Search

Background: Recently, there has been a burgeoning interest in radiofrequency ablation combined with stent (RFA + Stent) for unresectable malignant biliary obstruction (MBO). This study aimed to perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of RFA + Stent compared with biliary stent alone. Methods: We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases from their inception dates to June 20, 2021, for studies that compared RFA + Stent and stent alone for unresectable MBO. The main outcomes were survival, patency, and adverse effects. All meta-analyses were calculated using the random-effects model. Results: A total of 19 studies involving 1946 patients were included in this study. Compared with stent alone, RFA + Stent was significantly associated with better overall survival (HR 0.55; 95% CI 0.48, 0.63; P < 0.00001), longer mean survival time (SMD 2.20; 95% CI 1.17, 3.22; P < 0.0001), longer mean stent patency time (SMD 1.37; 95% CI 0.47, 2.26; P = 0.003), higher stent patency at 6 months (OR 2.82; 95% CI 1.54, 5.18; P = 0.0008). The two interventions had similar incidence of postoperative abdominal pain (OR 1.29; 95% CI 0.94, 1.78; P = 0.11), mild bleeding (OR 1.28; 95% CI 0.65, 2.54; P = 0.48), cholangitis (OR 1.09; 95% CI 0.76, 1.55; P = 0.65), pancreatitis (OR 1.39; 95% CI 0.82, 2.38; P = 0.22). Furthermore, the serum bilirubin levels and stricture diameter after operations were significantly alleviated than before operations, but the degree of alleviation between the two groups were not significantly different (all P > 0.05). Conclusion: Although the alleviation of serum bilirubin and stricture diameter did not differ between the two interventions, RFA + Stent can significantly improve the survival and stent patency with comparable procedure-related adverse events than stent alone. Thus, RFA + Stent should be recommended as an attractive alternative to biliary stent alone for patients with unresectable MBO. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Robotic distal gastrectomy (RDG) is a new technique that is rapidly gaining popularity and may help overcome the limitations of laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG); however, its safety and therapeutic efficacy remain controversial. Therefore, this meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of RDG.Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for studies that compared RDG and LDG and were published between the time of database inception and May 2021. We assessed the bias risk of the observational studies using ROBIN-I, and a random effect model was always applied.Results: The meta-analysis included 22 studies involving 5386 patients. Compared with LDG, RDG was associated with longer operating time (Mean Difference [MD] = 43.88, 95% CI = 35.17-52.60), less intraoperative blood loss (MD = - 24.84, 95% CI = - 41.26 to - 8.43), a higher number of retrieved lymph nodes (MD = 2.41, 95% CI = 0.77-4.05), shorter time to first flatus (MD = - 0.09, 95% CI = - 0.15 to - 0.03), shorter postoperative hospital stay (MD = - 0.68, 95% CI = - 1.27 to - 0.08), and lower incidence of pancreatic fistula (OR = 0.23, 95% CI = 0.07-0.79). Mean proximal and distal resection margin distances, time to start liquid and soft diets, and other complications were not significantly different between RDG and LDG groups. However, in the propensity-score-matched meta-analysis, the differences in time to first flatus and postoperative hospital stay between the two groups lost significance.Conclusions: Based on the available evidence, RDG appears feasible and safe, shows better surgical and oncological outcomes than LDG and, comparable postoperative recovery and postoperative complication outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Whether perioperative administration is required in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) in patients with low risk of infection remains controversial. Objective: To investigate whether perioperative use of prophylactic antibiotics during elective LC can reduce the incidence of postoperative infection using a meta-analysis. Methods: Pubmed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and reference lists were searched up to October 26, 2020, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the perioperative use of antibiotics during LC. A systematic review with meta-analysis, meta-regression, and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) of the evidence was conducted. The Cochrane (RoB 2.0) tool was used to assess the risk of bias. Result: A total of 14 RCTs were ultimately included in the meta-analysis, involving a total of 4360 patients. The incidence of surgical site infections, distant infections, and overall infections was investigated and the relationship with the perioperative use of prophylactic antibiotics during LC analyzed. The results indicated that in low-risk patients undergoing elective LC, prophylactic antibiotics reduce the incidence of surgical site infections (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.45–0.98), with a moderate GRADE of evidence, distant infections (RR 0.34; 95% CI 0.16–0.73), with a low GRADE of evidence and overall infections (RR 0.57; 95% CI 0.40–0.80), with a moderate GRADE of evidence. Conclusions: The present meta-analysis demonstrates that the perioperative use of antibiotics in LC is effective in low-risk patients, possibly reducing the incidence of surgical site infections, distant infections, and overall infections. However, in view of the limitations of the study, it is recommended that studies with a more rigorous design (for downgraded factors) and larger sample size should be conducted in the future so that the conclusions above can be further verified through key result indicators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic cholecystectomy combined with intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (LC-IntraERCP) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy combined with laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LC-LCBDE) to determine which one-stage therapeutic strategy provides better outcomes for patients with gallstones and common bile duct stones.Methods: Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science databases were searched to identify eligible articles from the database inception to September 2020. The revised Cochrane risk of bias tools for randomized trials (RoB-2) and non-randomized interventions (ROBINS-I) was used to assess the quality of the included studies. The overall quality of evidence was assessed through the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. The primary outcomes consisted of surgical success, retained stones, and overall postoperative complications, while secondary outcomes included postoperative bleeding, postoperative pancreatitis, postoperative bile leakage, conversion to laparotomy, and operative time.Results: Eight studies (four RCTs and four Non-RCTs with high quality) with 2948 patients were included. No significant difference was seen between the two groups regarding surgical success, overall postoperative complications, conversion to laparotomy, and operative time. The meta-analysis demonstrated that in the LC-IntraERCP group, the rate of retained stones (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.28-0.91) and postoperative bile leakage were lower (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.09-0.69), while in the LC-LCBDE group, postoperative bleeding (OR 5.24, 95% CI 1.65-16.65) and postoperative pancreatitis (OR 4.80, 95% CI 2.35-9.78) decreased.Conclusions: LC-IntraERCP and LC-LCBDE exhibited similar efficacies when surgical success rate, overall postoperative complications, conversion to laparotomy, and operative time were compared. However, LC-IntraERCP is probably to be more effective in terms of lowering the rate of retained stones. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Robotic surgery, an emerging technology, has some potential advantages in many complicated endoscopic procedures compared with laparoscopic surgery. But robot-assisted cholecystectomy (RAC) is still a controversial issue on its comparative merit compared with conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of RAC compared with LC for benign gallbladder disease.Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted using the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases (from their inception to December 2017) to obtain comparative studies assessing the safety and efficacy between RAC and LC. The quality of the literature was assessed, and the data analyzed using R software, random effects models were applied.Results: Twenty-six studies, including 5 RCTs and 21 NRCSs (3 prospective plus 18 retrospective), were included. A total of 4004 patients were included, of which 1833 patients (46%) underwent RAC and 2171 patients (54%) underwent LC. No significant differences were found in intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, readmission rate, hospital stay, estimated blood loss, and conversion rate between RAC and LC groups. However, RAC was related to longer operative time compared with LC (MD = 12.04 min, 95% CI 7.26-16.82) in RCT group, which was consistent with NRCS group; RAC also had a higher rate of incisional hernia in NRCS group (RR = 3.06, 95% CI 1.42-6.57), and one RCT reported that RAC was similar to LC (RR = 7.00, 95% CI 0.38-129.84).Conclusions: The RAC was not found to be more effective or safer than LC for benign gallbladder diseases, which indicated that RAC is a developing procedure instead of replacing LC at once. Given the higher costs, the current evidence is in favor of LC in cholecystectomy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]