Search

Introduction: There is uncertainty regarding the optimal mesh fixation techniques for laparoscopic ventral and incisional hernia repair., Aim: To perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised control trials (RCTs) to investigate the advantages and disadvantages associated with absorbable tacks, non-absorbable tacks, non-absorbable sutures, non-absorbable staples, absorbable synthetic glue, absorbable sutures and non-absorbable tacks, and non-absorbable sutures and non-absorbable tacks., Methods: A systematic review was performed as per PRISMA-NMA guidelines. Odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences (MDs) were extracted to compare the efficacy of the surgical approaches., Results: Nine RCTs were included with 707 patients. Short-term pain was significantly reduced in non-absorbable staples (MD; -1.56, confidence interval (CI); -2.93 to -0.19) and non-absorbable sutures (MD; -1.00, CI; -1.60 to -0.40) relative to absorbable tacks. Recurrence, length of stay, operative time, conversion to open surgery, seroma and haematoma formation were unaffected by mesh fixation technique., Conclusion: Short-term post-operative pain maybe reduced by the use of non-absorbable sutures and non-absorbable staples. There is clinical equipoise between each modality in relation to recurrence, length of stay, and operative time., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest This manuscript has not been published and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere. All authors have declared no conflicts of interest. This research received no external funding. The authors understand that a moderate fee (APC) is payable to cover the costs associated with publication., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Objectives: Optimal surgical management for gastric cancer remains controversial. We aimed to perform a network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing outcomes after open gastrectomy (OG), laparoscopic-assisted gastrectomy (LAG), and robotic gastrectomy (RG) for gastric cancer., Methods: A systematic search of electronic databases was undertaken. An NMA was performed as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-NMA guidelines. Statistical analysis was performed using R and Shiny., Results: Twenty-two RCTs including 6890 patients were included. Overall, 49.6% of patients underwent LAG (3420/6890), 46.6% underwent OG (3212/6890), and 3.7% underwent RG (258/6890). At NMA, there was a no significant difference in recurrence rates following LAG (odds ratio [OR] 1.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77-1.49) compared with OG. Similarly, overall survival (OS) outcomes were identical following OG and LAG (OS: OG, 87.0% [1652/1898] vs. LAG: OG, 87.0% [1650/1896]), with no differences in OS in meta-analysis (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.77-1.52). Importantly, patients undergoing LAG experienced reduced intraoperative blood loss, surgical incisions, distance from proximal margins, postoperative hospital stays, and morbidity post-resection., Conclusions: LAG was associated with non-inferior oncological and surgical outcomes compared with OG. Surgical outcomes following LAG and RG superseded OG, with similar outcomes observed for both LAG and RG. Given these findings, minimally invasive approaches should be considered for the resection of local gastric cancer, once surgeon and institutional expertise allows., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: The role of laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery has been questioned owing to conflicting reports on pathological outcomes from recent RCTs. However, it is unclear whether these pathological markers and the surgical approach have an impact on oncological outcomes. This study assessed oncological outcomes of laparoscopic and open rectal cancer resections., Methods: A meta-analysis of RCTs was performed. Primary endpoints included oncological outcomes (disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), local recurrence). Secondary endpoints included surrogate markers for the quality of surgical resection., Results: Twelve RCTs including 3744 patients (2133 laparoscopic, 1611 open) were included. There was no significant difference in OS (hazard ratio (HR) 0.87, 95 per cent c.i. 0.73 to 1.04; P = 0.12; I2 = 0 per cent) and DFS (HR 0.95, 0.81 to 1.11; P = 0.52; I2 = 0 per cent) between laparoscopic and open rectal resections. There was no significant difference in locoregional (odds ratio (OR) 1.03, 95 per cent c.i. 0.72 to 1.48; P = 0.86; I2 = 0 per cent) or distant (OR 0.87, 0.70 to 1.08; P = 0.20; I2 = 7 per cent) recurrence between the groups. Achieving a successful composite score (intact mesorectal excision, clear circumferential resection margin and distal margin) was significantly associated with improved DFS (OR 0.55, 0.33 to 0.74; P < 0.001; I2 = 0 per cent). An intact or acceptable mesorectal excision (intact mesorectal excision with or without superficial defects) had no impact on DFS. Finally, a positive CRM was associated with worse DFS., Conclusion: Well performed surgery (laparoscopic or open) achieves excellent oncological outcomes with very little difference between the two modalities. The advantage and benefit of minimally invasive surgery should be assessed on an individual basis., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Society Ltd. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: The optimal approach for total mesorectal excision (TME) of rectal cancer remains controversial., Aim: To compare short- and long-term outcomes after open (OpTME), laparoscopic (LapTME), robotic (RoTME) and transanal TME (TaTME)., Methods: A systematic search of electronic databases was performed up to January 1, 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing at least 2 TME strategies. A Bayesian arm-based random effect network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed, specifically, a mixed treatment comparison (MTC)., Results: 30 RCTs (and six updates) of 5586 patients with rectal cancer were included. No significant differences were identified in recurrence rates or survival rates. Operating time was shorter with OpTME (surface under the cumulative ranking curve [SUCRA] 0.96) compared to LapTME, RoTME and TaTME. Although OpTME was associated with the most blood loss (SUCRA 0.90) and had a slower recovery with increased length of stay (SUCRA 0.90) compared to the minimally invasive techniques, there was no difference in postoperative morbidity. OpTME was associated with a more complete TME specimen compared to LapTME (Risk Ratio [RR] 1.05, 95% Credible Interval [CrI] 1.01, 1.11), and TaTME had less involved CRMs (RR 0.173, 95% CrI 0.02, 0.76) versus LapTME. There were no differences between the modalities in terms of deep TME defects, DRM distance, or lymph node yield., Conclusions: While OpTME was the most effective TME modality for short term histopathological resection quality, there was no difference in long-term oncologic outcomes. Minimally invasive approaches enhance postoperative recovery, at the cost of longer operating times. Technique selection should be based on individual tumour characteristics and patient expectations, as well as surgeon and institutional expertise., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)