Search

Manzhao Ouyang,1,2,* Zhentao Luo,1,* Jinhao Wu,1,* Weijie Zhang,1 Shibin Tang,1 Yan Lu,1 Weixian Hu,2,3 Xueqing Yao2,3 1Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Shunde Hospital, Southern Medical University, Foshan, Guangdong Province 528308, People’s Republic of China; 2Department of General Surgery, Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510000, People’s Republic of China; 3Department of General Surgery, The Second School of Clinical Medicine, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province 510080, People’s Republic of China*These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Xueqing YaoDepartment of General Surgery, Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, No.106 Zhongshaner Road, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510000, People’s Republic of ChinaTel +86 7 572 231 8566Fax +86 7 572 222 3899Email yjb9211@21cn.comBackground: This retrospective study compared the outcomes of laparoscopic complete mesocolic excision (CME) guided by superior mesenteric artery with laparoscopic conventional radical resection (CRR) performed for right-sided colon cancer.Methods: Patients with right-sided colon cancer underwent CME (n=107; January 2011 to December 2015) or CRR (n=60; January 2008 to December 2010).Results: The 2 groups were comparable regarding age, gender, body mass index, maximum tumor diameter, and tumor stage. In the CME group, the distances between the tumor and the high vascular tie (HVT; 12.6cm), and between the closest bowel wall and HVT (10.4±0.9cm) was significantly greater than that of the CRR group (11.5cm and 9.3±1.0cm, respectively; P0.05).Conclusion: CME for right-sided colon cancer guided by superior mesenteric artery has similar short-term outcomes, higher lymph node yield, and higher 3-year overall survival compared with CRR.Keywords: laparoscopy, right-sided colon cancer, complete mesocolic excision

Aim. To compare the clinical efficacies between laparoscopic and conventional open surgery in lateral lymph node dissection (LLND) for advanced rectal cancer. Methods. We comprehensively searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, and Wanfang Data and performed a cumulative meta-analysis. According to inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria, all eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or retrospective or prospective comparative studies assessing the two techniques were included, and then a meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan 5.3 software to assess the difference in clinical and oncological outcomes between the two treatment approaches. Results. Eight studies involving a total of 892 patients were finally selected, with 394 cases in the laparoscopic surgery group and 498 cases in the traditional open surgery group. Compared with the traditional open group, the laparoscopic group had a longer operative time (WMD=81.56, 95% CI (2.09, 142.03), P=0.008), but less intraoperative blood loss (WMD=−452.18, 95% CI (-652.23, -252.13), P<0.00001), shorter postoperative hospital stay (WMD=−5.30, 95% CI (-8.42, -2.18), P=0.0009), and higher R0 resection rate (OR=2.17, 95% CI (1.14, 4.15), P=0.02). There was no significant difference in the incidence of surgical complications between the two groups (OR=0.52, 95% CI (0.26, 1.07), P=0.08). Lateral lymph node harvest, lateral lymph node metastasis, local recurrence, 3-year overall survival, and 3-year disease-free survival did not differ significantly between the two approaches (P>0.05). Conclusion. Laparoscopic LLND has a similar efficacy in oncological outcomes and postoperative complications to the conventional open surgery, with the advantages of reduced intraoperative blood loss, shorter postoperative hospital stay, and higher R0 resection rate, and tumor radical cure is similar to traditional open surgery. Laparoscopic LLND is a safe and feasible surgical approach, and it may be used as a standard procedure in LLND for advanced rectal cancer.

IntroductionTotal gastrectomy is often recommended for upper body gastric cancer, and totally laparoscopic total gastrectomy (TLTG) is deemed to be a promising surgical method with the well-known advantages such as less invasion and fast recovery. However, the anastomosis between oesophagus and jejunum is the difficulty of TLTG. Although staplers have promoted the development of TLTG, the choice of suitable staplers to complete oesophagojejunostomy is controversial and unclear. Therefore, a higher level of research evidence is needed to compare the two types of staplers in terms of safety and efficacy for oesophagojejunostomy in TLTG among patients with gastric cancer.Methods and analysisPubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and Wanfang Databases will be comprehensively searched from January 1990 to July 2019. All eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs or observational studies comparing the two types of staplers will be included. A meta-analysis will be performed using Review Manager V.5.3 software to compare the safety and efficacy of linear and circular staplers for oesophagojejunostomy in TLTG. The primary outcomes are anastomotic leakage, anastomotic stricture, anastomotic haemorrhage. The secondary outcomes include time to first instance of passing gas after surgery, first feeding time, total operation time, reconstruction time, estimated blood loss. The heterogeneity of this study will be assessed by p values and I2statistic. Subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses will be used to explore and explain the heterogeneity. The risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane tool or the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval will not be required because this proposed systematic review and meta-analysis is based on previously published data, which does not include intervention data on patients. The findings of this study will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and will be presented at a relevant congress.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018111680.

Whether perioperative allogenic blood transfusion (ABT) has adverse effect on patients with gastric carcinoma (GC) surgery or not, that is controversial. Our study evaluated the association between ABT and some clinical outcomes of GC surgery patients. Data of relevant studies were based on PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library search. The relative risk (RR) of 5-year survival rates, tumor recurrence, and postoperative complications were performed; subgroup analyses included district, transfusion rates, age, participants, sex, and tumor stage. The study was approved by the ethics committee of the First People's Hospital of Shunde. In total, 9189 participants from 16 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The 5-year survival rate was decreased for the GC patients with ABT (RR = 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.69–0.79), the risk of tumor recurrence was significantly higher for ABT patients (RR = 1.82, 95% CI = 1.32–2.51), and postoperative complications increased in ABT patients (RR = 1.36, 95% CI = 1.02–1.81), respectively; in subgroup analyses, 5-year survival rates were not associated with the transfusion rates (χ2 = 0.37, P = 0.54). Transfusion for patients undergoing GC surgery, even low transfusion rates, would reduce the 5-year survival rates, and elevated the risk of tumor recurrence and postoperative complication.

Objectives. The objective of this systematic meta-analysis was to study the impact of icodextrin (ICO) on lipid profiles.Methods. MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Chinese Biomedical Literature, and the Cochrane Library and Reference lists were searched (last search September 2014) in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.Results. Searches identified 13 eligible trials with a total of 850 patients. The differentials of total cholesterol (TC) and free fatty acid (FFA) in the ICO group were greater than those in the GLU group. Metaregression analysis showed that TC levels positively correlated with its baseline levels. In the subgroup of patients with dialysis duration more than 6 months, TC and TG in the ICO group were less. In pooled data from cross-sectional studies, differential of TG in the ICO group was less. In the subgroup of patients with diabetes (Martikainen et al., 2005, Sniderman et al., 2014, and Takatori et al., 2011), differential of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) in the ICO group was less. There was no significant effect on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (VLDL-C), or lipoprotein(a).Conclusions. ICO may be beneficial to lipid metabolism, especially for its biphasic regulation of plasma TC levels.