Single-port laparoscopic appendicectomy versus conventional three-port approach for acute appendicitis: A systematic review, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomised controlled trials.

AIMS: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare outcomes of single-port laparoscopic appendicectomy (SPLA) and conventional three-port laparoscopic appendicectomy (CLA) in the management of acute appendicitis. METHODS: A comprehensive systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with subsequent meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of outcomes were conducted. Post-operative pain at 12-h, cosmesis, need for an additional port(s), operative time, port-site hernia, ileus, surgical site infection (SSI), intra-abdominal collection, length of hospital stay (LOS), readmission, and reoperation were the evaluated outcome parameters. RESULTS: Sixteen RCTs with total number of 2017 patients who underwent SPLA (n = 1009) or CLA (n = 1008) were included. SPLA was associated with a significantly higher cosmetic score (MD 1.11, P= 0.03) but significantly longer operative time (MD 7.08, P = 0.00001) compared to CLA. However, the difference was not significant between SPLA and CLA in the post-operative pain score at 12-h (MD -0.13, P = 0.69), need for additional port(s) (RR0.03, P = 0.07), port-site hernia (RD: 0.00, P = 0.68), ileus (RR 0.74, P = 0.51), SSI (RR 1.38, P = 0.28), post-operative intra-abdominal collection (RR 0.00, P = 0.62), LOS (MD -2.41, P = 0.16), readmission to the hospital (RR 0.45, P = 0.22), and return to theatre (RR 0.00, P = 0.49). Trial sequential analysis demonstrated that the meta-analysis is conclusive for most of the outcomes, except LOS and intra-abdominal collection. CONCLUSION: Although SPLA is associated with a slightly longer operative time, its efficacy and safety are comparable to CLA in management of uncomplicated appendicitis. Moreover, it offers improved post-operative cosmesis. The available evidence is conclusive, and further trials may not be required.

Fifteen-Year Single-Center Experience of Biliary Complications in Liver Trauma Patients: Changes in the Management of Posttraumatic Bile Leak.

INTRODUCTION: Management of posttraumatic bile leak has evolved over time in our unit, from endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) stenting to intraperitoneal drainage (IPD) alone as first-line treatment for intraperitoneal bile leak. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of liver trauma patients from 2002 to 2017. Demographics, time and mode of diagnosis of bile leak, management, and outcome were analyzed of the box plot. RESULTS: In 118 patients, there were 28 traumatic bile leaks. Eighteen were free intraperitoneal and 10 were localized bilomas. The median time of diagnosis was 6 days following injury. The modes of diagnosis were preemptive hepatobiliary scintigraphy (18), computed tomography (CT) or ultrasound (7), and laparotomy (3). Free intraperitoneal biliary leak management included 11 IPD alone, 3 IPD plus ERCP, 2 IPD plus transcystic biliary stent (TBS), 1 operative cholangiogram, and 1 no intervention. Median time of IPD duration was 7 days (4-95) in IPD alone versus 14 days (6-40) in IPD + ERCP/TBS (p = 0.3). Median inpatient length of stay was 13 days (8-44) in IPD alone versus 12 days (8-22) in IPD + ERCP/TBS (p = 0.4). CONCLUSION: Placement of IPD alone, as first-line treatment, is safe and effective in the management of intraperitoneal bile leaks, avoiding the costs and potential complications of ERCP.

Single-port laparoscopic appendicectomy versus conventional three-port approach for acute appendicitis in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: To evaluate comparative outcomes of single-port laparoscopic appendicectomy (SPLA) and conventional three-port laparoscopic appendicectomy (CLA) in the management of acute appendicitis in children. METHODS: A comprehensive systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with subsequent meta-analysis of outcomes were conducted in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement standards. Operative time, surgical site infection, intra-abdominal collection, incisional hernia, length of hospital stay (LOS), additional port/s and conversion to open were the evaluated outcome parameters. RESULTS: Four RCTs reporting a total number of 520 patients who underwent SPLA (n = 260) or CLA (n = 260) were included. There was no difference between SPLA and CLA group in post-operative collection (risk difference (RD) - 0.00, P = 0.94), surgical site infection (RD 0.02, P = 0.25), incisional hernia (RD 0.00 P = 1), LOS (mean difference (MD) 0.73 P = 0.93), need for additional port/s (RD 0.04, P = 0.24) and conversion to open (RD 0.00, P = 1). However, there was a significantly longer operative time in the SPLA group (MD 9.80, P = 0.00001). The certainty of the evidence was judged to be moderate for all outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: SPLA and CLA seem to have comparable efficacy and safety in children with acute appendicitis although the former may be associated with longer procedure time. Future high-quality RCTs with adequate sample sizes are required to provide stronger evidence in favour of an intervention.

Incision and drainage of cutaneous abscess with or without cavity packing: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis of randomised controlled trials.

AIMS: To evaluate comparative outcomes of incision and drainage of cutaneous abscess with and without packing of the abscess cavity. METHODS: A systematic search of multiple electronic data sources was conducted, and all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing incision and drainage of cutaneous abscess with and without packing were included. Abscess recurrence at maximum follow-up period, need for second intervention, and development of fistula in-ano were the evaluated outcome parameters for the meta-analysis A Trial Sequential Analysis was conducted to determine the robustness of the findings. RESULTS: Eight RCTs reporting a total number of 485 patients who underwent incision and drainage of cutaneous abscess with (n = 243) or without (n = 242) packing of the abscess cavity were included. There was no significant difference in the risk of recurrence (risk ratio (RR) 1.31, P = 0.56), fistula-in-ano (RR 0.63, P = 0.28), and need for second intervention (RR 0.70, P = 0.05) between two groups. The results remained unchanged on sub-group analyses for ano-rectal abscess, paediatric patients, adult patients, and the use of antibiotics. The Trial Sequential Analysis demonstrated that the meta-analysis was not conclusive, and the results for recurrence were subject to type 2 error. CONCLUSION: Incision and drainage of cutaneous abscess with or without packing have comparable outcomes. However, considering the cost and post-operative pain associated with packing, performing the procedure without packing of the abscess cavity may be more favourable. The findings of the better quality ongoing RCTs may provide stronger evidence in favour of packing or non-packing.

Haemorrhoidectomy under local anaesthesia versus spinal anaesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: To evaluate comparative outcomes of local anaesthesia (LA) and spinal anaesthesia (SA) in patients undergoing haemorrhoidectomy. METHODS: A systematic online search was conducted using the following databases: PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Database, The Virtual Health Library, Clinical trials.gov , and Science Direct. Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing excisional haemorrhoidectomy under LA and SA were included. Post-operative pain score, need for rescue analgesia, urinary retention, headache, rectal bleeding, and operative time were the evaluated outcome parameters. RESULTS: Seven RCTs reporting a total number of 440 patients of whom 222 patients underwent haemorrhoidectomy under LA and 218 patients had the procedure under SA were included. LA was associated with significantly lower post-operative pain at 6 h (mean difference (MD) - 2.25, P = 0.0001) and at 24 h (MD - 0.87, P = 0.0002), need for a rescue analgesia (risk ratio (RR) 0.18, P = 0.002), urinary retention (RR 0.17, P = 0.0001), and headache (RR 0.09, P = 0.0003) compared with SA. However, there was no significant difference in rectal bleeding (RR 0.89, P = 0.70) and operative time (MD 1.15, P = 0.19) between LA and SA. CONCLUSION: Compared with SA, LA may be associated with significantly lower post-operative pain, need for rescue analgesia, urinary retention, and headache making it an attractive choice of anaesthesia in day-case surgery for those who are not either fit for GA or refuse such anaesthetic modality.

Closure of stoma site with or without prophylactic mesh reinforcement: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: To evaluate comparative outcomes of the closure of temporary stoma site with or without prophylactic mesh reinforcement METHODS: A systematic online search was conducted using the following databases: PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane database, The Virtual Health Library, Clinical trials.gov and Science Direct. Studies comparing the reversal of stoma with and without prophylactic mesh reinforcement were included. Stoma site incisional hernia (SSIH), surgical site infection (SSI), operative time, seroma formation, haematoma formation, bowel obstruction, anastomosis leak, length of hospital stay (LOS) and secondary operation to repair the SSIH were the evaluated outcome parameters. RESULTS: Six comparative studies reporting a total of 1683 patients who underwent closure of stoma with (n = 669) or without (n = 1014) prophylactic mesh reinforcement were included. Use of mesh was associated with a significantly lower risk of SSIH (OR 0.22, P = 0.003) and need for surgical intervention to repair SSIH (OR 0.32, P = 0.04) compared with no use of mesh. However, it was associated with significantly longer operative time (MD 47.78, P = 0.02). There was no significant difference in SSI (OR 1.09, P = 0.59), bowel obstruction (OR 1.11, P = 0.74), seroma formation (OR 2.86, P = 0.19), anastomosis leak (OR 1.60, P = 0.15), haematoma formation (OR 1.25, P = 0.75) or LOS (MD - 0.45, P = 0.31) between two groups. CONCLUSION: Prophylactic mesh reinforcement during the closure of temporary stoma may significantly reduce the risk of SSIH and surgical intervention to repair the hernia without increasing the risk of SSI or other morbidities. However, it may increase the procedure time. Future higher-quality randomised evidence is required.

Outcomes of the Weighted Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter in Patients at Risk of Percutaneous Catheter Failure.

BACKGROUND: The weighted catheter has shown promising results in retrospective and randomized studies. We examined its usefulness in patients with previous failed non-weighted peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheters or previous abdominal surgery. METHODS: The insertion, start, end, and removal dates were recorded for all-type catheter insertions from 2011 to 2016. Primary and secondary failure rates were recorded, defined as failure to ever establish flow (primary) or failure after a period of successful PD (secondary). Patients were censored from analysis if PD ended due to death, transfer of care, transfer to hemodialysis, transplantation, or if the patient recovered renal function. RESULTS: There were 44 weighted, 75 non-weighted open surgical, and 143 percutaneous catheters. There was previous abdominal surgery in 29% and 6% of patients receiving surgically inserted and percutaneous catheters, respectively (p < 0.0001). Primary failure rates were 4/44 (9%), 20/75 (27%), and 26/143 (18%) in weighted, non-weighted surgical, and percutaneous catheters, respectively. There were reduced primary and secondary failure rates in the weighted (9% primary and 15% secondary) versus non-weighted surgically inserted group (27% primary and 46% secondary) (p = 0.04). There was no difference between primary (p = 0.15) and secondary (p = 0.5) failure rates between weighted and percutaneously inserted catheters. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis revealed overall increased catheter survival in the weighted group (p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Weighted catheters were associated with increased survival and decreased failure rates compared with non-weighted surgical catheters, despite usage in patients at higher risk of catheter failure due to previous failed catheters and abdominal surgery.

Laparoscopic Protack™ rectopexy: Early experience of a novel technique for full thickness rectal prolapse in children.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: To review our early experience of laparoscopic ProTack™ rectopexy (LPR) in the management of full thickness rectal prolapse (FTRP) in children. METHODS: Prospective case series of patients undergoing LPR between 2013 and 2017. Full laparoscopic mobilization of the rectum was performed from the sacral promontory to the pelvic floor. 'Wings' of the lateral mesorectal peritoneum left attached to the rectum are then fixed to the sacral promontory using ProTack™. Demographics, associated conditions, previous procedures for FTRP, follow up time, length of stay (LOS), short and long term complications and clinical improvement were assessed. RESULTS: Seven consecutive patients with FTRP underwent LPR. The mean age was 9 years old (2-17) with a male to female ratio of 6:1. Median LOS was 1 day (1-2 days). Median follow up time was 17 months (10-38 months). All patients had complete resolution of symptoms within the follow up period. CONCLUSIONS: LPR is a simple, safe and effective procedure showing promising results in children. It negates the risks associated with the use of mesh and has the potential to avoid the higher risk of failure associated with suture rectopexy. It is important to ensure patients receive adequate analgesia and management of postoperative constipation.

Identification of the high risk emergency surgical patient: Which risk prediction model should be used?

INTRODUCTION: National guidance states that all patients having emergency surgery should have a mortality risk assessment calculated on admission so that the 'high risk' patient can receive the appropriate seniority and level of care. We aimed to assess if peri-operative risk scoring tools could accurately calculate mortality and morbidity risk. METHODS: Mortality risk scores for 86 consecutive emergency laparotomies, were calculated using pre-operative (ASA, Lee index) and post-operative (POSSUM, P-POSSUM and CR-POSSUM) risk calculation tools. Morbidity risk scores were calculated using the POSSUM predicted morbidity and compared against actual morbidity according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. RESULTS: The actual mortality was 10.5%. The average predicted risk scores for all laparotomies were: ASA 26.5%, Lee Index 2.5%, POSSUM 29.5%, P-POSSUM 18.5%, CR-POSSUM 10.5%. Complications occurred following 67 laparotomies (78%). The majority (51%) of complications were classified as Clavien-Dindo grade 2-3 (non-life-threatening). Patients having a POSSUM morbidity risk of greater than 50% developed significantly more life-threatening complications (CD 4-5) compared with those who predicted less than or equal to 50% morbidity risk (P = 0.01). DISCUSSION: Pre-operative risk stratification remains a challenge because the Lee Index under-predicts and ASA over-predicts mortality risk. Post-operative risk scoring using the CR-POSSUM is more accurate and we suggest can be used to identify patients who require intensive care post-operatively. CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of accurate risk scoring tools that can be used on admission to hospital it is not possible to reliably audit the achievement of national standards of care for the 'high-risk' patient.