Search

This study aimed to evaluate the safety and therapeutic effect of Robot-assisted surgery (RAS) for choledochal cysts (CCs) excisions. PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, WanFang, VIP, and CBM were searched from database inception to 1 May 2022. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) was used to conduct quality assessments, and RevMan (Version 5.4) was used to perform the meta-analysis. In all, 9 studies, involving 623 patients, were analyzed. RAS compared with LAS was associated with less intraoperative blood loss, shorter time to start solid diets, shorter postoperative hospital stay, and lower complications. There was no significant difference in operative time between the two groups, but the total costs were higher in RAS. Our subgroup analysis showed that RAS had significant advantages over LAS in the child group: minor bleeding, shorter length of hospital stay, and fewer postoperative complications. The available evidence indicates that the RAS system has the advantages of less intraoperative blood loss, minor tissue damage, quick recovery, and sound healing in treating choledochal cyst, which proves that the RAS is safely feasible. Especially in children, RAS tends to be a better choice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The role of incisional negative-pressure wound therapy (iNPWT) in preventing surgical site infections (SSIs) in clean-contaminated abdominal wounds is still controversial. This meta-analysis was performed to evaluate whether the use of iNPWT could reduce SSIs and other complications in clean-contaminated abdominal surgery. The authors searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and Web of Science from database inception to 23 January 2021 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). They assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool and conducted a meta-analysis using RevMan 5.4. Eleven RCTs, including 4112 patients, were analyzed, of which 2057 were treated with iNPWT and 2055 with standard dressings. The SSI rates (OR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.61–0.94, P = 0.01), in patients undergoing an iNPWT intervention were significantly lower than those in patients receiving standard dressings. There was no statistically significant difference between the rates of incision dehiscence, seroma, and readmission between groups. Application of iNPWT for clean-contaminated wounds in abdominal surgery reduced SSI rates but showed similar rates of wound dehiscence, seroma, and readmission compared with standard dressings. [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]

Objectives: Biliary tract reconstruction with or without T-tube is commonly used in orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT). However, the efficacy and safety of T-tube usage remain controversial. This meta-analysis was conducted to assess the latest evidence of clinical outcomes. Methods: Embase, Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Web of Science were systematically searched from inception to 20 January 2021 for eligible studies. The analyses were performed using Review Manager and Stata. Results: A total of 24 trials involving 3320 participants were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with the no T-tube group, there was a higher incidence of overall biliary complications (OR:1.54; 95%CI, 1.06–2.24; P = 0.02), bile leaks (OR:2.34; 95%CI,1.57–3.48; P < 0.0001), cholangitis (OR:2.78; 95%CI,1.19–6.51; P = 0.002), and longer cold ischemia time (MD:22.27; 95%CI,0.80–43.74; P = 0.04) in the T-tube group. Furthermore, the no T-tube group had significantly higher odds of biliary strictures than the T-tube group (OR:0.60; 95%CI, 0.47–0.78; P = 0.0001). Conclusion: T-tube is still not routinely recommended, but is a good choice for OLT patients at high risk of biliary strictures. Notably, the higher rate of biliary complications in the T-tube group did not translate into an increase in endoscopic or re-operative interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]