduced educational time. The authors created the Global Medical Education Collaborative (GMEC) to address this problem by providing free, online, case-based tutorials to medical students in LMICs during the pandemic. APPROACH: The authors developed a needs assessment to gauge students' educational requirements, which informed GMEC's 2 primary goals: to provide free access to interactive online tutorials for students in LMICs and to bridge the physical distance between educators and learners via an online platform. A pilot program in Nigeria (April 26-May 26, 2020) helped inform the current strategy and logistics. Tutors and students were recruited via social media and medical education networks at the authors' home institutions. OUTCOMES: Within the first 2 months (April 26-June 26, 2020), 324 students representing 12 countries and 20+ medical schools joined GMEC. Additionally, 95 physicians and trainees joined as tutors and, collectively, delivered 52 tutorials. Students responded to a needs assessment querying confidence in various clinical domains, interest in covering clinical topics, barriers to virtual learning, and the effect of the pandemic on their education. Tutors held 1-hour, interactive tutorials over Zoom covering a variety of clinical topics. According to surveys, 91% of students (71 of 78) felt more confident in the material related to the tutorial's topic after participating. NEXT STEPS: GMEC will continue to engage students, tutors, and collaborators to facilitate the delivery of innovative, high-quality tutorials to students affected by COVID-19 in LMICs. To ensure that the platform is sustainable and aligned with GMEC's mission to promote equity in global medical education, the collaborative will need to be agile and responsive.

Uncovered versus covered stent in management of large bowel obstruction due to colorectal malignancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To compare outcomes of uncovered stent and covered stent in management of large bowel obstruction secondary to colorectal malignancy. METHODS: We conducted a search of electronic databases identifying studies comparing outcomes of uncovered and covered stents in management of large bowel obstruction secondary to colorectal malignancy. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale were used to assess the included studies. Random or fixed effects modelling were applied as appropriate to calculate pooled outcome data. RESULTS: One randomised controlled trial (RCT) and nine observational studies, enrolling 753 patients, were identified. Uncovered stent was associated with lower risks of complications (RR 0.57 95% CI 0.44-0.74, P < 0.0001), tumour overgrowth (RR 0.29 95% CI 0.09-0.93, P = 0.04), and stent migration (RR 0.29 95% CI 0.17-0.48, P < 0.00001); longer duration of patency (MD 18.47 95% CI 10.46-26.48, P < 0.00001); lower need for stent reinsertion (RR 0.38 95% CI 0.17-0.86, P = 0.02); and higher risk of tumour ingrowth (RR 4.53 95% CI 1.92-10.69, P = 0.0008). Rates of technical success (RR 1.02 95% CI 0.99-1.04, P = 0.21), clinical success (RR 1.03 95% CI 0.98-1.08, P = 0.32), perforation (RD 0.01 95% CI - 0.03-0.02, P = 0.65), bleeding (RD 0.00 95% CI - 0.03-0.03, P = 0.98), stool impaction (RR 0.56 95% CI 0.12-2.04, P = 0.38) and stent obstruction (RR 2.23 95% CI 0.94-5.34, P = 0.97) were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that uncovered stents are superior as indicated by fewer complications, lower rates of stent migration, longer duration of patency and a reduced need for stent reinsertion. The best available evidence is mainly derived from non-randomised studies; there is a need for more RCTs.