Clips closure versus endoloop ligation in laparoscopic appendectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies.

Introduction: Appendiceal stump closure (ASC) is a key step in performing laparoscopic appendicectomy. Currently, there is no gold standard method to achieve this goal. The ideal method should be safe, easily available, and have a short learning curve. Out of all those appendiceal stump closure methods, the use of hem-o-Lok demonstrates its feasibility in replacing the traditionally used endoloop. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the authors aim to review the currently available evidence addressing the topic of interest. Method: The PubMed and Embase databases were searched with the paired search terms appendicitis, clip, and endoloop by two authors separately. The quality of the randomized controlled trials was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and the quality of the observational studies was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Meta-analysis was conducted with Cochrane Review Manager version 5.4. Result: Eighteen studies were included for quantitative analysis. The appendiceal stump closure time was shortened by 2 min 7 s using a hem-o-lok with 95% CI 1 min 48 s-2 min 26 s, p less than 0.00001. The pooled results of 6 randomized controlled trials demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in operative time of 5.15 min from adopting the hem-o-lok approach (p=0.001, 95% CI -2.05 to -8.24 min). Both endoloop and hem-o-lok demonstrated a comparable postoperative hospital stay and infective complication profile. Conclusion: The application of Hem-o-Lok demonstrates a comparable to endoloop ligation in terms of operative time and a potential benefit on the complication. When considering financial and technical aspects, it serves as an alternative to endoloop.

Is bridge to surgery stenting a safe alternative to emergency surgery in malignant colonic obstruction: a meta-analysis of randomized control trials.

BACKGROUND: Despite studies showing superior results in terms of reduced stoma rate and higher primary anastomosis rate, the safety of bridge to surgery stenting (BTS stent) for left-sided malignant colonic obstruction, especially in oncological terms, remains a concern. AIM: The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate whether BTS stent is a safe alternative to emergency surgery (EmS). METHODS: Randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing BTS stent and EmS for left-sided colonic obstruction caused by primary cancer of the colon, up to Sep 2018, were retrieved from the Pubmed, Embase database, clinical trials registry of U. S. National Library of Medicine and BMJ and Google Search. RESULTS: There were seven eligible RCTs, involving a total of 448 patients. Compared to EmS, BTS stent had a significantly lower risk of overall complications (RR = 0.605; 95% CI 0.382-0.958; p = 0.032). However, the overall recurrence rate was higher in the BTS stent group (37.0% vs. 25.9%; RR = 1.425; 95% CI 1.002-2.028; p = 0.049). BTS stent significantly increased the risk of systemic recurrence (RR = 1.627; 95% CI 1.009-2.621; p = 0.046). This did not translate into a significant difference in terms of 3-year disease-free survival or 3-year overall survival. CONCLUSION: BTS stent is associated with a lower rate of overall morbidities than EmS. However, BTS stent was associated with a greater chance of recurrence, especially systemic recurrence. Clinicians ought to be aware of the pros and cons of different interventions and tailor treatments for patients suffering from left-sided obstructing cancer of the colon.

The current management of acute uncomplicated appendicitis: should there be a change in paradigm? A systematic review of the literatures and analysis of treatment performance.

INTRODUCTION: Appendectomy has long been the mainstay of intervention for acute appendicitis, aiming at preventing perforation, peritonitis, abscess formation and recurrence. With better understanding of the disease process, non-operative management (NOM) with antibiotics alone has been proved a feasible treatment for uncomplicated appendicitis. This article aimed at systematically reviewing the available literatures and discussing the question whether NOM should replace appendectomy as the standard first-line treatment for uncomplicated appendicitis. METHOD: A search of the Embase, Pubmed and Cochrane Library was performed using the keywords 'acute appendicitis' and 'antibiotic therapy'. Meta-analysis with inverse variance model for continuous variable and Mantel Haenzel Model for dichotomous variable was performed to evaluate the one year treatment efficacy, morbidities rate, sick leave duration and length of hospital stay associated with emergency appendectomy and NOM. RESULTS: Six randomized control trials were identified out of 1943 publications. NOM had a significant lower treatment efficacy rate at one year, 0.10 (95% CI 0.03-0.36, p < 0.01), when compared to appendectomy. The morbidities rate was comparable between the two interventions. The length of hospital stay was longer, with a mean difference of 1.08 days (95% CI 0.09-2.07, p = 0.03), and the sick leave duration was shorter, a mean difference of 3.37 days (95% CI -5.90 to -0.85 days, p < 0.01) for NOM. CONCLUSION: The paradigm remains unchanged, that appendectomy is the gold standard of treatment for uncomplicated appendicitis, given its higher efficacy rate when compared to NOM.