-
In Vivo (Athens, Greece) 2020Prophylactic splenectomy has shown no inferiority for tumors not invading the greater curvature side. Despite this, the clinical impact of prophylactic splenectomy for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND/AIM
Prophylactic splenectomy has shown no inferiority for tumors not invading the greater curvature side. Despite this, the clinical impact of prophylactic splenectomy for proximal advanced gastric cancer is not clear. This review aimed to clarify the impact of splenectomy for advanced gastric cancer in the upper third of the stomach.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted based on PubMed and EMBASE databases. The following search terms were used: "gastric cancer" OR "splenectomy" OR upper third of the stomach" OR preservation of the spleen.
RESULTS
Out of 765 articles, 18 studies (combined n=6,341) were included in the analysis. Four randomized controlled trials (RCT) and eight retrospective studies suggested the benefits of spleen-preserving gastrectomy. Six retrospective studies showed no significant benefit of spleen-preserving gastrectomy. Prophylactic splenectomy showed a close association with a higher incidence of postoperative morbidity (pancreatic fistula and anastomotic leakage) with no concomitant improvement in overall survival. Prophylactic splenectomy should not be routinely performed and RCTs are necessary to confirm the impact of splenectomy for cN(+) at the splenic hilum tumors and tumors invading the greater curvature.
Topics: Gastrectomy; Humans; Lymph Node Excision; Retrospective Studies; Spleen; Splenectomy; Stomach Neoplasms
PubMed: 33144415
DOI: 10.21873/invivo.12145 -
Journal of Vascular Surgery Jun 2022A previous meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of closed incision negative pressure wound therapy (ciNPWT) on vascular surgery... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
A previous meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of closed incision negative pressure wound therapy (ciNPWT) on vascular surgery groin wounds reported a reduction in surgical site infections (SSIs). Our aim was to perform a comprehensive, updated meta-analysis after the largest multicenter RCT on the subject to date reported no benefits from ciNPWT.
METHODS
A systematic review identified RCTs that had compared the primary outcome of the incidence of postoperative SSIs of groin incisions treated with ciNPWT or standard dressings. The secondary outcomes included wound dehiscence, a composite incidence of seroma, lymph leakage, and hematoma, the need for reoperation, in-hospital mortality, the need for readmission, and the hospital length of stay. The odds ratios (ORs) were compared across the studies using a random effects meta-analysis. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, Harbord test, and trim-and-fill analysis.
RESULTS
Eight RCTs with 1125 incisions (ciNPWT, n = 555 [49.3%]; control, n = 570 [50.7%]) were included. The RCTs included three studies inside and five outside the United States. ciNPWT was associated with a significant reduction in the rate of SSIs (OR, 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.24-0.63; P < .001). No significant differences were found in the rate of wound dehiscence (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.67-1.83; P = .68), composite incidence of seroma, lymph leak, or hematoma (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.13-1.76; P = .27), need for reoperation (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.40-1.16; P = .16), or need for readmission (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.30-1.21; P = .15). It was not possible to quantitatively evaluate in-hospital mortality or the hospital length of stay. The risk of bias assessment identified a high risk of bias for participant blinding in all eight studies, a low risk for randomization and outcome reporting, and variability between studies for the other methods. We found no evidence of publication bias.
CONCLUSIONS
Our meta-analysis of pooled data has suggested that prophylactic use of ciNPWT for vascular groin incisions will be associated with reduced rates of SSIs. The greatest benefits were seen in the trials with higher baseline rates of SSIs in the control group.
Topics: Groin; Hematoma; Humans; Multicenter Studies as Topic; Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy; Seroma; Surgical Wound; Surgical Wound Infection; Vascular Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 34999218
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2021.12.070 -
BMC Cancer Nov 2023Whether a transthoracic (TT) procedure by a thoracic surgeon or a transabdominal (TA) by a gastrointestinal surgeon is best for Siewert type II esophagogastric junction... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Whether a transthoracic (TT) procedure by a thoracic surgeon or a transabdominal (TA) by a gastrointestinal surgeon is best for Siewert type II esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma (EGJA) remains unknown. Survival and perioperative outcomes were compared between the two groups in this meta-analysis to clarify this argument.
METHODS
We searched 7 databases for eligible studies comparing TT and TA procedures for Siewert type II EGJA. The final analyzed endpoints included intraoperative and hospitalization outcomes, recurrence, complication, and survival.
RESULTS
Seventeen studies involving 10,756 patients met the inclusion criteria. The TA group had higher rates of overall survival (OS) (HR: 1.31 [1.20 ~ 1.44], p < 0.00001) and disease-free survival (DFS) (HR: 1.49 [1.24 ~ 1.79], p < 0.0001). The survival advantage of OSR and DFSR increased with time. Subgroup analysis of OS and DFS suggested that TA remained the preferred approach among all subgroups. More total/positive lymph nodes were retrieved, and fewer lymph node recurrences were found in the TA group. The analysis of perioperative outcomes revealed that the TA procedure was longer, had more intraoperative blood loss, and prolonged hospital stay. Similar R0 resection rates, as well as total recurrence, local recurrence, liver recurrence, peritoneal recurrence, lung recurrence, anastomosis recurrence and multiple recurrence rates, were found between the two groups. The safety analysis showed that the TT procedure led to more total complications, anastomotic leakages, cases of pneumonia, and cases of pleural effusion.
CONCLUSIONS
The TA procedure appeared to be a suitable choice for patients with Siewert type II EGJA because of its association with longer survival, fewer recurrences, and better safety.
Topics: Humans; Lymph Node Excision; Lymph Nodes; Blood Loss, Surgical; Adenocarcinoma; Esophageal Neoplasms; Esophagogastric Junction; Retrospective Studies; Stomach Neoplasms; Gastrectomy
PubMed: 37990193
DOI: 10.1186/s12885-023-11640-5 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2023Minimally invasive total mesorectal excision (MiTME) and transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) are popular trends in mid and low rectal cancer. However, there is...
BACKGROUND
Minimally invasive total mesorectal excision (MiTME) and transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) are popular trends in mid and low rectal cancer. However, there is currently no systematic comparison between MiTME and TaTME of mid and low-rectal cancer. Therefore, we systematically study the perioperative and pathological outcomes of MiTME and TaTME in mid and low rectal cancer.
METHODS
We have searched the Embase, Cochrane Library, PubMed, Medline, and Web of Science for articles on MiTME (robotic or laparoscopic total mesorectal excision) and TaTME (transanal total mesorectal excision). We calculated pooled standard mean difference (SMD), relative risk (RR), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The protocol for this review has been registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022374141).
RESULTS
There are 11010 patients including 39 articles. Compared with TaTME, patients who underwent MiTME had no statistical difference in operation time (SMD -0.14; CI -0.31 to 0.33; I84.7%, P=0.116), estimated blood loss (SMD 0.05; CI -0.05 to 0.14; I48%, P=0.338), postoperative hospital stay (RR 0.08; CI -0.07 to 0.22; I0%, P=0.308), over complications (RR 0.98; CI 0.88 to 1.08; I25.4%, P=0.644), intraoperative complications (RR 0.94; CI 0.69 to 1.29; I31.1%, P=0.712), postoperative complications (RR 0.98; CI 0.87 to 1.11; I16.1%, P=0.789), anastomotic stenosis (RR 0.85; CI 0.73 to 0.98; I7.4%, P=0.564), wound infection (RR 1.08; CI 0.65 to 1.81; I1.9%, P=0.755), circumferential resection margin (RR 1.10; CI 0.91 to 1.34; I0%, P=0.322), distal resection margin (RR 1.49; CI 0.73 to 3.05; I0%, P=0.272), major low anterior resection syndrome (RR 0.93; CI 0.79 to 1.10; I0%, P=0.386), lymph node yield (SMD 0.06; CI -0.04 to 0.17; I39.6%, P=0.249), 2-year DFS rate (RR 0.99; CI 0.88 to 1.11; I0%, P = 0.816), 2-year OS rate (RR 1.00; CI 0.90 to 1.11; I0%, P = 0.969), distant metastasis rate (RR 0.47; CI 0.17 to 1.29; I0%, P = 0.143), and local recurrence rate (RR 1.49; CI 0.75 to 2.97; I0%, P = 0.250). However, patients who underwent MiTME had fewer anastomotic leak rates (SMD -0.38; CI -0.59 to -0.17; I19.0%, P<0.0001).
CONCLUSION
This study comprehensively and systematically evaluated the safety and efficacy of MiTME and TaTME in the treatment of mid to low-rectal cancer through meta-analysis. There is no difference between the two except for patients with MiTME who have a lower anastomotic leakage rate, which provides some evidence-based reference for clinical practice. Of course, in the future, more scientific and rigorous conclusions need to be drawn from multi-center RCT research.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO, identifier CRD42022374141.
PubMed: 37377919
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1167200 -
BMC Cancer Jul 2016Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) is an emerging surgical technique for rectal cancer. However, the oncological and perioperative outcomes are controversial... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of oncological and perioperative outcomes compared with laparoscopic total mesorectal excision.
BACKGROUND
Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) is an emerging surgical technique for rectal cancer. However, the oncological and perioperative outcomes are controversial when compared with conventional laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (laTME).
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was conducted in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane database. All original studies published in English that compared taTME with laTME were included for critical appraisal and meta-analysis. Data synthesis and statistical analysis were carried out using RevMan 5.3 software.
RESULTS
A total of seven studies including 573 patients (taTME group = 270; laTME group = 303) were included in our meta-analysis. Concerning the oncological outcomes, no differences were observed in harvested lymph nodes, distal resection margin (DRM) and positive DRM between the two groups. However, the taTME group showed a higher rate of achievement of complete grading of mesorectal quality (OR = 1.75, 95% CI = 1.02-3.01, P = 0.04), a longer circumferential resection margin (CRM) and less involvement of positive CRM (CRM: WMD = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.60-1.31, P <0.01; positive CRM: OR = 0.39, 95% CI = 0.17-0.86, P = 0.02). Concerning the perioperative outcomes, the results for hospital stay, intraoperative complications and readmission were comparable between the two groups. However, the taTME group showed shorter operation times (WMD = -23.45, 95% CI = -37.43 to -9.46, P <0.01), a lower rate of conversion (OR = 0.29, 95% CI = 0.11-0.81, P = 0.02) and a higher rate of mobilization of the splenic flexure (OR = 2.34, 95% CI = 0.99-5.54, P = 0.05). Although the incidence of anastomotic leakage, ileus and urinary morbidity showed no difference between the groups, a significantly lower rate of overall postoperative complications (OR = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.45-0.95, P = 0.03) was observed in the taTME group.
CONCLUSIONS
In comparison with laTME, taTME seems to achieve comparable technical success with acceptable oncologic and perioperative outcomes. However, multicenter randomized controlled trials are required to further evaluate the efficacy and safety of taTME.
Topics: Anastomotic Leak; Digestive System Surgical Procedures; Female; Humans; Intraoperative Complications; Length of Stay; Male; Operative Time; Postoperative Complications; Rectal Neoplasms; Rectum; Transanal Endoscopic Surgery; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27377924
DOI: 10.1186/s12885-016-2428-5 -
Medicine Aug 2017This meta-analysis aims to compare hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) and conventional open surgery (OS) for colorectal cancer (CRC) in terms of intraoperative... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery versus conventional open surgery in intraoperative and postoperative outcomes for colorectal cancer: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
AIM
This meta-analysis aims to compare hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) and conventional open surgery (OS) for colorectal cancer (CRC) in terms of intraoperative and postoperative outcomes, and to explore the safety, feasibility of HALS for CRC surgery.
METHODS
A systematic literature search with no limits was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Medline. The last search was performed on April 23, 2017. The outcomes of interests included intraoperative outcomes (operative time, blood loss, length of incision, transfusion, and lymph nodes harvested), postoperative outcomes (length of hospital stay, length of postoperative hospital stay, time to first flatus, time to first liquid diet, time to first soft diet, time to first bowel movement, postoperative complications, reoperation, ileus, anastomotic leakage, wound infection, urinary complication, pulmonary infection, and mortality).
RESULTS
Fifteen articles published between 2007 and 2017 with a total of 1962 patients with CRC were included in our meta-analysis. HALS was associated with longer operative time, less blood loss, smaller length of incision, shorter hospital days and postoperative hospital days, less time to first flatus, less wound infection, and less postoperative complications. There was no difference in blood transfusion, lymph node harvested, time to first liquid or soft diet, time to first bowel movement, reoperation, ileus, anastomotic leakage, pulmonary infection, urinary complications, or mortality.
CONCLUSIONS
Our meta-analysis suggests that HALS in CRC surgery improves cosmesis and results in better postoperative recovery outcomes by reducing postoperative complications and hospital days. Furthermore, a large randomized control study is warranted to compare the short-term and long-term outcomes of those 2 techniques for CRC treatment.
Topics: Blood Loss, Surgical; Colectomy; Colorectal Neoplasms; Hand-Assisted Laparoscopy; Humans; Length of Stay; Operative Time; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 28816967
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000007794 -
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Jul 2023The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to summarize the current scientific evidence regarding the impact of the level of inferior mesenteric artery (IMA)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to summarize the current scientific evidence regarding the impact of the level of inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) ligation on post-operative and oncological outcomes in rectal cancer surgery.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review of the literature up to 06 September 2022. Included were RCTs that compared patients who underwent high (HL) vs. anterior (LL) IMA ligation for resection of rectal cancer. The literature search was performed on Medline/PubMed, Scopus, and the Web of Science without any language restrictions. The primary endpoint was overall anastomotic leakage (AL). Secondary endpoints were oncological outcomes, intraoperative complications, urogenital functional outcomes, and length of hospital stay.
RESULTS
Eleven RCTs (1331 patients) were included. The overall rate of AL was lower in the LL group, but the difference was not statistically significant (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.96). The overall number of harvested lymph nodes was higher in the LL group, but the difference was not statistically significant (MD 0.93, 95% CI - 2.21 to 0.34). The number of lymph nodes harvested was assessed in 256 patients, and all had a laparoscopic procedure. The number of lymph nodes was higher when LL was associated with lymphadenectomy of the vascular root than when IMA was ligated at its origin, but there the difference was not statistically significant (MD - 0.37, 95% CI - 1.00 to 0.26). Overall survival at 5 years was slightly better in the LL group, but the difference was not statistically significant (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.05). Disease-free survival at 5 years was higher in the LL group, but the difference was not statistically significant (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.04).
CONCLUSIONS
There is no evidence to support HL or LL according to results in terms of AL or oncologic outcome. Moreover, there is not enough evidence to determine the impact of the level of IMA ligation on functional outcomes. The level of IMA ligation should be chosen case by case based on expected functional and oncological outcomes.
Topics: Humans; Mesenteric Artery, Inferior; Rectal Neoplasms; Rectum; Lymph Node Excision; Lymph Nodes; Anastomotic Leak; Ligation; Laparoscopy
PubMed: 37493853
DOI: 10.1007/s00423-023-03022-z -
Medicine Dec 2017Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) remains one of the most challenging abdominal procedures. Safety and feasibility remain controversial when comparing... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) remains one of the most challenging abdominal procedures. Safety and feasibility remain controversial when comparing MIPD with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of MIPD versus OPD.
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify studies comparing MIPD and OPD. Postoperative complications, intraoperative outcomes and oncologic data, and postoperative recovery were compared.
RESULTS
There were 27 studies that matched the selection criteria. Totally 1306 cases of MIPD and 5603 cases of OPD were included. MIPD was associated with a reduction in postoperative hemorrhage (odds ratio [OR] 1.60; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-2.49; P = .04) and wound infection (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.30-0.66, P < .0001). MIPD was also associated with less estimated blood loss (mean difference [MD] -300.14 mL, 95% CI -400.11 to -200.17 mL, P < .00001), a lower transfusion rate (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.35-0.61; P < .00001) and a shorter length of hospital stay (MD -2.95 d, 95% CI -3.91 to -2.00 d, P < .00001) than OPD. Meanwhile, the MIPD group had a higher R0 resection rate (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.18-1.78, P = .0003) and more lymph nodes harvested (MD 1.34, 95% CI 0.14-2.53, P = .03). However, the minimally invasive approach proved to have much longer operative time (MD 71.00 minutes; 95% CI 27.01-115.00 minutes; P = .002) than OPD. Finally, there were no significant differences between the 2 procedures in postoperative pancreatic fistula (P = .30), delayed gastric emptying (P = .07), bile leakage (P = .98), mortality (P = .88), tumor size (P = .15), vascular resection (P = .68), or reoperation rate (P = .11).
CONCLUSIONS
Our results suggest that MIPD is currently safe, feasible, and worthwhile. Future large-volume, well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCT) with extensive follow-up are awaited to further clarify this role.
Topics: Blood Loss, Surgical; Blood Transfusion; Humans; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Postoperative Complications; Surgical Procedures, Operative
PubMed: 29390259
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000008619 -
International Journal of Colorectal... Dec 2023This study aims to conduct a meta-analysis to evaluate the short-term and long-term therapeutic effects of robot-assisted laparoscopic treatment in patients with mid and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to conduct a meta-analysis to evaluate the short-term and long-term therapeutic effects of robot-assisted laparoscopic treatment in patients with mid and low rectal cancer.
METHODS
A comprehensive search strategy was employed to retrieve relevant literature from PubMed, NCBI, Medline, and Springer databases, spanning the database inception until August 2023. The focus of this systematic review was on controlled studies that compared the treatment outcomes of robot-assisted (Rob) and conventional laparoscopy (Lap) in the context of mid and low rectal cancer. Data extraction and literature review were meticulously conducted by two independent researchers (HMW and RKG). The synthesized data underwent rigorous analysis utilizing RevMan 5.4 software, adhering to established methodological standards in systematic reviews. The primary outcomes encompass perioperative outcomes and oncological outcomes. Secondary outcomes include long-term outcomes.
RESULT
A total of 11 studies involving 2239 patients with mid and low rectal cancer were included (3 RCTs and 8 NRCTs); the Rob group consisted of 1111 cases, while the Lap group included 1128 cases. The Rob group exhibited less intraoperative bleeding (MD = -40.01, 95% CI: -57.61 to -22.42, P < 0.00001), a lower conversion rate to open surgery (OR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.09 to 0.82, P = 0.02), a higher number of harvested lymph nodes (MD = 1.97, 95% CI: 0.77 to 3.18, P = 0.001), and a lower CRM positive rate (OR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.23 to 0.95, P = 0.04). Additionally, the Rob group had lower postoperative morbidity rate (OR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.53 to 0.82, P < 0.0001) and a lower occurrence rate of complications with Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3 (OR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.39 to 0.90, P = 0.02). Further subgroup analysis revealed a lower anastomotic leakage rate (OR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.45 to 0.97, P = 0.04). No significant differences were observed between the two groups in the analysis of operation time (P = 0.42), occurrence rates of protective stoma (P = 0.81), PRM (P = 0.92), and DRM (P = 0.23), time to flatus (P = 0.18), time to liquid diet (P = 0.65), total hospital stay (P = 0.35), 3-year overall survival rate (P = 0.67), and 3-year disease-free survival rate (P = 0.42).
CONCLUSION
Robot-assisted laparoscopic treatment for mid and low rectal cancer yields favorable outcomes, demonstrating both efficacy and safety. In comparison to conventional laparoscopy, patients experience reduced intraoperative bleeding and a lower incidence of complications. Notably, the method achieves comparable short-term and long-term treatment results to those of conventional laparoscopic surgery, thus justifying its consideration for widespread clinical application.
Topics: Humans; Robotics; Anastomotic Leak; Conversion to Open Surgery; Databases, Factual; Neoplasms
PubMed: 38127156
DOI: 10.1007/s00384-023-04579-3 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2021To investigate the perioperative and oncological outcomes of gastric cancer (GC) after robotic laparoscopic gastrectomy (RG LG), we carried out a meta-analysis of...
Comparison of Long-Term and Perioperative Outcomes of Robotic Conventional Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of PSM and RCT Studies.
BACKGROUND
To investigate the perioperative and oncological outcomes of gastric cancer (GC) after robotic laparoscopic gastrectomy (RG LG), we carried out a meta-analysis of propensity score matching (PSM) studies and randomized controlled study (RCT) to compare the safety and overall effect of RG to LG for patients with GC.
METHODS
PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register were searched based on a defined search strategy to identify eligible PSM and RCT studies before July 2021. Data on perioperative and oncological outcomes were subjected to meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Overall, we identified 19 PSM studies and 1 RCT of RG LG, enrolling a total of 13,446 patients (6,173 and 7,273 patients underwent RG and LG, respectively). The present meta-analysis revealed nonsignificant differences in tumor size, proximal resection margin distance, distal resection margin distance, abdominal bleeding, ileus, anastomosis site leakage, duodenal stump leakage rate, conversion rate, reoperation, overall survival rate, and long-term recurrence-free survival rate between the two groups. Alternatively, comparing RG with LG, RG has a longer operative time ( < 0.00001), less blood loss (p <0.0001), earlier time to first flatus ( = 0.0003), earlier time to oral intake ( = 0.0001), shorter length of stay ( = 0.0001), less major complications ( = 0.0001), lower overall complications ( = 0.0003), more retrieved lymph nodes ( < 0.0001), and more cost ( < 0.00001).
CONCLUSIONS
In terms of oncological adequacy and safety, RG is a feasible and effective treatment strategy for gastric cancer but takes more cost in comparison with LG.
PubMed: 35004278
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.759509