Search

Background: Appendectomy is a benchmark operation for trainee progression, but this should be weighed against patient safety and perioperative outcomes., Methods: Systematic literature review and meta-analysis comparing outcomes of appendectomy performed by trainees versus trained surgeons., Results: Of 2086 articles screened, 29 studies reporting on 135,358 participants were analyzed. There was no difference in mortality (Odds ratio [OR] 1.08, P = 0.830), overall complications (OR 0.93, P = 0.51), or major complications (OR 0.56, P = 0.16). There was no difference in conversion from laparoscopic to open surgery (OR 0.81, P = 0.12) and in intraoperative blood loss (Mean Difference [MD] 5.58 mL, P = 0.25). Trainees had longer operating time (MD 7.61 min, P < 0.0001). Appendectomy by trainees resulted in shorter duration of hospital stay (MD 0.16 days, P = 0.005) and decreased reoperation rate (OR 0.78, P = 0.05)., Conclusions: Appendectomy performed by trainees does not compromise patient safety. Due to statistical heterogeneity, further randomized controlled trials, with standardized reported outcomes, are required., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Appendicectomy is a common pediatric surgical procedure performed by trainees and surgeons with varying reported outcomes. It is a benchmark procedure for trainee progression and training benefits should be weighed against patient safety and perioperative outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated any differential perioperative outcomes dependent on the grade of the operating surgeon. A systematic literature review and meta-analysis were performed comparing outcomes of pediatric appendicectomy performed by trainees versus trained surgeons. Of 2,086 articles screened, 5 retrospective non-randomized comparative studies reporting on 10,019 participants were analyzed. There was no difference in overall complications (OR 0.92; 95% CI 0.76, 1.12; P = 0.42), major complications [Clavien-Dindo (CD) III/IV] (OR 1.18; 95% CI 0.71, 1.97; P = 0.52), minor complications (CD I/II) (OR 1.13; 95% CI 0.57, 2.27; P = 0.72), post-op ileus (OR 0.74; 95% CI 0.10, 5.26; P = 0.76), wound infections (OR 0.87; 95% CI 0.62, 1.21; P = 0.41), abscess formation (OR 0.58; 95% CI 0.28, 1.22; P = 0.15), operation times [Mean Difference (MD) 2.31 min; 95% CI - 4.94, 9.56; P = 0.53] and reoperation rate (OR 1.22; 95% CI 0.23, 6.42; P = 0.81). Trainees had fewer conversions to open appendicectomy (OR 0.14; 95% CI 0.02, 0.88; P = 0.04). Appendicectomy performed on pediatric patients by trainees did not compromise patient safety. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Purpose: There is no consensus in the literature regarding the association between operative blood loss and postoperative outcomes in colorectal surgery, despite evidence suggesting a link. Therefore, this systematic review assesses the association between operative blood loss, perioperative and long-term outcomes after colorectal surgery., Methods: A literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded and Cochrane was performed to identify studies reporting on operative blood loss in colorectal surgery., Results: The review included forty-nine studies reporting on 61,312 participants, with a mean age ranging from 53.4 to 78.1 years. The included studies demonstrated that major operative blood loss was found to be a risk factor for mortality, anastomotic leak, presacral abscess, and postoperative ileus, leading to an increased duration of hospital stay. In the long term, the studies suggest that significant blood loss was an independent risk factor for future small bowel obstruction due to colorectal cancer recurrence and adhesions. Studies found that survival was significantly reduced, whilst the risk of colorectal cancer recurrence was increased. Reoperation and cancer-specific survival were not associated with major blood loss., Conclusion: The results of this systematic review suggest that major operative blood loss increases the risk of perioperative adverse events and has short and long-term repercussions on postoperative outcomes. Laparoscopic and robotic surgery, vessel ligation technology and anaesthetic considerations are essential for reducing blood loss and improving outcomes. This review highlights the need for further high quality, prospective, multicentre trials with a greater number of participants, and accurate and standardised methods of measuring operative blood loss., (© 2021. Crown.)

Objective: To compare techniques for rectal cancer resection., Summary Background Data: Different surgical approaches exist for mesorectal excision., Methods: Systematic literature review and Bayesian network meta-analysis performed., Results: Twenty-nine randomized controlled trials included, reporting on 6237 participants, comparing: open versus laparoscopic versus robotic versus transanal mesorectal excision. No significant differences identified between treatments in intraoperative morbidity, conversion rate, grade III/IV morbidity, reoperation, anastomotic leak, nodes retrieved, involved distal margin, 5-year overall survival, and locoregional recurrence. Operative blood loss was less with laparoscopic surgery compared with open, and with robotic surgery compared with open and laparoscopic. Robotic operative time was longer compared with open, laparoscopic, and transanal. Laparoscopic operative time was longer compared with open. Laparoscopic surgery resulted in lower overall postoperative morbidity and fewer wound infections compared with open. Robotic surgery had fewer wound infections compared with open. Time to defecation was longer with open surgery compared with laparoscopic and robotic. Hospital stay was longer after open surgery compared with laparoscopic and robotic, and after laparoscopic surgery compared with robotic. Laparoscopic surgery resulted in more incomplete or nearly complete mesorectal excisions compared with open, and in more involved circumferential resection margins compared with transanal. Robotic surgery resulted in longer distal resection margins compared with open, laparoscopic, and transanal., Conclusions: The different techniques result in comparable perioperative morbidity and long-term survival. The laparoscopic and robotic approaches may improve postoperative recovery, and the open and transanal approaches may improve oncological resection. Technique selection should be based on expected benefits by individual patient.

Background: Laparoscopic surgery for hepatic neoplasms aims to provide curative resection while minimizing complications. The present study compared laparoscopic versus open surgery for patients with hepatic neoplasms with regard to short-term outcomes., Methods: Comparative studies published between 1998 and 2005 were included. Evaluated endpoints were operative, functional, and adverse events. A random-effects model was used and sensitivity analysis performed to account for bias in patient selection., Results: Eight nonrandomized studies were included, reporting on 409 resections of hepatic neoplasms, of which 165 (40.3%) were laparoscopic and 244 (59.7%) were open. Operative blood loss (weighted mean difference = -123 mL; confidence interval = -179, -67 mL) and duration of hospital stay (weighted mean difference = -2.6 days; confidence interval = -3.8, -1.4 days) were significantly reduced after laparoscopic surgery. These findings remained consistent when considering studies matched for the presence of malignancy and segment resection. There was no difference in postoperative adverse events and extent of oncologic clearance., Conclusions: Laparoscopic resection results in reduced operative blood loss and earlier recovery with oncologic clearance comparable with open surgery. When performed by experienced surgeons in selected patients it may be a safe and feasible option. Because of the potential of significant bias arising from the included studies, further randomized controlled trials should be undertaken to confirm this bias and to assess long-term survival rates.