Search

Primary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) represent the two most common malignant neoplasms of the liver. The objective of this study was to assess outcomes of surgical approaches to liver ablation comparing laparoscopic versus percutaneous microwave ablation (MWA), and MWA versus radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in patients with HCC or CRLM lesions smaller than 5 cm.A systematic review was conducted across seven databases, including PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane, to identify all comparative studies between 1937 and 2021. Two independent reviewers screened for eligibility, extracted data for selected studies, and assessed study bias using the modified Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Random effects meta-analyses were subsequently performed on all available comparative data.From 1066 records screened, 11 studies were deemed relevant to the study and warranted inclusion. Eight of the 11 studies were at high or uncertain risk for bias. Our meta-analyses of two studies revealed that laparoscopic MW ablation had significantly higher complication rates compared to a percutaneous approach (risk ratio = 4.66; 95% confidence interval = [1.23, 17.22]), but otherwise similar incomplete ablation rates, local recurrence, and oncologic outcomes. The remaining nine studies demonstrated similar efficacy of MWA and RFA, as measured by incomplete ablation, complication rates, local/regional recurrence, and oncologic outcomes, for both HCC and CRLM lesions less than 5 cm (p 0.05 for all outcomes). There was no statistical subgroup interaction in the analysis of tumors 3 cm.The available comparative evidence regarding both laparoscopic versus percutaneous MWA and MWA versus RFA is limited, evident by the few studies that suffer from high/uncertain risk of bias. Additional high-quality randomized trials or statistically matched cohort studies with sufficient granularity of patient variables, institutional experience, and physician specialty/training will be useful in informing clinical decision making for the ablative treatment of HCC or CRLM.

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is one of the most common diseases in North America and globally. The aim of this guideline is to provide evidence-based recommendations regarding the most utilized and available endoscopic and surgical treatments for GERD.Systematic literature reviews were conducted for 4 key questions regarding the surgical and endoscopic treatments for GERD in adults: preoperative evaluation, endoscopic vs surgical or medical treatment, complete vs partial fundoplication, and treatment for obesity (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 35 kg/mThe consensus provided 13 recommendations. Through the development of these evidence-based recommendations, an algorithm was proposed for aid in the treatment of GERD. Patients with typical symptoms should undergo upper endoscopy, manometry, and pH-testing; additional testing may be required for patients with atypical or extra-esophageal symptoms. Patients with normal or abnormal findings on manometry should consider undergoing partial fundoplication. Magnetic sphincter augmentation or fundoplication are appropriate surgical procedures for adults with GERD. For patients who wish to avoid surgery, the Stretta procedure and transoral incisionless fundoplication (TIF 2.0) were found to have better outcomes than proton pump inhibitors alone. Patients with concomitant obesity were recommended to undergo either gastric bypass or fundoplication, although patients with severe comorbid disease or BMI 50 should undergo Roux-en-Y gastric bypass for the additional benefits that follow weight loss.Using the recommendations an algorithm was developed by this panel, so that physicians may better counsel their patients with GERD. There are certain patient factors that have been excluded from included studies/trials, and so these recommendations should not replace surgeon-patient decision making. Engaging in the identified research areas may improve future care for GERD patients.

Osteoid osteoma is one of the commonest benign bone tumour of adolescence. Diagnosis is based upon the typical clinical features, site of occurrence and imaging findings. Occurrence of this lesion in an atypical site is associated with delay in diagnosis and challenges in management. We present a rare case of osteoid osteoma in scaphoid in a 14-year-old girl. Comprehensive work-up using radiograph, computerized tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging and Tc99-multidetector methylene diphosphonate (MDP) bone scan was used to make the correct diagnosis over other conditions with similar presentation like de Quervain tenosynovitis, intersection syndrome and inflammatory arthropathies. We also describe the treatment using CT-guided percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of this lesion and a brief literature review regarding the incidence of this lesion and treatment options available. Level of Evidence: Level V (Therapeutic)

Background The Cochrane Bias Methods Group recently developed the “Risk of Bias (ROB) in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions” (ROBINS-I) tool to assess ROB for non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSI). It is important to establish consistency in its application and interpretation across review teams. In addition, it is important to understand if specialized training and guidance will improve the reliability of the results of the assessments. Therefore, the objective of this cross-sectional study is to establish the inter-rater reliability (IRR), inter-consensus reliability (ICR), and concurrent validity of ROBINS-I. Furthermore, as this is a relatively new tool, it is important to understand the barriers to using this tool (e.g., time to conduct assessments and reach consensus—evaluator burden). Methods Reviewers from four participating centers will appraise the ROB of a sample of NRSI publications using the ROBINS-I tool in two stages. For IRR and ICR, two pairs of reviewers will assess the ROB for each NRSI publication. In the first stage, reviewers will assess the ROB without any formal guidance. In the second stage, reviewers will be provided customized training and guidance. At each stage, each pair of reviewers will resolve conflicts and arrive at a consensus. To calculate the IRR and ICR, we will use Gwet’s AC1 statistic. For concurrent validity, reviewers will appraise a sample of NRSI publications using both the New-castle Ottawa Scale (NOS) and ROBINS-I. We will analyze the concordance between the two tools for similar domains and for the overall judgments using Kendall’s tau coefficient. To measure the evaluator burden, we will assess the time taken to apply the ROBINS-I (without and with guidance), and the NOS. To assess the impact of customized training and guidance on the evaluator burden, we will use the generalized linear models. We will use Microsoft Excel and SAS 9.4 to manage and analyze study data, respectively. Discussion The quality of evidence from systematic reviews that include NRS depends partly on the study-level ROB assessments. The findings of this study will contribute to an improved understanding of the ROBINS-I tool and how best to use it.

"Biological plausibility" is a concept frequently referred to in environmental and public health when researchers are evaluating how confident they are in the results and inferences of a study or evidence review. Biological plausibility is not, however, a domain of one of the most widely-used approaches for assessing the certainty of evidence (CoE) which underpins the findings of a systematic review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) CoE Framework. Whether the omission of biological plausibility is a potential limitation of the GRADE CoE Framework is a topic that is regularly discussed, especially in the context of environmental health systematic reviews. We analyse how the concept of "biological plausibility", as applied in the context of assessing certainty of the evidence that supports the findings of a systematic review, is accommodated under the processes of systematic review and the existing GRADE domains. We argue that "biological plausibility" is a concept which primarily comes into play when direct evidence about the effects of an exposure on a population of concern (usually humans) is absent, at high risk of bias, is inconsistent, or limited in other ways. In such circumstances, researchers look toward evidence from other study designs in order to draw conclusions. In this respect, we can consider experimental animal and in vitro evidence as "surrogates" for the target populations, exposures, comparators and outcomes of actual interest. Through discussion of 10 examples of experimental surrogates, we propose that the concept of biological plausibility consists of two principal aspects: a "generalisability aspect" and a "mechanistic aspect". The "generalisability aspect" concerns the validity of inferences from experimental models to human scenarios, and asks the same question as does the assessment of external validity or indirectness in systematic reviews. The "mechanistic aspect" concerns certainty in knowledge of biological mechanisms and would inform judgements of indirectness under GRADE, and thus the overall CoE. While both aspects are accommodated under the indirectness domain of the GRADE CoE Framework, further research is needed to determine how to use knowledge of biological mechanisms in the assessment of indirectness of the evidence in systematic reviews.

While surgical resection has a demonstrated utility for patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), it is unclear whether minimally invasive surgery (MIS) or an open approach should be used. This review sought to assess the efficacy and safety of MIS versus open hepatectomy for isolated, resectable CRLM when performed separately from (Key Question (KQ) 1) or simultaneously with (KQ2) the resection of the primary tumor.PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, Cochrane CENTRAL, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched to identify both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized comparative studies published during January 2000-September 2020. Two independent reviewers screened literature for eligibility, extracted data from included studies, and assessed internal validity using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 Tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed using risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD).From 2304 publications, 35 studies were included for meta-analysis. For staged resections, three RCTs and 20 observational studies were included. Data from RCTs indicated MIS having similar disease-free survival (DFS) at 1-year (RR 1.03, 95%CI 0.70-1.50), overall survival (OS) at 5-years (RR 1.04, 95%CI 0.84-1.28), fewer complications of Clavien-Dindo Grade III (RR 0.62, 95%CI 0.38-1.00), and shorter hospital length of stay (LOS) (MD -6.6 days, 95%CI -10.2, -3.0). For simultaneous resections, 12 observational studies were included. There was no evidence of a difference between MIS and the open group for DFS-1-year, OS-5-year, complications, R0 resections, blood transfusions, along with lower blood loss (MD -177.35 mL, 95%CI -273.17, -81.53) and shorter LOS (MD -3.0 days, 95%CI -3.82, -2.17).Current evidence regarding the optimal approach for CRLM resection demonstrates similar oncologic outcomes between MIS and open techniques, however MIS hepatectomy had a shorter LOS, lower blood loss and complication rate, for both staged and simultaneous resections.

Objectives: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the preferred source of evidence for the relative effect of healthcare interventions summarized in knowledge syntheses. Nonrandomized studies of interventions (NRSI) may provide replacement, sequential, or complementary evidence to RCTs. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach can provide different options for properly using RCTs and NRSI integrated in health syntheses. In this article, we discuss different implications on the certainty of evidence when authors consider the use of NRSI and RCTs in systematic reviews using GRADE. Although this is a GRADE-related article, it is not an official GRADE guidance or concept article. Study Design and Setting: We present case studies used during GRADE working group meetings for discussion of the effects of using NRSI and RCTs on GRADE domains and on the certainty of evidence. Several concepts were discussed through iterative feedback with experts in GRADE methods and Cochrane authors. We compared suggested solutions for possible scenarios that can be met in evidence syntheses informing decisions and future guidance. Results: Different scenarios for the use of RCTs and NRSI in evidence syntheses are presented, focusing on how different GRADE ratings between RCTs and NRSI affect the overall assessment of the evidence and possible health recommendations. Conclusions: Considering differences and similarities grounded in the GRADE approach between NRSI and RCTs may help complement one another and maximize the value of knowledge syntheses and health recommendations.

SARS-CoV-2 has changed global healthcare since the pandemic began in 2020. The safety of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) utilizing insufflation from the standpoint of safety to the operating room personnel is currently being explored. The aims of this guideline are to examine the existing evidence to provide guidance regarding MIS for the patient with, or suspecting of having, the SARS-CoV-2 as well as the healthcare team involved.Systematic literature reviews were conducted for 2 key questions (KQ) regarding the safety of MIS in the setting of COVID-19 pandemic. Reporting followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis criteria. Evidence-based recommendations were formulated using a narrative synthesis of the literature by subject experts. Recommendations for future research were also proposed.In KQ1, a total of 1361 articles were reviewed, with 2 articles meeting inclusion. In KQ2, a total of 977 articles were reviewed, with 4 articles met inclusions criteria, of which 2 studies reported on the SARS-CoV2 virus specifically. Despite many publications in the field, very little well-controlled and unbiased data exist to inform the recommendations. Of that which is available, it shows that both laparoscopic and open operations in Covid-positive patients had similar rates of OR staff positivity rates; however, patients who underwent laparoscopic procedures had a lower perioperative mortality than open procedures. Also, SARS-CoV-2 particles have been detected in the surgical plume at laparoscopy.With demonstrated equivalence of operating room staff exposure, and noninferiority of laparoscopic access with respect to mortality, either laparoscopic or open approaches to abdominal operations may be used in patients with SARS-CoV-2. Measures should be employed for all laparoscopic or open cases to prevent exposure of operating room staff to the surgical plume, as virus can be present in this plume.