Search

Background: There has been a recent rapid growth in the adoption of robotic systems across Europe. This study aimed to capture the current state of robotic training in gastrointestinal (GI) surgery and to identify potential challenges and barriers to training within Europe., Methods: A pan-European survey was designed to account for the opinion of the following GI surgery groups: (i) experts/independent practitioners; (ii) trainees with robotic access; (iii) trainees without robotic access; (iv) robotic industry representatives. The survey explored various aspects, including stakeholder opinions on bedside assisting, console operations, challenges faced and performance assessment. It was distributed through multiple European surgical societies and industry, in addition to social media and snowball sampling, between December 2023 and March 2024., Results: A total of 1360 participants responded, with valid/complete responses from 1045 participants across 38 European countries. Six hundred and ninety-five (68.0%) experts and trainees were not aware of a dedicated robotic training curriculum for trainees, with 13/23 (56.5%) industry representatives not incorporating training for trainees in their programme. Among trainees with access to robotic systems, 94/195 (48.2%) had not performed any robotic cases, citing challenges including a lack of certified robotic trainers and training lists. Both experts and trainees agreed that trainees should start bedside assisting and operating on the console earlier than they currently do. Assessment tools of trainee performance were not being used by 139/479 (29.0%) participants., Conclusion: This pan-European survey highlights the need for a standardised robotic curriculum to address the gap in visceral training, assessment and certification. A greater emphasis may be required on implementing robotic training earlier through simulation training, dual console learning, bedside assisting, key clinical performance indicators, and assessment tools. The findings will guide the development of a pan-European consensus on the essential components of a comprehensive training programme for GI robotic surgery., Competing Interests: Declarations. Disclosures: Hans F Fuchs is a Member of the Advisory Board of Medtronic, Stryker Corporation and Distalmotion, and holds an educational grant (ESOMAP trial) and teaching courses through EAES with Intuitive Surgical. Michael G Fadel, Josephine Walshaw, Francesca Pecchini, Marina Yiasemidou, Matthew Boal, Muhammed Elhadi, Matyas Fehervari, Lisa H Massey, Francesco Maria Carrano, Stavros A Antoniou, Felix Nickel, Silvana Perretta, George B Hanna, Christos Kontovounisios and Nader K Francis have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Patients undergoing open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair have a high risk of incisional hernia. Heterogeneity in recommendations regarding prophylactic mesh reinforcement between scientific society guidelines reflects the lack of sufficient data, with the Society for Vascular Surgery making no recommendation on methods for abdominal wall closure. We aimed to synthesize the most current evidence on mesh versus primary suture abdominal wall closure after open AAA repair., Methods: A systematic review was conducted on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing mesh reinforcement with primary abdominal wall closure for patients who underwent elective AAA repair with a midline laparotomy incision. Dichotomous and time-to-event data were pooled using random effects models, applying the Mantel-Haenszel or inverse variance statistical method. The revised Cochrane tool and Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework were used to assess the risk of bias and certainty of evidence, respectively. Trial sequential analysis assumed alpha = 5% and power = 80%., Results: Five RCTs were included reporting a total of 487 patients (260 in the mesh group and 227 in the primary suture group). Patients who had mesh closure had statistically significantly lower odds of developing incisional hernia after open AAA repair than those with primary suture closure (odds ratio (OR) 0.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09-0.43). Time-to-event analysis confirmed that the hazard of incisional hernia was statistically significantly lower in patients who had mesh closure (P < 0.05). Meta-analysis found statistically significantly lower odds of reoperation for incisional hernia in the mesh group (OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.06-0.93), but there was no statistically significant difference in wound infection (risk difference 0.02, 95% CI -0.03-0.08). The overall risk of bias was low in one study, high in 2 studies, "some concerns" in 2 studies for incisional hernia and reoperation for incisional hernia, and high in all studies reporting wound infection. The certainty of evidence was judged to be low for all outcomes. Trial sequential analysis confirmed a benefit of mesh reinforcement in reducing the risk of incisional hernia., Conclusions: Meta-analysis of the highest-level data demonstrated a benefit of prophylactic mesh reinforcement, with trial sequential analysis confirming no additional RCTs required. This provides compelling evidence to support the use of mesh for midline laparotomy closure in patients undergoing open AAA repair., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: As the population ages, more older adults are presenting for surgery. Age-related declines in physiological reserve and functional capacity can result in frailty and poor outcomes after surgery. Hence, optimizing perioperative care in older patients is imperative. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) pathways and Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS) may influence surgical outcomes, but current use and impact on older adults patients is unknown. The aim of this study was to provide evidence-based recommendations on perioperative care of older adults undergoing major abdominal surgery., Methods: Expert consensus determined working definitions for key terms and metrics related to perioperative care. A systematic literature review and meta-analysis was performed using the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Clinicaltrials.gov databases for 24 pre-defined key questions in the topic areas of prehabilitation, MIS, and ERAS in major abdominal surgery (colorectal, upper gastrointestinal (UGI), Hernia, and hepatopancreatic biliary (HPB)) to generate evidence-based recommendations following the GRADE methodology., Result: Older adults were defined as 65 years and older. Over 20,000 articles were initially retrieved from search parameters. Evidence synthesis was performed across the three topic areas from 172 studies, with meta-analyses conducted for MIS and ERAS topics. The use of MIS and ERAS was recommended for older adult patients particularly when undergoing colorectal surgery. Expert opinion recommended prehabilitation, cessation of smoking and alcohol, and correction of anemia in all colorectal, UGI, Hernia, and HPB procedures in older adults. All recommendations were conditional, with low to very low certainty of evidence, with the exception of ERAS program in colorectal surgery., Conclusions: MIS and ERAS are recommended in older adults undergoing major abdominal surgery, with evidence supporting use in colorectal surgery. Though expert opinion supported prehabilitation, there is insufficient evidence supporting use. This work has identified evidence gaps for further studies to optimize older adults undergoing major abdominal surgery., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objective: This study aimed to investigate whether uterine artery embolization offers a better quality of life than myomectomy in premenopausal women diagnosed with leiomyomas of the uterus., Data Sources: A literature search was performed using the electronic databases of PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to January 2023., Study Eligibility Criteria: Randomized controlled trials comparing uterine artery embolization with myomectomy in women of premenopausal age suffering from uterine leiomyomas were considered., Methods: The primary outcome was quality of life. The secondary outcomes were reintervention rate and timing, successful pregnancy, stillbirth and miscarriage, cesarean delivery on delivery, and perioperative morbidity. Moreover, time-to-event and standard pairwise meta-analyses were performed, as appropriate. The certainty of the evidence was assessed in line with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations methodology., Results: A total of 6 randomized controlled trials met our inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis suggested little to no difference in terms of quality of life between uterine artery embolization and myomectomy (standard mean difference, 0.05; 95% confidence interval, -0.38 to 0.48; I 2 =92%; very low certainty of evidence). Sensitivity analysis, including randomized controlled trials, which included solely myomectomy procedures in the control arm, demonstrated better quality of life for women treated with myomectomy (standard mean difference, -0.32; 95% confidence interval, -0.49 to -0.15; I 2 =15%). Concerning reintervention, myomectomy was likely associated with a decreased risk of future reintervention (risk ratio, 0.32; 95% confidence interval, 0.15-0.69; I 2 =60%; low certainty of evidence) and a more prolonged time interval since a potential reintervention because of recurrence than uterine artery embolization (hazard ratio, 0.41; 95% confidence interval, 0.22-0.77; I 2 =77%; low certainty of evidence). No difference was found between the 2 interventions concerning severe perioperative adverse events (relative risk, 4.13; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-39.20; I 2 =0%; low certainty of evidence)., Conclusion: Uterine artery embolization is likely associated with increased reintervention rates and less time to reintervention compared with myomectomy in premenopausal women diagnosed with uterine leiomyomas. Evidence suggests no difference between the 2 interventions regarding perioperative morbidity. Uterine artery embolization may exert no effect on quality of life and successful pregnancy; however, the evidence is very uncertain., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The rapid adoption of robotic surgical systems across Europe has led to a critical gap in training and credentialing for gastrointestinal (GI) surgeons. Currently, there is no existing standardised curriculum to guide robotic training, assessment and certification for GI trainees. This manuscript describes the protocol to achieve a pan-European consensus on the essential components of a comprehensive training programme for GI robotic surgery through a five-stage process., Methods and Analysis: In Stage 1, a Steering Committee, consisting of international experts, trainees and educationalists, has been established to lead and coordinate the consensus development process. In Stage 2, a systematic review of existing multi-specialty robotic training curricula will be performed to inform the formulation of key position statements. In Stage 3, a comprehensive survey will be disseminated across Europe to capture the current state of robotic training and identify potential challenges and opportunities for improvement. In Stage 4, an international panel of GI surgeons, trainees, and robotic theatre staff will participate in a three-round Delphi process, seeking ≥ 70% agreement on crucial aspects of the training curriculum. Industry and patient representatives will be involved as external advisors throughout this process. In Stage 5, the robotic training curriculum for GI trainees will be finalised in a dedicated consensus meeting, culminating in the production of an Explanation and Elaboration (E&E) document., Registration Details: The study protocol has been registered on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/br87d/)., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Fadel et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: Variation exists in practice pertaining to bowel preparation before minimally invasive colorectal surgery. A survey of EAES members prioritized this topic to be addressed by a clinical practice guideline., Objective: The aim of the study was to develop evidence-informed clinical practice recommendations on the use of bowel preparation before minimally invasive colorectal surgery, through evidence synthesis and a structured evidence-to-decision framework by an interdisciplinary panel of stakeholders., Methods: This is a collaborative project of EAES, SAGES, and ESCP. We updated a previous systematic review and performed a network meta-analysis of interventions. We appraised the certainty of the evidence for each comparison, using the GRADE and CINeMA methods. A panel of general and colorectal surgeons, infectious diseases specialists, an anesthetist, and a patient representative discussed the evidence in the context of benefits and harms, the certainty of the evidence, acceptability, feasibility, equity, cost, and use of resources, moderated by a GIN-certified master guideline developer and chair. We developed the recommendations in a consensus meeting, followed by a modified Delphi survey., Results: The panel suggests either oral antibiotics alone prior to minimally invasive right colon resection or mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) plus oral antibiotics; MBP plus oral antibiotics prior to minimally invasive left colon and sigmoid resection, and prior to minimally invasive right colon resection when there is an intention to perform intracorporeal anastomosis; and MBP plus oral antibiotics plus enema prior to minimally invasive rectal surgery (conditional recommendations); and recommends MBP plus oral antibiotics prior to minimally invasive colorectal surgery, when there is an intention to localize the lesion intraoperatively (strong recommendation). The full guideline with user-friendly decision aids is available in https://app.magicapp.org/#/guideline/LwvKej ., Conclusion: This guideline provides recommendations on bowel preparation prior to minimally invasive colorectal surgery for different procedures, using highest methodological standards, through a structured framework informed by key stakeholders. Guideline registration number PREPARE-2023CN045., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: New evidence has emerged since latest guidelines on the management of paraesophageal hernia, and guideline development methodology has evolved. Members of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery have prioritized the management of paraesophageal hernia to be addressed by pertinent recommendations., Objective: To develop evidence-informed clinical practice recommendations on paraesophageal hernias, through evidence synthesis and a structured evidence-to-decision framework by an interdisciplinary panel of stakeholders., Methods: We performed three systematic reviews, and we summarized and appraised the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE methodology. A panel of general and upper gastrointestinal surgeons, gastroenterologists and a patient advocate discussed the evidence in the context of benefits and harms, the certainty of the evidence, acceptability, feasibility, equity, cost and use of resources, moderated by a Guidelines International Network-certified master guideline developer and chair. We developed the recommendations in a consensus meeting, followed by a modified Delphi survey., Results: The panel suggests surgery over conservative management for asymptomatic/minimally symptomatic paraesophageal hernias (conditional recommendation), and recommends conservative management over surgery for asymptomatic/minimally symptomatic paraesophageal hernias in frail patients (strong recommendation). Further, the panel suggests mesh over sutures for hiatal closure in paraesophageal hernia repair, fundoplication over gastropexy in elective paraesophageal hernia repair, and gastropexy over fundoplication in patients who have cardiopulmonary instability and require emergency paraesophageal hernia repair (conditional recommendation). A strong recommendation means that the proposed course of action is appropriate for the vast majority of patients. A conditional recommendation means that most patients would opt for the proposed course of action, and joint decision-making of the surgeon and the patient is required. Accompanying evidence summaries and evidence-to-decision frameworks should be read when using the recommendations. This guideline applies to adult patients with moderate to large paraesophageal hernias type II to IV with at least 50% of the stomach herniated to the thoracic cavity. The full guideline with user-friendly decision aids is available in https://app.magicapp.org/#/guideline/j7q7Gn ., Conclusion: An interdisciplinary panel provides recommendations on key topics on the management of paraesophageal hernias using highest methodological standards and following a transparent process., Guideline Registration Number: PREPARE-2023CN018., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Growing evidence on the use of mesh as a prophylactic measure to prevent parastomal hernia and advances in guideline development methods prompted an update of a previous guideline on parastomal hernia prevention. Objective: To develop evidence-based, trustworthy recommendations, informed by an interdisciplinary panel of stakeholders. Methods: We updated a previous systematic review on the use of a prophylactic mesh for end colostomy, and we synthesized evidence using pairwise meta-analysis. A European panel of surgeons, stoma care nurses, and patients developed an evidence-to-decision framework in line with GRADE and Guidelines International Network standards, moderated by a certified guideline methodologist. The framework considered benefits and harms, the certainty of the evidence, patients' preferences and values, cost and resources considerations, acceptability, equity and feasibility. Results: The certainty of the evidence was moderate for parastomal hernia and low for major morbidity, surgery for parastomal hernia, and quality of life. There was unanimous consensus among panel members for a conditional recommendation for the use of a prophylactic mesh in patients with an end colostomy and fair life expectancy, and a strong recommendation for the use of a prophylactic mesh in patients at high risk to develop a parastomal hernia. Conclusion: This rapid guideline provides evidence-informed, interdisciplinary recommendations on the use of prophylactic mesh in patients with an end colostomy. Further, it identifies research gaps, and discusses implications for stakeholders, including overcoming barriers to implementation and specific considerations regarding validity., Competing Interests: FM declared consultancy fees from Medtronic, Dynamesh, BD, and Gore. NS declared speakers fees on parastomal hernia prevention with mesh prophylaxis from Medtronic, WL Gore. All other panel members declared no financial conflict of interest. SA and FM were part of the guideline development group of the EHS Guidelines on Parastomal Hernias. ML, H-TB, and CO are authors of randomized trials and meta-analyses related to the content of this topic. Conflicts of interest were documented and managed as per Guidelines International Network Standards. Detailed conflict of interest statements of all contributors can be found in https://osf.io/k4sh8/. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Stabilini, Muysoms, Tzanis, Rossi, Koutsiouroumpa, Mavridis, Adamina, Bracale, Brandsma, Breukink, López Cano, Cole, Doré, Jensen, Krogsgaard, Smart, Odensten, Tielemans and Antoniou.)

Background: Operative performance may affect the internal and external validity of randomized trials. The aim of this study was to review the use of surgical quality assurance mechanisms of published trials on laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery, with the objective to appraise their internal (research quality) and external validity (applicability to the clinical setting)., Methods: Building upon a previous systematic review and network meta-analysis published by the authors, Medline, Embase, AMED, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and OpenGrey databases were searched for randomized control trials comparing different methods of laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery for the management of gastroesophageal disease. Quality assurance in individual studies was appraised using a specified framework addressing surgeon accreditation, procedure standardization, and performance monitoring., Results: In total, 2276 articles were screened to obtain 43 publications reporting 29 randomized controlled trials. Twenty-five out of 43 (58.1%) articles reported the number of participating centers and surgeons involved. Additionally, only 21/43 (48.8%) of articles reported consistent use of a bougie, while 23/43 (53.5%) of articles reported consistent division of the short gastric arteries during fundoplication. Surgical experience and credentials were stated in half of the studies. Standardization of the technique was reported in almost 70% of cases, whereas operative notes or video was submitted in one fourth of the studies. Monitoring of the operative performance during the trial was not documented in most of the trials (62%)., Conclusion: Surgical quality assurance in randomized trials on laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery is insufficient, which does not allow appraisal of the internal and external validity of this research. With improved reporting, trials assessing the use of laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery will enable surgeons to make informed treatment decisions to enhance patient care in the surgical management of GERD., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Objective: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of prophylactic mesh for the prevention of parastomal hernia in end colostomy, with the ultimate objective to summarize the evidence for an interdisciplinary, European rapid guideline. Methods: We updated a previous systematic review with de novo evidence search of PubMed from inception up to June 2022. Primary outcome was quality of life (QoL). Secondary outcomes were clinical diagnosis of parastomal hernia, surgery for parastomal hernia, and 30 day or in-hospital complications Clavien-Dindo ≥3. We utilised the revised Cochrane Tool for randomised trials (RoB 2 tool) for risk of bias assessment in the included studies. Minimally important differences were set a priori through voting of the panel members. We appraised the evidence using GRADE and we developed GRADE evidence tables. Results: We included 12 randomized trials. Meta-analysis suggested no difference in QoL between prophylactic mesh and no mesh for primary stoma construction (SMD = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.14 to 0.2], I 2 = 0%, low certainty of evidence). With regard to parastomal hernia, the use of prophylactic synthetic mesh resulted in a significant risk reduction of the incidence of the event, according to data from all available randomized trials, irrespective of the follow-up period (OR = 0.33, 95% CI [0.18-0.62], I 2 = 74%, moderate certainty of evidence). Sensitivity analyses according to follow-up period were in line with the primary analysis. Little to no difference in surgery for parastomal hernia was encountered after pooled analysis of 10 randomised trials (OR = 0.52, 95% CI [0.25-1.09], I 2 = 14%). Finally, no significant difference was found in Clavien-Dindo grade 3 and 4 adverse events after surgery with or without the use of a prophylactic mesh (OR = 0.77, 95% CI [0.45-1.30], I 2 = 0%, low certainty of evidence). Conclusion: Prophylactic synthetic mesh placement at the time of permanent end colostomy construction is likely associated with a reduced risk for parastomal hernia and may confer similar risk of peri-operative major morbidity compared to no mesh placement. There may be no difference in quality of life and surgical repair of parastomal hernia with the use of either approach., Competing Interests: FM declared consultancy fees from Medtronic, Dynamesh, BD, and Gore. NS declared speakers fees on parastomal hernia prevention with mesh prophylaxis from Medtronic, WL Gore. All other panel members declared no financial conflict of interest. SA and FM were part of the guideline development group of the EHS Guidelines on Parastomal Hernias. ML, H-TB, and CO are authors of randomized trials and meta-analyses related to the content of this topic. Conflicts of interest were documented and managed as per Guidelines International Network Standards. Detailed conflict of interest statements of all contributors can be found in https://osf.io/k4sh8/. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Tzanis, Stabilini, Muysoms, Rossi, Koutsiouroumpa, Mavridis, Adamina, Bracale, Brandsma, Breukink, López Cano, Cole, Doré, Jensen, Krogsgaard, Smart, Odensten, Tielemans and Antoniou.)

Objective: To investigate whether systematic pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy offers superior survival rates in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), tubal, or peritoneal cancer., Methods: We searched the electronic databases PubMed (from 1996), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials (from 1996), and Scopus (from 2004) to September 2021. We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing systematic pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy with no lymphadenectomy in patients with advanced EOC. Primary outcomes were overall survival and progression-free survival. Secondary outcomes were peri-operative morbidity and operative mortality. The revised Cochrane tool for randomised trials (RoB 2 tool) was utilised for the risk of bias assessment in the included studies. We performed time-to-event and standard pairwise meta-analyses, as appropriate., Results: Two RCTs with a total of 1074 patients were included in our review. Meta-analysis demonstrated similar overall survival (HR = 1.03, 95% CI [0.85-1.24]; low certainty) and progression-free survival (HR = 0.92, 95% CI [0.63-1.35]; very low certainty). Regarding peri-operative morbidity, systematic lymphadenectomy was associated with higher rates of lymphoedema and lymphocysts formation (RR = 7.31, 95% CI [1.89-28.20]; moderate certainty) and need for blood transfusion (RR = 1.17, 95% CI [1.06-1.29]; moderate certainty). No statistically significant differences were observed in regard to other peri-operative adverse events between the two arms., Conclusions: Systematic pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy is likely associated with similar overall survival and progression-free survival compared to no lymphadenectomy in optimally debulked patients with advanced EOC. Systematic lymphadenectomy is also associated with an increased risk for certain peri-operative adverse events. Further research needs to be conducted on whether we should abandon systematic lymphadenectomy in completely debulked patients during primary debulking surgery., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: In recent years, the use of Indocyanine Green (ICG) fluorescence-guided surgery during open and laparoscopic procedures has exponentially expanded across various clinical settings. The European Association of Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) initiated a consensus development conference on this topic with the aim of creating evidence-based statements and recommendations for the surgical community., Methods: An expert panel of surgeons has been selected and invited to participate to this project. Systematic reviews of the PubMed, Embase and Cochrane libraries were performed to identify evidence on potential benefits of ICG fluorescence-guided surgery on clinical practice and patient outcomes. Statements and recommendations were prepared and unanimously agreed by the panel; they were then submitted to all EAES members through a two-rounds online survey and results presented at the EAES annual congress, Barcelona, November 2021., Results: A total of 18,273 abstracts were screened with 117 articles included. 22 statements and 16 recommendations were generated and approved. In some areas, such as the use of ICG fluorescence-guided surgery during laparoscopic cholecystectomy, the perfusion assessment in colorectal surgery and the search for the sentinel lymph nodes in gynaecological malignancies, the large number of evidences in literature has allowed us to strongly recommend the use of ICG for a better anatomical definition and a reduction in post-operative complications., Conclusions: Overall, from the systematic literature review performed by the experts panel and the survey extended to all EAES members, ICG fluorescence-guided surgery could be considered a safe and effective technology. Future robust clinical research is required to specifically validate multiple organ-specific applications and the potential benefits of this technique on clinical outcomes., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Clinical practice recommendations for the management of acute appendicitis in pregnancy are lacking., Objective: To develop an evidence-informed, trustworthy guideline on the management of appendicitis in pregnancy. We aimed to address the questions of conservative or surgical management, and laparoscopic or open surgery for acute appendicitis., Methods: We performed a systematic review, meta-analysis, and evidence appraisal using the GRADE methodology. A European, multidisciplinary panel of surgeons, obstetricians/gynecologists, a midwife, and 3 patient representatives reached consensus through an evidence-to-decision framework and a Delphi process to formulate the recommendations. The project was developed in an online authoring and publication platform (MAGICapp)., Results: Research evidence was of very low certainty. We recommend operative treatment over conservative management in pregnant patients with complicated appendicitis or appendicolith on imaging studies (strong recommendation). We suggest operative treatment over conservative management in pregnant patients with uncomplicated appendicitis and no appendicolith on imaging studies (weak recommendation). We suggest laparoscopic appendectomy in patients with acute appendicitis until the 20th week of gestation, or when the fundus of the uterus is below the level of the umbilicus; and laparoscopic or open appendectomy in patients with acute appendicitis beyond the 20th week of gestation, or when the fundus of the uterus is above the level of the umbilicus, depending on the preference and expertise of the surgeon., Conclusion: Through a structured, evidence-informed approach, an interdisciplinary panel provides a strong recommendation to perform appendectomy for complicated appendicitis or appendicolith, and laparoscopic or open appendectomy beyond the 20th week, based on the surgeon's preference and expertise., Guideline Registration Number: IPGRP-2022CN210., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Incisional hernia is a frequent complication of abdominal wall incision. Surgical technique is an important risk factor for the development of incisional hernia. The aim of these updated guidelines was to provide recommendations to decrease the incidence of incisional hernia., Methods: A systematic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL was performed on 22 January 2022. The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network instrument was used to evaluate systematic reviews and meta-analyses, RCTs, and cohort studies. The GRADE approach (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) was used to appraise the certainty of the evidence. The guidelines group consisted of surgical specialists, a biomedical information specialist, certified guideline methodologist, and patient representative., Results: Thirty-nine papers were included covering seven key questions, and weak recommendations were made for all of these. Laparoscopic surgery and non-midline incisions are suggested to be preferred when safe and feasible. In laparoscopic surgery, suturing the fascial defect of trocar sites of 10 mm and larger is advised, especially after single-incision laparoscopic surgery and at the umbilicus. For closure of an elective midline laparotomy, a continuous small-bites suturing technique with a slowly absorbable suture is suggested. Prophylactic mesh augmentation after elective midline laparotomy can be considered to reduce the risk of incisional hernia; a permanent synthetic mesh in either the onlay or retromuscular position is advised., Conclusion: These updated guidelines may help surgeons in selecting the optimal approach and location of abdominal wall incisions., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Society Ltd.)

Background: Choledocholithiasis presents in a considerable proportion of patients with gallbladder disease. There are several management options, including preoperative or intraoperative endoscopic cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE)., Objective: To develop evidence-informed, interdisciplinary, European recommendations on the management of common bile duct stones in the context of intact gallbladder with a clinical decision to intervene to both the gallbladder and the common bile duct stones., Methods: We updated a systematic review and network meta-analysis of LCBDE, preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative ERCP. We formed evidence summaries using the GRADE and the CINeMA methodology, and a panel of general surgeons, gastroenterologists, and a patient representative contributed to the development of a GRADE evidence-to-decision framework to select among multiple interventions., Results: The panel reached unanimous consensus on the first Delphi round. We suggest LCBDE over preoperative, intraoperative, or postoperative ERCP, when surgical experience and expertise are available; intraoperative ERCP over LCBDE, preoperative or postoperative ERCP, when this is logistically feasible in a given healthcare setting; and preoperative ERCP over LCBDE or postoperative ERCP, when intraoperative ERCP is not feasible and there is insufficient experience or expertise with LCBDE (weak recommendation). The evidence summaries and decision aids are available on the platform MAGICapp ( https://app.magicapp.org/#/guideline/nJ5zyL )., Conclusion: We developed a rapid guideline on the management of common bile duct stones in line with latest methodological standards. It can be used by healthcare professionals and other stakeholders to inform clinical and policy decisions., Guideline Registration Number: IPGRP-2022CN170., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: There are several options for the surgical management of GERD in adults. Previous guidelines and systematic reviews have compared the effects of total fundoplication versus pooled effects of different techniques of partial fundoplication., Objective: To develop evidence-informed, trustworthy, pertinent recommendations on the use of total, posterior partial and anterior partial fundoplications for the management of GERD in adults., Methods: We performed an update systematic review, network meta-analysis, and evidence appraisal using the GRADE and the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis methodologies. An international, multidisciplinary panel of surgeons, gastroenterologists, and a patient representative reached unanimous consensus through an evidence-to-decision framework to select among multiple interventions, and a Delphi process to formulate the recommendation. The project was developed in an online authoring and publication platform (MAGICapp), and was overseen by an external auditor., Results: We suggest posterior partial fundoplication over total posterior or anterior 90° fundoplication in adult patients with GERD. We suggest anterior >90° fundoplication as an alternative, although relevant comparative evidence is limited (weak recommendation). The guideline, with recommendations, evidence summaries and decision aids in user friendly formats can also be accessed in MAGICapp: https://app.magicapp.org/#/guideline/j20X4n., Conclusion: This rapid guideline was developed in line with highest methodological standards and provides evidence-informed recommendations on the surgical management of GERD. It provides user-friendly decision aids to inform healthcare professionals' and patients' decision making., (© 2022 The Authors. United European Gastroenterology Journal published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of United European Gastroenterology.)

Objective: To investigate whether neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) confers superior outcomes compared to primary debulking surgery (PDS) in patients with stage III and IV epithelial ovarian, tubal or peritoneal cancer as well as in patients with high tumour load. Methods: We searched the electronic databases PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials, and Scopus from inception to March 2021. We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing NACT with PDS for women with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) stages III and IV. The primary outcomes were overall survival and progression-free survival. Secondary outcomes were optimal cytoreduction rates, peri-operative adverse events, and quality of life. Results: Six RCTs with a total of 1901 participants were included. Meta-analysis demonstrated similar overall survival (HR = 0.96, 95% CI [0.86-1.07]) and progression-free survival (HR = 0.98, 95% CI [0.89-1.08]) between NACT and PDS. Subgroup analyses did not demonstrate higher survival for stage IV patients (HR = 0.88, 95% CI [0.71-1.09]) nor for patients with metastatic lesions >5 cm (HR = 0.86, 95% CI [0.69-1.08]) treated with NACT, albeit with some uncertainty due to imprecision. Similarly, no survival benefit was observed in the subgroup of patients with metastatic lesions >10 cm (HR = 0.94, 95% CI [0.78-1.12]). NACT was associated with significantly higher rates of complete cytoreduction (RR = 2.34, 95% CI [1.48-3.71]). Severe peri-operative adverse events were less frequent in the NACT arm (RR = 0.34, 95% CI [0.16-0.72]. Conclusion: Patients with stage III and IV epithelial ovarian cancer undergoing NACT or PDS have similar overall survival. NACT is likely associated with higher rates of complete cytoreduction and lower risk of severe adverse events and peri-operative death., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Tzanis, Iavazzo, Hadjivasilis, Tsouvali, Antoniou and Antoniou.)

Background & Aims: Colonoscopy quality indicators provide measurable assessments of performance, but significant provider-level variations exist. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess whether endoscopist specialty is associated with adenoma detection rate (ADR) - the primary outcome - or cecal intubation rate, adverse event rates, and post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer rates., Methods: We searched EMBASE, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials from inception to December 14, 2020. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts. Citations underwent duplicate full-text review, with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. Data were abstracted in duplicate. The DerSimonian and Laird random effects model was used to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs) with respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Risk of bias was assessed using Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies of Interventions., Results: Of 11,314 citations, 36 studies representing 3,500,832 colonoscopies were included. Compared with colonoscopies performed by gastroenterologists, those by surgeons were associated with lower ADRs (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.74-0.88) and lower cecal intubation rates (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63-0.92). Compared with colonoscopies performed by gastroenterologists, those by other (non-gastroenterologist, non-surgeon) endoscopists were associated with lower ADRs (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.87-0.96), higher perforation rates (OR, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.65-5.51), and higher post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer rates (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.14-1.33). Substantial to considerable heterogeneity existed for most analyses, and overall certainty in the evidence was low according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations framework., Conclusion: Colonoscopies performed by surgeons or other endoscopists were associated with poorer quality metrics and outcomes compared with those performed by gastroenterologists. Targeted quality improvement efforts may be warranted., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Parastomal hernia presents frequently after construction of a permanent end colostomy. Previous guidelines recommend using a prophylactic mesh for hernia prevention. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published hereafter demonstrate conflicting outcomes. Methods and Analysis: A rapid guideline will be developed and reported in accordance with GRADE, GIN and AGREE-S standards. The steering group will consist of general and colorectal surgeons, members of the EHS Scientific Advisory Board with expertise and experience in guideline development, advanced medical statistics and evidence synthesis, and a certified guideline methodologist. The guideline panel will consist of three general surgeons, three colorectal surgeons, two stoma care nurses, and two patient representatives. A single question will address the safety and efficacy of the use of a prophylactic mesh in patients with a permanent end colostomy, and sensitivity analyses will focus on the use of non-absorbable versus absorbable meshes, and on different anatomical spaces for mesh placement. A systematic review will be conducted and evidence synthesis will be performed by statisticians independently. The results of evidence synthesis will be summarized in summary of findings tables. Recommendation(s) will be finalized through Delphi process of the guideline panel within an evidence-to-decision framework. Ethics and Dissemination: The funding body will not be involved in the development of this guideline. Conflicts of interest, if any, will be addressed by re-assigning functions or replacing participants with direct conflicts, according to Guidelines International Network recommendations., Competing Interests: The authors report indirect conflict related to a previous publication of a clinical practice guideline including recommendation on parastomal hernia prevention, and having conducted and published systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the topic of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Antoniou, Stabilini, Koutsiouroumpa, Mavridis and Muysoms.)

Introduction: Several risk factors for adverse events after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) have been described, but there is no consensus on their comparative prognostic significance, use in risk stratification and application in determining postoperative surveillance., Methods and Analysis: A scoping review of the literature was conducted to identify risk factors for adverse events after EVAR. Main adverse events were considered post-EVAR abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture and reintervention. Risk factors were grouped into four domains: (1) preoperative anatomy, (2) aortic device, (3) procedure performance and (4) postoperative surveillance. The Delphi methodology will be used to steer a group of experts in the field towards consensus organised into three tiers. In tier 1, participants will be asked to independently rate risk factors for adverse events after EVAR. In tier 2, the panel will be asked to independently rate a range of combinations of risk factors across the four domains derived from tier 1. A risk-stratification tool will then be built, which will include algorithms that map responses to signalling questions onto a proposed risk judgement for each domain. Domain-level judgements will in turn provide the basis for an overall risk judgement for the individual patient. In tier 3, risk factor-informed surveillance strategies will be developed. Each tier will typically include three rounds and rating will be conducted using a 4-point Likert scale, with an option for free-text responses., Ethics and Dissemination: Research Ethics Committee and Health Research Authority approval has been waived, since this is a professional staff study and no duty of care lies with the National Health Service to any of the participants. The results will be presented at regional, national and international meetings and will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. The risk stratification tool and surveillance algorithms will be made publicly available for clinical use and validation., Competing Interests: Competing interests: HJMV has conflicts of interest with Medtronic, WL Gore, Abbott, Endologix and Arsenal AAA. The rest of the authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Evidence and practice recommendations on the use of transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for rectal cancer are conflicting., Objective: We aimed to summarize best evidence and develop a rapid guideline using transparent, trustworthy, and standardized methodology., Methods: We developed a rapid guideline in accordance with GRADE, G-I-N, and AGREE II standards. The steering group consisted of general surgeons, members of the EAES Research Committee/Guidelines Subcommittee with expertise and experience in guideline development, advanced medical statistics and evidence synthesis, biostatisticians, and a guideline methodologist. The guideline panel consisted of four general surgeons practicing colorectal surgery, a radiologist with expertise in rectal cancer, a radiation oncologist, a pathologist, and a patient representative. We conducted a systematic review and the results of evidence synthesis by means of meta-analyses were summarized in evidence tables. Recommendations were authored and published through an online authoring and publication platform (MAGICapp), with the guideline panel making use of an evidence-to-decision framework and a Delphi process to arrive at consensus., Results: This rapid guideline provides a weak recommendation for the use of TaTME over laparoscopic or robotic TME for low rectal cancer when expertise is available. Furthermore, it details evidence gaps to be addressed by future research and discusses policy considerations. The guideline, with recommendations, evidence summaries, and decision aids in user-friendly formats can also be accessed in MAGICapp: https://app.magicapp.org/#/guideline/4494 ., Conclusions: This rapid guideline provides evidence-informed trustworthy recommendations on the use of TaTME for rectal cancer., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: The European Association for Endoscopic Surgery Bariatric Guidelines Group identified a gap in bariatric surgery recommendations with a structured, contextualized consideration of multiple bariatric interventions., Objective: To provide evidence-informed, transparent and trustworthy recommendations on the use of sleeve gastrectomy, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, adjustable gastric banding, gastric plication, biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch, one anastomosis gastric bypass, and single anastomosis duodeno-ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy in patients with severe obesity and metabolic diseases. Only laparoscopic procedures in adults were considered., Methods: A European interdisciplinary panel including general surgeons, obesity physicians, anesthetists, a psychologist and a patient representative informed outcome importance and minimal important differences. We conducted a systematic review and frequentist fixed and random-effects network meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) using the graph theory approach for each outcome. We calculated the odds ratio or the (standardized) mean differences with 95% confidence intervals for binary and continuous outcomes, respectively. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the CINeMA and GRADE methodologies. We considered the risk/benefit outcomes within a GRADE evidence to decision framework to arrive at recommendations, which were validated through an anonymous Delphi process of the panel., Results: We identified 43 records reporting on 24 RCTs. Most network information surrounded sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Under consideration of the certainty of the evidence and evidence to decision parameters, we suggest sleeve gastrectomy or laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass over adjustable gastric banding, biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch and gastric plication for the management of severe obesity and associated metabolic diseases. One anastomosis gastric bypass and single anastomosis duodeno-ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy are suggested as alternatives, although evidence on benefits and harms, and specific selection criteria is limited compared to sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. The guideline, with recommendations, evidence summaries and decision aids in user friendly formats can also be accessed in MAGICapp:  https://app.magicapp.org/#/guideline/Lpv2kE CONCLUSIONS: This rapid guideline provides evidence-informed, pertinent recommendations on the use of bariatric and metabolic surgery for the management of severe obesity and metabolic diseases. The guideline replaces relevant recommendations published in the EAES Bariatric Guidelines 2020., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Objective: To investigate the outcomes of treatment strategies for proximal and iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis (DVT)., Methods: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating outcomes of catheter directed thrombolysis (CDT), ultrasound assisted CDT (USCDT), percutaneous aspiration thrombectomy (PAT), and best medical therapy (BMT) for proximal DVT from 2000 onwards were considered. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched using the Healthcare Databases Advanced Search interface developed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. The primary outcome was the rate of post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS), which was defined using the Villalta scoring system (score of ≥5). Secondary outcomes included vessel patency, recurrence, bleeding, and mortality. The network of evidence was summarised using network plots, and random effects network meta-analyses were performed. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the Certainty In Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) approach., Results: Seven RCTs meeting the inclusion criteria were identified. There were direct comparisons between medical therapy, CDT, and USCDT across outcomes, except for patency. There were no direct comparisons between medical therapy and PAT (except for patency), and USCDT and PAT. There was no significant difference observed in PTS between the treatment modalities for proximal and iliofemoral DVT (low certainty). There was a significant difference in patency rates between medical therapy and USCDT (odds ratio [OR] 9.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.05 - 29.35; low certainty) and CDT (OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.46 - 2.80; low certainty) in favour of USCDT and CDT, respectively, for proximal DVT. USCDT significantly improved patency rates compared with CDT (OR 4.67, 95% CI 1.58 - 13.81; very low certainty) for proximal DVT. There was no significant difference in DVT recurrence, bleeding, or mortality between treatment groups for proximal and iliofemoral DVT (low to moderate certainty for most comparisons)., Conclusion: USCDT may improve patency rates compared with BMT and the other interventional treatment modalities used for the management of proximal DVT. However, no treatment modality showed superiority with regard to a reduction in PTS, and overall, the quality of available evidence is poor., (Copyright © 2021 European Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To inform the development of an AGREE II extension specifically tailored for surgical guidelines. AGREE II was designed to inform the development, reporting, and appraisal of clinical practice guidelines. Previous research has suggested substantial room for improvement of the quality of surgical guidelines., Methods: A previously published search in MEDLINE for clinical practice guidelines published by surgical scientific organizations with an international scope between 2008 and 2017, resulted in a total of 67 guidelines. The quality of these guidelines was assessed using AGREE II. We performed a series of statistical analyses (reliability, correlation and Factor Analysis, Item Response Theory) with the objective to calibrate AGREE II for use specifically in surgical guidelines., Results: Reliability/correlation/factor analysis and Item Response Theory produced similar results and suggested that a structure of 5 domains, instead of 6 domains of the original instrument, might be more appropriate. Furthermore, exclusion and re-arrangement of items to other domains was found to increase the reliability of AGREE II when applied in surgical guidelines., Conclusions: The findings of this study suggest that statistical calibration of AGREE II might improve the development, reporting, and appraisal of surgical guidelines.

Background: Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy is demonstrated to be related with a facilitation in thoracoscopic procedure. To give an update on the state of art of robotic esophagectomy for cancr a systematic review with meta-analysis has been performed. Methods: a search of the studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic or open esophagectomy was performed trough the medical libraries, with the search string "robotic and (oesophagus OR esophagus OR esophagectomy OR oesophagectomy)". Outcomes were: postoperative complications rate (anastomotic leakage, bleeding, wound infection, pneumonia, recurrent laryngeal nerves paralysis, chylotorax, mortality), intraoperative outcomes (mean blood loss, operative time and conversion), oncologic outcomes (harvested nodes, R0 resection, recurrence) and recovery outcomes (length of hospital stay). Results: Robotic approach is superior to open surgery in terms of blood loss p = 0.001, wound infection rate, p = 0.002, pneumonia rate, p = 0.030 and mean number of harvested nodes, p < 0.0001 and R0 resection rate, p = 0.043. Similarly, robotic approach is superior to conventional laparoscopy in terms of mean number of harvested nodes, p = 0.001 pneumonia rate, p = 0.003. Conclusions: robotic surgery could be considered superior to both open surgery and conventional laparoscopy. These encouraging results should promote the diffusion of the robotic surgery, with the creation of randomized trials to overcome selection bias.

Background: There is a lack of trustworthy evidence-informed guidelines on the diagnosis and management of acute appendicitis in elderly patients., Methods: We developed a rapid guideline in accordance with GRADE and AGREE II standards. The steering group consisted of general surgeons, members of the EAES Research Committee/Guidelines Subcommittee with expertise and experience in guideline development, advanced medical statistics and evidence synthesis, biostatisticians, and a guideline methodologist. The guideline panel consisted of three general surgeons, an intensive care physician, a geriatrician and a patient advocate. We conducted systematic reviews and the results of evidence synthesis were summarized in evidence tables. Recommendations were authored and published through an online authoring and publication platform (MAGICapp), with the guideline panel making use of an evidence-to-decision framework and a Delphi process to arrive at consensus., Results: This rapid guideline provides a weak recommendation against the use of clinical scoring systems to replace cross-sectional imaging in the diagnostic approach of suspected appendicitis in elderly patients. It provides a weak recommendation against the use of antibiotics alone over surgical treatment in patients who are deemed fit for surgery, and a weak recommendation for laparoscopic over open surgery. Furthermore, it provides a summary of surgery-associated risks in elderly patients. The guidelines, with recommendations, evidence summaries and decision aids in user-friendly formats can also be accessed in MAGICapp: https://app.magicapp.org/#/guideline/4494 ., Conclusions: This rapid guideline provides evidence-informed trustworthy recommendations on the diagnosis and management of acute appendicitis in elderly patients.

Background: AirSeal® is a valve-free insufflation system that enables a stable pneumoperitoneum with continuous smoke evacuation and CO 2 recirculation during laparoscopic surgery. Comparative evidence on the use of AirSeal® and standard CO 2 insufflator in laparoscopic general surgery procedures is scarce. The aim of this study was to compare surgical outcomes between AirSeal® and standard CO 2 insufflators in patients undergoing the most frequently performed laparoscopic procedures., Methods: One hundred and ninety-eight patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy, colorectal surgery and hernia repair were randomized to either AirSeal® (group A) or standard pressure CO 2 insufflator (group S). The primary endpoints were operative time and level of postoperative shoulder tip pain (Visual Analog Scale). Secondary outcomes included Clavien-Dindo grade complications, surgical side effect and length of hospital stay., Results: Patients were randomized to either group A (n = 101) or group S (n = 97) and were analyzed by intention-to-treat. There was no significant difference in mean operative time between the groups (median [IQR]; 71 min [56-94] in group A vs. 69 min [52-93] in group S; p = 0.434). Shoulder tip pain levels were significantly lower in group S (VAS 0 [0-3] in group S vs. 2 [0-4] in group A; p = 0.001). There was no significant difference in complications, surgical side effects (subcutaneous emphysema was not observed in any group) and length of hospital stay., Conclusion: This randomized controlled trial showed that using the AirSeal® system did not reduce operative time and was associated with a higher postoperative shoulder tip pain compared to standard CO 2 insufflator for short elective surgeries. ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01740011).

Introduction: Morbidity following open inguinal hernia repair is mainly related to chronic pain. ProGrip™ is a self-gripping mesh which aims to reduce rates of chronic pain. The aim of this study is to perform an update meta-analysis to consolidate the non-superiority hypothesis in terms of postoperative pain and recurrence and perform a trial sequential analysis., Methods: Systematic review of randomised controlled trials performed according to PRISMA guidelines. Pooled odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel (M-H) method. The primary outcome measure was postoperative pain and secondary outcomes were recurrence, operative time, wound complications, length of stay, re-operation rate, and cost. Trial sequential analysis was performed., Results: There were 14 studies included in the quantitative analysis with 3180 patients randomised to self-gripping mesh (1585) or standard mesh (1595). At all follow-up time points, there was no significant difference in the rates of chronic pain between the self-gripping and standard mesh (risk ratio, RR 1.10, 95% confidence interval, CI 0.83-1.46). There were no significant differences in recurrence rates (RR 1.13, CI 0.84-2.04). The mean operating time was significantly shorted in the ProGrip™ mesh group (MD - 7.32 min, CI - 10.21 to - 4.44). Trial sequential analysis suggests findings are conclusive., Conclusion: This meta-analysis has confirmed no benefit of a ProGrip™ mesh when compared to a standard sutured mesh for open inguinal hernia repair in terms of chronic pain or recurrence. No further trials are required to address this clinical question.

Background: This study aimed to quantify the risk of perioperative mortality in octogenarians undergoing emergency general surgical operations and to compare such risk between octogenarians and nonoctogenarians., Methods: A systematic review was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses standards to identify studies reporting the mortality risk in patients aged over 80 years undergoing emergency general surgery operations. The primary outcome measure was 30-day mortality, which was stratified based on American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) status and procedure type. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system. Random-effects models were applied to calculate pooled outcome data., Results: Analysis of 66,701 octogenarians from 22 studies showed that the risk of 30-day mortality was 26% (95% confidence interval 18%-34%) for all operations: 29% (95% confidence interval 25%-33%) for emergency laparotomy; 9% (95% confidence interval 1%-23%) for nonlaparotomy emergency operations; 21% (95% confidence interval 13%-30%) for colon resection; 17% (95% confidence interval 11%-25%) for small bowel resection; 9% (95% confidence interval 7%-11%) for adhesiolysis; 6% (95% confidence interval 5.9%-6.8%) for perforated ulcer repair; 3% (95% confidence interval 2.6%-4%) for appendicectomy; 3% (95% confidence interval 2.8%-3.3%) for cholecystectomy; and 5% (95% confidence interval 0.2%-14%) for hernia repair. When stratified based on the patient's ASA status, the risk was 11% (95% confidence interval 4%-20%) for ASA 2 status, 22% (95% confidence interval 10%-36%) for ASA 3 status, 39% (95% confidence interval 29%-48%) for ASA 4 status, and 94% (95% confidence interval 77%-100%) for ASA 5 status. The risk was higher in octogenarians compared with nonoctogenarians (odds ratio: 4.07, 95% confidence interval 2.40-6.89), patients aged 70 to 79 (odds ratio: 1.21, 95% confidence interval 1.13-1.31), and patients aged 50 to 79 (odds ratio: 2.03, 95% confidence interval 1.68-2.45)., Conclusion: The risk of perioperative mortality in octogenarians undergoing emergency general surgical operations is high. The risk of perioperative death in this group is higher than in younger patients. Laparotomy, bowel resection, and ASA status above 3 carry the highest risk., (Crown Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The incidence of incisional hernia is up to 20 per cent after abdominal surgery. The management of patients with incisional hernia can be complex with an array of techniques and meshes available. Ensuring consistency in reporting outcomes across studies on incisional hernia is important and will enable appropriate interpretation, comparison and data synthesis across a range of clinical and operative treatment strategies., Methods: Literature searches were performed in MEDLINE and EMBASE (from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2019) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. All studies documenting clinical and patient-reported outcomes for incisional hernia were included., Results: In total, 1340 studies were screened, of which 92 were included, reporting outcomes on 12 292 patients undergoing incisional hernia repair. Eight broad-based outcome domains were identified, including patient and clinical demographics, hernia-related symptoms, hernia morphology, recurrent incisional hernia, operative variables, postoperative variables, follow-up and patient-reported outcomes. Clinical outcomes such as hernia recurrence rates were reported in 80 studies (87 per cent). A total of nine different definitions for detecting hernia recurrence were identified. Patient-reported outcomes were reported in 31 studies (34 per cent), with 18 different assessment measures used., Conclusions: This review demonstrates the significant heterogeneity in outcome reporting in incisional hernia studies, with significant variation in outcome assessment and definitions. This is coupled with significant under-reporting of patient-reported outcomes., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Society Ltd.)

Background: Over the past 25 years, the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) has been issuing clinical guidance documents to aid surgical practice. We aimed to investigate the awareness and use of such documents among EAES members. Additionally, we conceptually appraised the methodology used in their development in order to propose a bundle of actions for quality improvement and increased penetration of clinical practice guidelines among EAES members., Methods: We invited members of EAES to participate in a web-based survey on awareness and use of these documents. Post hoc analyses were performed to identify factors associated with poor awareness/use and the reported reasons for limited use. We further summarized and conceptually analyzed key methodological features of clinical guidance documents published by EAES., Results: Three distinct consecutive phases of methodological evolvement of clinical guidance documents were evident: a "consensus phase," a "guideline phase," and a "transitional phase". Out of a total of 254 surgeons who completed the survey, 72% percent were aware of EAES guidelines and 47% reported occasional use. Young age and trainee status were associated with poor awareness and use. Restriction by colleagues was the primary reason for limited use in these subgroups., Conclusions: The methodology of EAES clinical guidance documents is evolving. Awareness among EAES members is fair, but use is limited. Dissemination actions should be directed to junior surgeons and trainees.

Objective: To investigate whether a percutaneous approach has better clinical outcomes than surgical access for standard endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms., Data Sources: MEDLINE and Embase were searched using the Healthcare Databases Advanced Search interface developed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence., Review Methods: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared percutaneous and cutdown endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) were considered. Pooled effect estimates were calculated using the odds ratio (OR), risk difference, or mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). The Mantel-Haenszel or inverse variance statistical method was used as appropriate. Trial sequential analysis was performed to quantify the available evidence and control for the risk of type 1 and type 2 error. Risk of bias was assessed with the revised tool developed by Cochrane and the quality of evidence was graded using the GRADE system (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation)., Results: Four RCTs were identified, reporting a total of 368 patients and 530 access sites. Meta-analysis showed no difference in access site complications or infection, post-operative bleeding/haematoma, access related arterial injury, femoral artery occlusion, pseudo-aneurysm, or peri-operative mortality between percutaneous and cutdown EVAR. Seroma/lymphorrhoea was significantly less frequent after percutaneous EVAR (0%) compared with cutdown EVAR (3%; OR 0.18 [95% CI 0.04-0.83]) and the procedure time was significantly shorter (MD -11.53 minutes; 95% CI -15.71-7.34), but hospital length of stay was not different between treatments. Neither the O'Brien-Fleming boundaries nor the futility boundaries were crossed by the cumulative Z curve, and the required information size was not reached for any of the outcomes. All trials were judged to be high risk of bias or have some concerns, and the level of the body of evidence was low or very low for all outcomes., Conclusion: The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of percutaneous EVAR on clinically important outcomes., (Copyright © 2020 European Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The aim of this review was to investigate comparative outcomes of fenestrated or branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F/BEVAR) with open repair for juxta/para/suprarenal or thoraco-abdominal aortic aneurysms., Methods: Electronic bibliographic sources (MEDLINE and Embase) were interrogated using the Healthcare Databases Advanced Search interface. Eligible studies compared F/BEVAR with open repair for complex aortic aneurysms using propensity score or Cox regression modelling/multivariable logistic regression analysis. Pooled estimates of peri-operative outcomes were calculated using the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). The result of time to event analysis was reported as summary hazard ratio (HR) and 95% CI. Random effects models and the inverse variance method were applied. The quality of evidence was graded using the system developed by the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) working group., Results: Eleven studies published between 2014 and 2019 were selected for inclusion in qualitative and quantitative synthesis reporting a total of at least 7 061 patients. The odds of peri-operative mortality after F/BEVAR were lower, although not significantly, than after open repair (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.28-1.12), whereas the hazard of overall mortality during follow up was higher following F/BEVAR, but, again, without reaching statistical significance (HR 1.25, 95% CI 0.93-1.67). The hazard of re-intervention was significantly higher after endovascular therapy (HR 2.11, 95% CI 1.39-3.18). The certainty for the body of evidence for peri-operative and overall mortality during follow up was judged to be very low and moderate, respectively, and for re-intervention it was judged to be high., Conclusion: The evidence is uncertain about the effect of F/BEVAR on peri-operative mortality when compared with open repair. There is probably no difference in overall survival, but F/BEVAR results in an increased re-intervention hazard. There is a need for high level evidence to inform decision making and vascular/aortic service provision., (Copyright © 2020 European Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: COVID-19 pandemic presented an unexpected challenge for the surgical community in general and Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS) specialists in particular. This document aims to summarize recent evidence and experts' opinion and formulate recommendations to guide the surgical community on how to best organize the recovery plan for surgical activity across different sub-specialities after the COVID-19 pandemic., Methods: Recommendations were developed through a Delphi process for establishment of expert consensus. Domain topics were formulated and subsequently subdivided into questions pertinent to different surgical specialities following the COVID-19 crisis. Sixty-five experts from 24 countries, representing the entire EAES board, were invited. Fifty clinicians and six engineers accepted the invitation and drafted statements based on specific key questions. Anonymous voting on the statements was performed until consensus was achieved, defined by at least 70% agreement., Results: A total of 92 consensus statements were formulated with regard to safe resumption of surgery across eight domains, addressing general surgery, upper GI, lower GI, bariatrics, endocrine, HPB, abdominal wall and technology/research. The statements addressed elective and emergency services across all subspecialties with specific attention to the role of MIS during the recovery plan. Eighty-four of the statements were approved during the first round of Delphi voting (91.3%) and another 8 during the following round after substantial modification, resulting in a 100% consensus., Conclusion: The recommendations formulated by the EAES board establish a framework for resumption of surgery following COVID-19 pandemic with particular focus on the role of MIS across surgical specialities. The statements have the potential for wide application in the clinical setting, education activities and research work across different healthcare systems.

Anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy is a severe and life-threatening complication. Gastric ischemic preconditioning is a strategy for the improvement of anastomotic healing. Aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to investigate the impact of gastric ischemic preconditioning on postoperative morbidity. A systematic literature search was performed to identify studies comparing patients undergoing gastric ischemic preconditioning before esophagectomy with nonpreconditioned patients. Meta-analysis was conducted for the overall incidence of anastomotic leakage, severe anastomotic leakage, anastomotic stricture, postoperative morbidity, and mortality. Mantel-Haenszel odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Subgroup analyses were performed concerning preconditioning technique, the interval between preconditioning and surgery and the extent of preconditioning. Fifteen cohort studies were identified. Gastric preconditioning was associated with reduced overall incidence of anastomotic leakage (OR 0.73; 95% CI, 0.53-1.0; P = 0.050) and severe anastomotic leakage (OR 0.27; 95% CI, 0.14-0.50; P < 0.010), but not with anastomotic stricture (OR 1.18; 95% CI 0.38 to 3.66; P = 0.780), major postoperative morbidity (OR 1.03; 95% CI 0.45 to 2.36; P = 0.940) or mortality (OR 0.69; 95% CI 0.39 to 1,23; P = 0.210). Subgroup analyses did not identify any differences between embolization and ligation while increasing the interval between preconditioning and esophagectomy as well as the extent of preconditioning might be beneficial. Gastric ischemic preconditioning may be associated with a reduced incidence of overall and severe anastomotic leakage. Randomized studies are necessary to further evaluate its impact on leakage, refine the technique and define patient populations that will benefit the most., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

The accrual of clinical studies poses important challenges to researchers and practitioners, especially in the field of endovascular therapy, where patient, lesion, technique, and device subtleties abound. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses may prove particularly fruitful in such settings by increasing statistical precision and bolstering external validity if the evidence base on a specific topic is consistent or by highlighting important discrepancies in the opposite scenario. However, mastering the correct approach to systematic review and meta-analysis is challenging for careful readers or for those interested in conducting such an evidence synthesis exercise. The present article highlights a stepwise approach to systematic reviews and meta-analyses, focusing on endovascular interventions, which will prove useful to anyone reading or wishing to synthesize the evidence base on endovascular topics to optimize decision making or shape future research efforts.