-
Urology Journal Jul 2020We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy between laparoscopic transperitoneal ureterolithotomy (LTU) and laparoscopic retroperitoneal ureterolithotomy (LRU) in the... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Comparison of the Safety and Efficacy between Transperitoneal and Retroperitoneal Approach of Laparoscopic Ureterolithotomy for the Treatment of Large (>10mm) and Proximal Ureteral Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
PURPOSE
We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy between laparoscopic transperitoneal ureterolithotomy (LTU) and laparoscopic retroperitoneal ureterolithotomy (LRU) in the treatment of large (>10mm) and proximal ureteral stones.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Electronic databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched through December 2019. Comparative studies comparing the two approaches were included. The primary outcome was a single-procedure success rate; the secondary outcomes included operative time, hospital duration, and complications (according to the Clavien-Dindo Grade). Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) and the modified Jadad scale were used to evaluate the quality of the included studies. The Egger's test estimated publication bias. The meta-analysis was performed by Review Manager 5.3 and STATA 15.0.
RESULTS
Seven studies, involving 125 participants in LTU group and 128 in LRU group, were included in the study. The results suggested that both single-procedure success rate and the rate of postoperative paralytic ileus were significantly higher in the LTU group than in the LRU group (95.2% vs 87.5%, 95% CI: .00-.16, RD = .08, P = .04; 10.4% vs 0, 95% CI: .02- .19, RD = .10, P = .02, respectively). No publication bias of the primary outcome was observed with the Egger's test (P = .117). No significant differences were noted in terms of operative time and hospital duration (95% CI: -18.95-8.80, MD = -5.08, P = .47; 95% CI: -.98- .58, MD = -.20, P = .61, respectively). Additionally, according to Clavien-Dindo Grade, the rates of major complications (>= Grade 3a) including open conversion (.8% vs 5.5%, 95%CI: -.11- .01, RD = -.05, P = .12), stone migration (8.1% vs 6.7%, 95% CI: -.08- .11, RD = .02, P = .76), vascular injury (5.4% vs 0, 95%CI: -.03- .14, RD = .05, P = .21) and ureteral stricture (1.3% vs 5.3%, 95% CI: -.11- .02, RD = -.04, P = .20), were comparable between the two groups.
CONCLUSION
In the treatment of large and proximal ureteral calculi, LTU has a significantly higher single-procedure success rate and a higher rate of postoperative paralytic ileus than LRU. However, the complication was well-tolerated. The small sample size and limited, including studies, were the main limitations.
Topics: Humans; Laparoscopy; Peritoneum; Retroperitoneal Space; Treatment Outcome; Ureteral Calculi; Urologic Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 33786809
DOI: 10.22037/uj.v16i7.5588 -
Diseases of the Colon and Rectum Jan 2022Combined treatment modality of cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy is emerging as an alternative option for colorectal peritoneal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Combined treatment modality of cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy is emerging as an alternative option for colorectal peritoneal metastases, but there is ambiguity regarding patient selection, treatment protocols, and efficacy.
OBJECTIVE
To elaborate on the patient characteristics, hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy protocol and health outcomes in colorectal peritoneal metastases patients undergoing a combination of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy and cytoreductive surgery and provide guidance for future studies.
DATA SOURCES
A Medline search for English language studies published between 2004 and 2019.
STUDY SELECTION
Medical subject headings and key terms, including: hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy, colorectal peritoneal metastases, colorectal cancer and combinations thereof as per guidelines.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Overall survival, disease-free survival, and morbidity and mortality rates.
RESULTS
Of the 26 included studies, 42% were published between 2016 and 2019. More than half of the studies were retrospective in nature and conducted in tertiary specialized centers outside of the United States. The median age range was 44 to 62 years. Mitomycin C-based therapy was seen in 50% of studies. Mean weighted median disease-free survival for 11 studies was 15 months (9 to 36 months). Median OS ranged from 12 to 63 months, with an average of 33.6 months among 20 studies. Overall morbidity varied from 11% to 56%, with a weighted mean of 29% in 18 studies. Mortality ranged from 0 to 34%, with a weighted mean of 4% in 15 studies.
LIMITATIONS
Despite careful study selection, variability in methodology of the included studies can limit review findings.
CONCLUSION
Due to study heterogeneity, and a recent large, randomized trial showing no overall benefit, use of cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in colorectal peritoneal metastases patients is highly controversial. Further standardized controlled studies can help uniformly define and build consensus among the medical community on patient eligibility and the optimal hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy techniques.
PROSPERO
Registered on March 3, 2020, CRD42020146942.
Topics: Adult; Antibiotics, Antineoplastic; Colorectal Neoplasms; Combined Modality Therapy; Cytoreduction Surgical Procedures; Disease-Free Survival; Female; Humans; Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy; Male; Middle Aged; Mitomycin; Morbidity; Mortality; Neoplasm Metastasis; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Peritoneum; Retrospective Studies; United States
PubMed: 34636780
DOI: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000002315 -
Surgical Oncology Sep 2015Anastomotic leak is a potentially devastating complication following gastrointestinal anastomosis. Some surgeons believe that reinforcing the anastomosis with omentum... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Anastomotic leak is a potentially devastating complication following gastrointestinal anastomosis. Some surgeons believe that reinforcing the anastomosis with omentum reduces the incidence and severity of anastomotic leak. A comprehensive electronic search of EMBASE, Medline, Web of Science and Cochrane databases was performed. Pooled odds ratios (POR) were calculated for discrete variables. There were six studies investigating esophageal anastomosis and 3 studies investigating colorectal anastomosis identified by the literature search. A total of 2296 patients were included, 1073 with omentoplasty and 1223 without. In esophageal surgery omentoplasty significantly reduced the rate of anastomotic leak (2.9% vs 10.5% (POR = 0.28; 95% CI = 0.17 to 0.47; P < 0.0001), but there was no significant effect upon in-hospital mortality (2.3% vs. 2.5%; POR = 0.911 [95% CI 0.439-1.887]; P = 0.802) or anastomotic stricture between the two groups (6.6% vs 9.1%; POR = 0.842 [95% CI 0.331 to 2.145]; P = 0.720). In colorectal surgery there was no significant difference in anastomotic leak rate (5.0% vs 8.4%; POR: 0.50; 95% CI 0.21 to 1.17) or in-hospital mortality (4.2% vs 4.1%; POR: 0.90; 95% CI 0.34 to 2.41). The results of this analysis show that omentoplasty significantly reduced the rate of anastomotic leak following esophageal anastomosis but these results were not observed in colorectal anastomosis. Omentoplasty could be used as an adjunct technique to reduce the incidence of anastomotic leak in oesophageal anastomosis.
Topics: Anastomosis, Surgical; Anastomotic Leak; Esophageal Neoplasms; Esophagectomy; Gastrointestinal Neoplasms; Humans; Omentum; Prognosis
PubMed: 26116395
DOI: 10.1016/j.suronc.2015.06.011 -
Pleura and Peritoneum Dec 2016Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) combined with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is increasingly used to prevent or treat peritoneal metastases (PM) in... (Review)
Review
Randomized controlled trials evaluating cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in prevention and therapy of peritoneal metastasis: a systematic review.
BACKGROUND
Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) combined with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is increasingly used to prevent or treat peritoneal metastases (PM) in selected indications. The objective of this article was to review published, recruiting or planned randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating CRS and HIPEC versus standard of care. Comparator was systemic chemotherapy and/or CRS alone.
CONTENT
Systematic review according to PRISMA guidelines. Electronic searches for published RCT using PubMed (from 1980 to November 2016) and for ongoing RCT in the United States and European clinical databases (until November 2016). Current update on ongoing trials from the 10th PSOGI meeting in November 2016 in Washington DC. Fourteen RCTs on CRS and HIPEC were excluded for various reasons.
SUMMARY
Thirty-eight trials designed for randomizing 7,303 patients were identified: 11 in colorectal cancer (6 for prevention of PM, n=1,107 patients; 5 for therapy, n=781), 10 in ovarian cancer (5 in frontline therapy, n=438 patients; 5 for treating recurrence, n=1,062) and 17 in gastric cancer (14 for prevention of PM, n=3,659 patients; 3 for therapy, n=256). Results of 9 RCTs have been published: 1 in colorectal cancer (105 patients), 1 in ovarian cancer (130 patients) and 7 in gastric cancer (together 669 patients). Five RCTs have completed recruitment and follow-up is ongoing. There is a clear trend in recent trial design from therapeutic to preventive indications.
OUTLOOK
The number of published RCT evaluating CRS and HIPEC in prevention or therapy of PM is relatively small. There is some evidence that CRS and HIPEC improve survival in recurrent colorectal origin, evidence in ovarian and gastric cancer remains debated. A large number of studies is ongoing that might deliver additional evidence. Trial design and interpretation of results remain difficult because of multiple methodological challenges.
PubMed: 30911621
DOI: 10.1515/pp-2016-0027 -
European Journal of Obstetrics,... Nov 2009Many gynaecologists do not currently close the peritoneum after caesarean section (CS). Recently, several studies examining adhesion formation after repeat CS appear to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Many gynaecologists do not currently close the peritoneum after caesarean section (CS). Recently, several studies examining adhesion formation after repeat CS appear to favour closure of the peritoneum after caesarean section. We performed a systematic review of the current available evidence with regard to the long-term outcome, mainly in terms of adhesion formation after closure versus non-closure of peritoneum during CS. We undertook a literature search between January 1995 and February 2008 using MEDLINE, Pubmed, EMBASE, Cochrane central controlled trials register and Cochrane pregnancy and childbirth group trials register. We also had searched all the references cited in the relevant studies. Both English and non-English language papers were included. Prospective studies which compared peritoneal closure versus non-closure during CS in terms of adhesion formation were included. Studies were included if they had a primary objective to examine adhesion formation in a repeat caesarean section, had a clear study design, had an adhesion scoring system, excluded patients who had adhesions in the primary caesarean section or interim surgeries after the primary caesarean section, and had no usage of anti-adhesion agents in the primary caesarean section. Retrospective studies which were performed by case-notes review alone, were excluded. Eleven studies were identified via our search strategy. Five were retrospective and six were prospective. Out of the eleven studies, three satisfied the inclusion criteria and were included (n=249); two studies were follow-ups of RCTs and one was not randomised. Out of 249 women included in the analysis, 110 had peritoneal closure during CS whereas the other 139 did not have peritoneal closure. Meta-analysis was performed using the two randomised studies plus (i) the unadjusted estimate from the non-randomised study and (ii) the reported adjusted estimate, adjusted for baseline differences in the groups. Non-closure of the peritoneum during CS resulted in a significantly increased likelihood of adhesion formation in both meta-analyses--OR (95% CI): (i) 2.60 (1.48-4.56) and (ii) 4.23 (2.06-8.69). This systematic review has demonstrated that according to current data in the literature, there is some evidence to suggest that non-closure of the peritoneum after caesarean section is associated with more adhesion formation compared to closure.
Topics: Cesarean Section; Female; Humans; Incidence; Peritoneum; Pregnancy; Risk Factors; Tissue Adhesions
PubMed: 19596507
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2009.06.003 -
Surgery May 2022Omentectomy is conventionally performed in the procedure of gastrectomy for gastric cancer. However, the clinical value and importance of omentectomy remain unclear.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Omentectomy is conventionally performed in the procedure of gastrectomy for gastric cancer. However, the clinical value and importance of omentectomy remain unclear. This meta-analysis investigated the benefits and safety of gastrectomy with or without omentectomy for patients with gastric cancer.
METHODS
A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for studies comparing complete omentectomy with omentum preservation or partial omentectomy. Primary outcomes were overall survival, relapse-free survival, and incidences of recurrence and complications, whereas secondary outcomes were the total length of operation and the amount of blood loss.
RESULTS
Nine studies involving 3,561 patients were included. Our meta-analysis revealed no significant differences between omentectomy and omentum preservation in terms of the 5-year overall survival (risk ratio [RR] = 0.95, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.89-1.01), 5-year relapse free survival (RR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.89-1.03), incidence of recurrence in the peritoneum or other visceral organs (RR: 1.13, 95% CI: 0.80-1.60 and RR: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.78-1.45, respectively), and incidence of complications (RR: 1.15, 95% CI: 0.89-1.50). Moreover, omentum preservation significantly reduced the total length of operation (mean difference [MD] 25.70, 95% CI: 3.23-48.17) and the amount of blood loss (MD: 56.29, 95% CI: 14.02-98.56).
CONCLUSION
Omentectomy may not be necessary and can be omitted during gastrectomy for gastric cancer.
Topics: Gastrectomy; Humans; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Omentum; Stomach Neoplasms; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34857385
DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2021.10.052 -
Pancreatology : Official Journal of the... Apr 2018Although routinely used, the benefit of surgically placed intraperitoneal drains after pancreas resection is still under debate. To assess the true impact of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Although routinely used, the benefit of surgically placed intraperitoneal drains after pancreas resection is still under debate. To assess the true impact of intraperitoneal drains in pancreas resection, a systematic review with meta-analysis was performed.
METHODS
For this, the Preferred-Reporting-Items-for-Systematic-review-and-Meta-Analysis/PRISMA-guidelines were conducted and Pubmed/Medline, Embase, Scopus and The Cochrane Library were screened for relevant studies.
RESULTS
8 retrospective and 3 prospective studies were included in the systematic review. No difference was found between patients with or without intraperitoneal drains in mortality (Risk-ratio/RR 0.74, 95%-Confidence-interval/CI: 0.47-1.18, p = 0.20), in Grade B/C-postoperative pancreatic fistulas/POPF (RR 1.31, 95%-CI: 0.74-2.32, p = 0.35), in intraabdominal abscesses (RR 0.92, 95%-CI: 0.65-1.30, p = 0.64), in surgical site infection (RR 1.20, 95%-CI: 0.85-1.70, p = 0.30), in delayed gastric emptying (RR 1.11, 95%-CI: 0.65-1.90, p = 0.71), in postoperative haemorrhages (RR 0.92 95%-CI: 0.63-1.33, p = 0.65), in reoperations (RR 1.15, 95%-CI: 0.87-1.52, p = 0.33), or in radiological reinterventions (RR 0.95, 95%-CI: 0.69-1.31, p = 0.76). The risk for overall morbidity (RR 1.16, 95%-CI: 1.04-1.29, p = 0.008), of any POPF (RR 2.15, 95%-CI: 1.52-3.04, p < 0.0001) and of readmissions (RR 1.23, 95%-CI: 1.04-1.45, p = 0.01) was increased for patients with intraperitoneal drain compared to patients without following pancreatic resection.
CONCLUSION
Regarding the controversial results of the recent prospective, randomized trials this meta-analysis revealed no difference in mortality but an increased risk for postoperative morbidity, POPF and readmissions of patients with intraperitoneal drains after pancreatic resection. Therefore, the indication for intraperitoneal drains should be critically weighed in patients undergoing pancreatic resections.
Topics: Digestive System Surgical Procedures; Drainage; Humans; Pancreas; Peritoneal Cavity; Postoperative Complications; Reoperation
PubMed: 29534868
DOI: 10.1016/j.pan.2018.02.013 -
BMC Surgery Oct 2014Routine placement of intraperitoneal drains has been shown to be ineffective or potentially harmful in various abdominal surgical procedures. Studies assessing risks and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Routine placement of intraperitoneal drains has been shown to be ineffective or potentially harmful in various abdominal surgical procedures. Studies assessing risks and benefits of abdominal drains for pancreatic resections have demonstrated inconsistent results. We thus performed a systematic review of the literature and meta-analyzed outcomes of pancreatic resections with and without intraoperative placement of drains.
METHODS
A database search according to the PRISMA guidelines was performed for studies on pancreatic resection with and without intraperitoneal drainage. The subgroup 'pancreaticoduodenectomy' was analyzed separately. The quality of studies was assessed using the MINORS and STROBE criteria. Pooled estimates of morbidity, mortality and length of hospital stay were calculated using random effects models.
RESULTS
Only two randomized trials were identified. Their results were contradictory. We thus included six further, retrospective studies in the meta-analysis. However, with I2 = 68% for any kind of complication, the estimate of inter-study heterogeneity was high. While overall morbidity after any kind of pancreatic resection was lower without drains (p = 0.04), there was no significant difference in mortality rates. In contrast, pooled estimates of outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy demonstrated no differences in morbidity (p = 0.40) but increased rates of intraabdominal abscesses (p = 0.04) and mortality (p = 0.04) without intraperitoneal drainage.
CONCLUSION
Although drains are associated with slightly increased morbidity for pancreatic resections, routine omission of drains cannot be advocated, especially after pancreaticoduodenectomy. While selective drainage seems reasonable, further efforts to generate more reliable data are questionable because of the current studies and the presumed small differences in outcomes.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Systematic review registration number CRD42014007497.
Topics: Decision Making; Drainage; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatitis; Peritoneal Cavity
PubMed: 25291982
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2482-14-76 -
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 -
BJOG : An International Journal of... Mar 2011The optimal technique for performing caesarean section with respect to minimising postoperative adhesions has not been determined. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The optimal technique for performing caesarean section with respect to minimising postoperative adhesions has not been determined.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate adhesion formation for three common caesarean section techniques in women undergoing repeat caesarean section surgeries.
SEARCH STRATEGY
A database was constructed from Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, National Science Digital Library, China Biological Medicine Database and through contact with experts in this field from January 1990 to May 2010.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Studies were included if they examined adhesion formation in repeat caesarean sections as a primary objective, delineated a clear study design, specified an adhesion scoring system, and had sufficient patient exclusion criteria.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We abstracted data regarding adhesion formation. The Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model was employed for all analyses using odds ratio or inverse variance, along with 95% CI.
MAIN RESULTS
Thirty-three qualified studies including 4423 women were analysed. There were 406 adhesions among 571 women and 238 adhesions among 596 women in the Stark's caesarean section (also known as Misgav-Ladach method) group and modified Stark's caesarean section group, respectively, with pooled OR 4.69 (95% CI 3.32-6.62; P < 0.01, 12 studies); 1173 adhesions among 1555 women and 1179 adhesions among 1625 women in Stark's caesarean section group and classic lower-segment caesarean section group, respectively, with pooled odds ratio 1.28 (95% CI 0.97-1.68; P = 0.08, 21 studies); and 29 adhesions from 102 women and 115 adhesions from 193 women in modified Stark's caesarean section group and classic lower-segment caesarean section group, respectively, with pooled odds ratio 0.28 (95% CI 0.10-0.82; P = 0.02, two studies).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Closure of the peritoneum in modified Stark's caesarean section resulted in less adhesion formation and should be recommended.
Topics: Cesarean Section, Repeat; Female; Humans; Postoperative Complications; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Retrospective Studies; Time Factors; Tissue Adhesions
PubMed: 21176087
DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02808.x