-
Journal of Clinical Medicine Jun 2020Mesenteric fibrosis (MF) constitutes an underrecognized sequela in patients with small intestinal neuroendocrine neoplasms (SI-NENs), often complicating the disease... (Review)
Review
Mesenteric fibrosis (MF) constitutes an underrecognized sequela in patients with small intestinal neuroendocrine neoplasms (SI-NENs), often complicating the disease clinical course. The aim of the present systematic review, carried out by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology, is to provide an update in evolving aspects of MF pathogenesis and its clinical management in SI-NENs. Complex and dynamic interactions are present in the microenvironment of tumor deposits in the mesentery. Serotonin, as well as the signaling pathways of certain growth factors play a pivotal, yet not fully elucidated role in the pathogenesis of MF. Clinically, MF often results in significant morbidity by causing either acute complications, such as intestinal obstruction and/or acute ischemia or more chronic conditions involving abdominal pain, venous stasis, malabsorption and malnutrition. Surgical resection in patients with locoregional disease only or symptomatic distant stage disease, as well as palliative minimally invasive interventions in advanced inoperable cases seem clinically meaningful, whereas currently available systemic and/or targeted treatments do not unequivocally affect the development of MF in SI-NENs. Increased awareness and improved understanding of the molecular pathogenesis of MF in SI-NENs may provide better diagnostic and predictive tools for its timely recognition and intervention and also facilitates the development of agents targeting MF.
PubMed: 32521677
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9061777 -
Obesity Surgery Jul 2023Internal hernias are a worrying complication from laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRGB), with potential small bowel necrosis and obstruction. An electronic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Internal hernias are a worrying complication from laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRGB), with potential small bowel necrosis and obstruction. An electronic database search of Medline, Embase, and Pubmed was performed. All studies investigating the internal hernia rates in patients whose mesenteric defects were closed vs. not closed during LRGB were analysed. Odds ratios were calculated to assess the difference in internal hernia rate. A total of 14 studies totalling 20,553 patients undergoing LRGB were included. Internal hernia rate (220/12,445 (2%) closure vs. 509/8108 (6%) non-closure) and re-operation for small bowel obstruction (86/5437 (2%) closed vs. 300/3132 (10%) non-closure) were reduced when defects were closed. There was no difference observed when sutures were used to close the defects compared to clips/staples.
Topics: Humans; Gastric Bypass; Obesity, Morbid; Retrospective Studies; Postoperative Complications; Hernia, Abdominal; Laparoscopy; Mesentery; Internal Hernia
PubMed: 37162714
DOI: 10.1007/s11695-023-06597-0 -
European Journal of Surgical Oncology :... Apr 2021Conventional colectomy, and the Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum (JSCCR) D2 Lymphadenectomy (LND2), are currently considered standard of care for... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Conventional colectomy, and the Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum (JSCCR) D2 Lymphadenectomy (LND2), are currently considered standard of care for surgical management of colon cancer. Colectomy with complete mesocolic excision (CME) and JSCCR D3 Lymphadenectomy (LND3) are more radical alternative approaches and provide a greater degree of lymph nodal clearance. However, controversy exists over the long-term benefits of CME/LND3 over non-CME colectomies (NCME)/LND2. In this study, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the surgical, pathological, and oncological outcomes of CME/LND3 with NCME/LND2. Embase, Medline and CENTRAL databases were searched from inception until May 15, 2020, in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Studies were included if they compared curative intent CME/LND3 with NCME/LND2. Weighted mean differences (WMD) and odds ratios (OR) were estimated for continuous and dichotomous outcomes respectively. Out of 1310 unique citations, 106 underwent full-text review, and 30 were included for analysis. In total, 21,695 patients underwent resection for colon cancer. 11,625 received CME/LND3, and 10,070 underwent NCME/LND2. No significant differences were found in post-operative morbidity and mortality. Both overall and disease-free survival favored CME/LND3 (5-year OS: OR = 1.29; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.64, p = 0.03; 5-year DFS: OR = 1.61; 95% CI 1.14 to 2.28; p = 0.007). This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to demonstrate that CME/LND3 has superior long-term survival outcomes compared to NCME/LND2.
Topics: Colectomy; Colonic Neoplasms; Disease-Free Survival; Humans; Lymph Node Excision; Mesocolon; Postoperative Complications; Survival Rate
PubMed: 32951936
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2020.09.007 -
Clinical Journal of Gastroenterology Apr 2017Sclerosing mesenteritis includes a spectrum of inflammatory disorders involving the adipose tissue of the bowel mesentery. (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Sclerosing mesenteritis includes a spectrum of inflammatory disorders involving the adipose tissue of the bowel mesentery.
AIM
To perform a systematic review of previously reported cases of sclerosing mesenteritis (SM) to determine the epidemiology, risk factors, methods of diagnosis, treatment patterns and outcomes for this disease.
METHODS
Medline, PubMed, Google Scholar and Cochrane database were searched using keywords mesenteric panniculitis, retractile mesenteritis, mesenteric lipodystrophy and sclerosing mesenteritis. Data was collated into a single excel database, transferred into SPSS (Version 21.0) and analyzed.
RESULTS
Patients diagnosed with SM were between ages of 3 and 88 with a mean age of 55 ± 19.2 years. SM was more common in Caucasians (n = 28, 60.8% of those reporting ethnicity) and men (n = 133, 69.3%) with a male to female ratio of 2.3:1. 28.6% (n = 55) of patients reported a prior abdominal surgery or abdominal trauma, 8.9% (n = 17) had a history of malignancy, and 5.7% (n = 11) of autoimmune disease. 85.4% (n = 164) underwent surgical abdominal exploration (open or laparoscopic); 41.7% (n = 80) had surgery with resection of the involved bowel and mesentery. 34.9% (n = 67) of patients received medical treatment with the majority of them receiving steroids (n = 56, 83.5%). Symptom duration of more than a month (66.7% vs 40.4%, p < 0.05), underlying autoimmune disorder (14.3% vs 4.0%, p < 0.05) or low protein (14.3% vs 4.0%, p < 0.05) at presentation were seen more frequently in those with poor treatment response whereas patients with tender abdomen (45.0% vs 19.0%, p < 0.05) or leukocytosis (20.5% vs 0.0%, p < 0.05) at presentation were likely to have good response to therapy. The most common complications included bowel obstruction/ileus/ischemia (n = 10, 23.8%) and obstructive uropathy/renal failure (n = 10, 23.8%). There were a total of 14 deaths, 12 (85.7%) of which were secondary to SM related complications.
CONCLUSION
SM is a poorly understood chronic inflammatory disease. Our study is the first systematic review of the published cases of SM. Future work is required to better understand this disease and its optimal therapy.
Topics: Humans; Lipodystrophy; Mesentery; Panniculitis, Peritoneal; Prognosis; Terminology as Topic
PubMed: 28197781
DOI: 10.1007/s12328-017-0716-5 -
Journal of Pediatric Surgery Oct 2015Patients with malrotation, or an intestinal rotation abnormality (IRA), can experience serious adverse events. Increasingly, asymptomatic patients are being diagnosed... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Patients with malrotation, or an intestinal rotation abnormality (IRA), can experience serious adverse events. Increasingly, asymptomatic patients are being diagnosed with malrotation incidentally. Patients with symptomatic malrotation require surgery in an urgent or semiurgent manner to address their symptoms. The treatment of asymptomatic or incidentally discovered malrotation remains controversial.
METHODS
Data were compiled from a broad search of Medline, Cochrane, Embase and Web of Science from January 1980 through January 2013 for five questions regarding asymptomatic malrotation.
RESULTS
There is minimal evidence to support screening asymptomatic patients. Consideration may be given to operate on asymptomatic patients who are younger in age, while observation may be appropriate in the older patient. If reliably diagnosed, atypical malrotation with a broad-based mesentery and malposition of the duodenum can be observed. Regarding diagnostic imaging, the standard of care for diagnosis remains the upper gastrointestinal contrast study (UGI), ultrasound may be useful for screening. A laparoscopic approach is safe for diagnosis and treatment of rotational abnormalities. Laparoscopy can aid in determining whether a patient has true malrotation with a narrow mesenteric stalk, has nonrotation and minimal risk for volvulus, or has atypical anatomy with malposition of the duodenum. It is reasonable to delay Ladd procedures until after palliation on patients with severe congenital heart disease. Observation can be considered with extensive education for family and caregivers and close clinical follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS
There is a lack of quality data to guide the management of patients with asymptomatic malrotation. Multicenter and prospective data should be collected to better assess the risk profile for this complex group of patients. A multidisciplinary approach involving surgery, cardiology, critical care and the patient's caregivers can help guide a watchful waiting management plan in individual cases.
Topics: Asymptomatic Diseases; Child; Duodenum; Evidence-Based Practice; Heart Defects, Congenital; Humans; Intestinal Volvulus; Laparoscopy; Mesentery; Radiography; Ultrasonography; Upper Gastrointestinal Tract
PubMed: 26205079
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2015.06.019 -
International Journal of Colorectal... May 2021Complete mesocolic excision (CME) has introduced a promising surgical approach for treatment of right colon cancer. However, benefits of CME are still a matter of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Complete mesocolic excision (CME) has introduced a promising surgical approach for treatment of right colon cancer. However, benefits of CME are still a matter of debate. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess safety and long-term outcomes of CME versus conventional right hemicolectomy (CRH).
METHODS
We systematically searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase for retrieving studies comparing CME with CRH in right colon cancer. After data extraction from the included studies, meta-analysis was performed to compare postoperative complications, anastomotic leakage, 30-day mortality, number of lymph node yield, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS).
RESULTS
Eight studies met the inclusion criteria with a total of 1871 patients enrolled. No difference was observed in postoperative complications (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.88-1.47, p = 0.34). CME was associated with significantly higher number of lymph nodes retrieved (MD 9.17, CI 4.67-13.68, p < 0.001). CME also improved 3-year OS (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.17-2.11, p = 0.003), 5-year OS (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.06-1.89, p = 0.02), and 5-year DFS (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.29-3.07, p = 0.002). A sub-group analysis for patients with stage III colon cancer showed no significant impact of CME on 3-year and 5-year OS (OR 2.47, 95% CI 0.86-7.06, p = 0.09; OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.78-1.94, p = 0.38).
CONCLUSION
Although with limited evidence, CME shows similar postoperative complication rates and an improved survival outcome compared with CRH.
Topics: Colectomy; Colonic Neoplasms; Humans; Laparoscopy; Lymph Node Excision; Mesocolon; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33170319
DOI: 10.1007/s00384-020-03797-3 -
European Journal of Trauma and... Apr 2022Direct peritoneal resuscitation (DPR) has been used to help preserve microcirculation by reversing vasoconstriction and hypoperfusion associated with the... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Direct peritoneal resuscitation (DPR) has been used to help preserve microcirculation by reversing vasoconstriction and hypoperfusion associated with the pathophysiological process of shock, which can occur despite appropriate intravenous resuscitation. This approach depends on infusing a hyperosmolar solution intraperitoneally via a percutaneous catheter with the tip ending near the pelvis or the root of the mesentery. The abdomen is usually left open with a negative pressure abdominal dressing to continuously evacuate the infused dialysate. Hypertonicity of the solution triggers visceral vasodilation to help maintain blood flow, even during shock, and is also associated with reduced local inflammatory cytokines and other mediators, preservation of endothelial cell function, and mitigation of organ edema and necrosis. It also has a direct effect on liver perfusion and edema, more rapidly corrects electrolyte abnormalities compared to intravenous resuscitation alone, and may requireless intravenous fluid to stabilize blood pressure, all of which shortens the time required to close patients' abdomen.
METHODS
An online query using the search term "direct peritoneal resuscitation" was carried out in PubMed, MEDLINE and SciELO, limited to publications indexed from January 2014 to June 2020. Of the 20 articles returned, full text was able to be obtained for 19. A manual review of included articles' references was resulted in the addition of 1 article, for a total of 20 included articles.
RESULTS
The 20 articles were comprised of 15 animal studies, 4 clinical studies,and 1 expert opinion. The benefits include both local and possibly systemic effects on perfusion, hypoxia, acidosis, and inflammation, and are associated with improved outcomes and reduced complications.
CONCLUSION
DPR shows promise in patients with hemorrhagic shock, septic shock, and other conditions resulting in an open abdomen after damage control laparotomy.
Topics: Animals; Edema; Fluid Therapy; Humans; Rats; Rats, Sprague-Dawley; Resuscitation; Shock, Hemorrhagic
PubMed: 34773466
DOI: 10.1007/s00068-021-01821-x -
Techniques in Coloproctology Dec 2016Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) has been developed to improve quality of TME for patients with mid and low rectal cancer. However, despite enthusiastic... (Review)
Review
Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) has been developed to improve quality of TME for patients with mid and low rectal cancer. However, despite enthusiastic uptake and teaching facilities, concern exists for safe introduction. TaTME is a complex procedure and potentially a learning curve will hamper clinical outcome. With this systematic review, we aim to provide data regarding morbidity and safety of TaTME. A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE (Ovid) and Cochrane Library. Case reports, cohort series and comparative series on TaTME for rectal cancer were included. To evaluate a potential effect of case volume, low-volume centres (n ≤ 30 total volume) were compared with high-volume centres (n > 30 total volume). Thirty-three studies were identified (three case reports, 25 case series, five comparative studies), including 794 patients. Conversion was performed in 3.0% of the procedures. The complication rate was 40.3, and 11.5% were major complications. The quality of the mesorectum was "complete" in 87.6%, and the circumferential resection margin (CRM) was involved in 4.7%. In low- versus high-volume centres, the conversion rate was 4.3 versus 2.7%, and major complication rates were 12.2 versus 10.5%, respectively. TME quality was "complete" in 80.5 versus 89.7%, and CRM involvement was 4.8 and 4.5% in low- versus high-volume centres, respectively. TaTME for mid and low rectal cancer is a promising technique; however, it is associated with considerable morbidity. Safe implementation of the TaTME should include proctoring and quality assurance preferably within a trial setting.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Clinical Competence; Conversion to Open Surgery; Female; Hospitals, High-Volume; Hospitals, Low-Volume; Humans; Learning Curve; Male; Mesocolon; Middle Aged; Postoperative Complications; Rectal Neoplasms; Rectum; Transanal Endoscopic Surgery; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27853973
DOI: 10.1007/s10151-016-1545-0 -
PloS One 2012In February 2008, the results of the PRObiotics in PAncreatitis TRIAl (PROPATRIA) were published. This study investigated the use of probiotics in patients suffering... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
In February 2008, the results of the PRObiotics in PAncreatitis TRIAl (PROPATRIA) were published. This study investigated the use of probiotics in patients suffering from severe acute pancreatitis. No differences between the groups were found for any of the primary endpoints. However, mortality in the probiotics group was significantly higher than in the placebo group. This result was unexpected in light of the results of the animal studies referred to in the trial protocol. We used the methods of systematic review and meta-analysis to take a closer look at the relation between the animal studies on probiotics and pancreatitis and the PROPATRIA-trial, focussing on indications for harmful effects and efficacy.
METHODS AND RESULTS
Both PubMed and Embase were searched for original articles concerning the effects of probiotics in experimental acute pancreatitis, yielding thirteen studies that met the inclusion criteria. Data on mortality, bacterial translocation and histological damage to the pancreas were extracted, as well as study quality indicators. Meta-analysis of the four animal studies published before PROPATRIA showed that probiotic supplementation did not diminish mortality, reduced the overall histopathological score of the pancreas and reduced bacterial translocation to pancreas and mesenteric lymph nodes. Comparable results were found when all relevant studies published so far were taken into account.
CONCLUSIONS
A more thorough analysis of all relevant animal studies carried out before (and after) the publication of the study protocol of the PROPATRIA trial could not have predicted the harmful effects of probiotics found in the PROPATRIA-trial. Moreover, meta-analysis of the preclinical animal studies did show evidence for efficacy. It may be suggested, however, that the most appropriate animal experiments in relation to the design of the human trial have not yet been conducted, which compromises a fair comparison between the results of the animal studies and the PROPATRIA trial.
Topics: Acute Disease; Animals; Bacterial Translocation; Disease Models, Animal; Humans; Lymph Nodes; Mesentery; Odds Ratio; Pancreatitis; Probiotics; Publication Bias; Risk Assessment
PubMed: 23152810
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0048811 -
Colorectal Disease : the Official... Jul 2015The primary aim of this study was to determine whether the in-hospital mortality for acute mesenteric infarction has reduced in the last decade. The secondary aim was to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
The primary aim of this study was to determine whether the in-hospital mortality for acute mesenteric infarction has reduced in the last decade. The secondary aim was to determine if there was a statistical difference in mortality between patients having acute primary mesenteric infarction due to different causes.
METHOD
A literature search was performed of PubMed, Ovid (Embase) and Google Scholar databases. Studies on acute mesenteric infarction of primary vascular pathology were included for pooled analyses while studies that had reported comparative mortality between arterial, venous and non-occlusive mesenteric infarction (NOMI) were included in meta-analyses. Their quality was assessed using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence assessment scale. Odds ratios (ORs) of mortality were calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel random effect model.
RESULTS
The total number of patients was 4527 and the male/female ratio was 1912/2247. The pooled in-hospital mortality was 63%. There was no significant reduction of in-hospital mortality rate in the last decade (P = 0.78). There was a significant difference in in-hospital mortality between acute arterial mesenteric infarction (73.9%) compared with acute venous mesenteric infarction (41.7%) [OR 3.47, confidence interval (CI) 2.43-4.96, P < 0.001] and NOMI (68.5%) compared with acute venous mesenteric infarction (44.2%) (OR 3.2, CI 1.83-5.6, P < 0.001). There was no difference in mortality between acute arterial mesenteric infarction and NOMI (OR 1.08, CI 0.57-2.03, P = 0.82).
CONCLUSION
In-hospital mortality rate has not changed in the last decade. Patients with arterial mesenteric infarction or with NOMI are over three times more likely to die during the first hospital admission compared with those with venous mesenteric infarction.
Topics: Acute Disease; Female; Hospital Mortality; Humans; Infarction; Intestines; Male; Mesenteric Arteries; Mesenteric Ischemia; Mesenteric Veins; Mesentery; Observational Studies as Topic
PubMed: 25739990
DOI: 10.1111/codi.12938