Giuseppe Noya

Robotic resection compared with laparoscopic rectal resection for cancer: systematic review and meta‐analysis of short‐term outcome

Aim  The study aimed to compare robotic rectal resection with laparoscopic rectal resection for cancer. Robotic surgery has been used successfully in many branches of surgery but there is little evidence in the literature on its use in rectal cancer.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Single‐incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) may offer advantages over conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).

Long-Term Metabolic and Immunological Follow-Up of Nonimmunosuppressed Patients With Type 1 Diabetes Treated With Microencapsulated Islet Allografts Four cases

OBJECTIVE To assess long-term metabolic and immunological follow-up of microencapsulated human islet allografts in nonimmunosuppressed patients with type 1 diabetes (T1DM). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Four nonimmunosuppressed patients, with long-standing T1DM, received intraperitoneal transplant (TX) of microencapsulated human islets. Anti-major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class I–II, GAD65, and islet cell antibodies were measured before and long term after TX. RESULTS All patients turned positive for serum C-peptide response, both in basal and after stimulation, throughout 3 years of posttransplant follow-up. Daily mean blood glucose, as well as HbA1c levels, significantly improved after TX, with daily exogenous insulin consumption declining in all cases and being discontinued, just transiently, only in patient 4. Anti-MHC class I–II and GAD65 antibodies all tested negative at 3 years after TX. CONCLUSIONS The grafts did not elicit any immune response, even in the cases where more than one preparation was transplanted, as a unique finding, compatible with encapsulation-driven “bioinvisibility” of the grafted islets. This result had never been achieved with the recipient’s general immunosuppression.

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy compared with other bariatric surgical procedures: a systematic review of randomized trials

BACKGROUND The evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) has been mostly based on the data derived from nonrandomized studies. The objective of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of LSG and to present an up-to-date review of the available evidence based on the recent publications of new randomized, controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched until November 2012 for RCTs on LSG. RESULTS Fifteen RCTs, comprising a total of 1191 patients, of whom 795 had undergone LSG, were included. No patient required conversion to open surgery for LSG, laparoscopic gastric bypass (LGB), or laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) procedures. There were no deaths, and the complication rate was 12.1% (range 10%-13.2%) in the LSG group versus 20.9% (range 10%-26.4%) in the LGB group, and 0% in the LAGB group (only 1 RCT). The complications included leakage, bleeding, stricture, and reoperation that occurred with rates of .9%, 3.3%, 0%, and 2.1%, respectively, in the LSG group and rates of 0%, 5%, 0%, and 4%, respectively, in the LGB group. The average operating time in the LSG group was 106.5 minutes versus 132.3 minutes in the LGB group. The percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL) ranged from 49% to 81% in the LSG group, from 62.1% to 94.4% in the LGB group, and from 28.7% to 48% in the LAGB group, with a follow-up ranging from 6 months to 3 years. The type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) remission rate ranged from 26.5% to 75% in the LSG group and from 42% to 93% in the LGB group. CONCLUSIONS LSG is a well-tolerated, feasible procedure with a relatively short operating time. Its effectiveness in terms of weight loss is confirmed for short-term follow-up (≤ 3 years). The role of LSG in the treatment of T2DM requires further investigation.

Loop ileostomy versus loop colostomy for fecal diversion after colorectal or coloanal anastomosis: a meta-analysis

AbstractBackgroundSphincter-saving surgery for the treatment of middle and low rectal cancer has spread considerably when total mesorectal excision became standard treatment. In order to reduce leakage-related complications, surgeons often perform a derivative stoma, a loop ileostomy (LI), or a loop colostomy (LC), but to date, there is no evidence on which is the better technique to adopt.MethodsWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials until 2007 and observational studies comparing temporary LI and LC for temporary decompression of colorectal and/or coloanal anastomoses.Clinically relevant events were grouped into four study outcomes: general outcome measures: dehydratation and wound infection GOMconstruction of the stoma outcome measures: parastomal hernia, stenosis, sepsis, prolapse, retraction, necrosis, and hemorrhageclosure of the stoma outcome measures: anastomotic leak or fistula, wound infection COM, occlusion and herniafunctioning of the stoma outcome measures: occlusion and skin irritation.ResultsTwelve comparative studies were included in this analysis, five randomized controlled trials and seven observational studies. Overall, the included studies reported on 1,529 patients, 894 (58.5%) undergoing defunctioning LI. LI reduced the risk of construction of the stoma outcome measure (odds ratio, OR = 0.47). Specifically, patients undergoing LI had a lower risk of prolapse (OR = 0.21) and sepsis (OR = 0.54). LI was associated with an excess risk of occlusion after stoma closure (OR = 2.13) and dehydratation (OR = 4.61). No other significant difference was found for outcomes.ConclusionOur overview shows that LI is associated with a lower risk of construction of the stoma outcome measures.

Laparoscopic vs open resection for rectal cancer: a meta‐analysis of randomized clinical trials

Aim  Laparoscopic and open rectal resection for cancer were compared by analysing a total of 26 end points which included intraoperative and postoperative recovery, short‐term morbidity and mortality, late morbidity and long‐term oncological outcomes.

Venous thromboembolism after laparoscopic bariatric surgery for morbid obesity: clinical burden and prevention

BACKGROUND The clinical benefit of prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism (VTE) in laparoscopic bariatric surgery is unclear. Our objective was to assess the clinical burden of VTE after laparoscopic bariatric surgery. METHODS We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. Studies were considered for the review if they reported on the methods used for antithrombotic prophylaxis and on the incidence of objectively confirmed VTE in patients who had undergone laparoscopic bariatric surgery. RESULTS Overall, 19 studies were included in the analysis. The weighted mean incidence (WMI) of pulmonary embolism was .5% (12 events in 3991 patients, 12 studies; 95% confidence interval [CI] .2-.9%; I(2) 38%) with unfractionated heparin (5000 UI twice or 3 times daily) or low-molecular-weight heparin (30 mg twice daily or 40 mg once daily). The WMI of major bleeding as originally reported in 7 of these studies was 3.6% (2741 patients; 95% CI .9-7.95; I(2) 94%). The WMI of screened VTE in 3 high-quality studies with different regimens of heparin prophylaxis was 2.0% (8 events in 458 patients; 95% CI .9-3.5%; I(2) 0%). The WMI of symptomatic VTE was .6% (4 studies; 7 events in 1328 patients; 95% CI .3-1.1%; I(2) 0%) and that of major bleeding was 2.0% (95% CI 1.0-3.4%; I(2) 55%), with weight-adjusted doses of heparin prophylaxis. CONCLUSION The rate of VTE after laparoscopic bariatric surgery seems to be relatively low with standard regimens for antithrombotic prophylaxis. The incidence of major bleeding seems to increase using weight-adjusted doses of heparin with no advantage in terms of VTE reduction.

High tie versus low tie of the inferior mesenteric artery in colorectal cancer: A RCT is needed

Nowadays left colon and rectal cancer treatment has been well standardized in both open and laparoscopy. Nevertheless, the level of the ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA), at the origin from the aorta (high tie) or below the origin of the left colic artery (low tie), is still debated. The objective of the systematic review is to evaluate the current scientific evidence of high versus low tie of the IMA in colorectal cancer surgery. The outcomes considered were overall 30-days postoperative morbidity, overall 30-days postoperative mortality, anastomotic leakage, 5-years survival rate, and overall recurrence rate. A total of 8.666 patients were included in our analysis, 4.281 forming the group undergoing high tie versus 4.385 patients undergoing low tie. Neither the high tie nor the low tie strategy showed an evidence based success, as no statistically significant differences were identified for all outcomes measured. Future high powered and well designed randomized clinical trials are needed to draw definitive conclusion on this dilemma.

Treatment of Hinchey stage III–IV diverticulitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundThis manuscript is a review of different surgical techniques to manage perforated colon diverticulitis.ObjectiveThis study was conducted to compare the benefits and disadvantages of different surgical treatments for Hinchey III or IV type of colon diverticulitis.MethodsA systematic search was conducted in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Science Citation Index (1990 and 2011). A total of 1,809 publications were identified and 14 studies with 1,041 patients were included in the study. Any surgical treatment was considered in this review. Mortality was considered the primary outcome, whereas hospital stay and reoperation rate were considered secondary outcomes.ResultsPrimary resection with anastomosis has a significant advantage in terms of lower mortality rate with respect to Hartmann’s procedure (P = 0.02). The postoperative length of hospitalization was significantly shorter in the resection with anastomosis group (P < 0.001). Different findings have emerged from studies of patients with the primary resection with anastomosis vs laparoscopic peritoneal lavage and subsequent resection: overall surgical morbidity and hospital stay were lower in the laparoscopic peritoneal lavage group compared to the primary resection and anastomosis group (P < 0.001).ConclusionsDespite numerous published articles on operative treatments for patients with generalized peritonitis from perforated diverticulitis, we found a marked heterogeneity between included studies limiting the possibility to summarize in a metanalytical method the data provided and make difficult to synthesize data in a quantitative fashion. The advantages in the group of colon resection with primary anastomosis in terms of lower mortality rate and postoperative stay should be interpreted with caution because of several limitations. Future randomized controlled trials are needed to further evaluate different surgical treatments for patients with generalized peritonitis from perforated diverticulitis.

Is laparoscopic right colectomy more effective than open resection? A meta‐analysis of randomized and nonrandomized studies

Aim  The aim of this systematic review was to compare laparoscopic and/or laparoscopic‐assisted right colectomy (LRC) with open right colectomy (ORC). Many randomized clinical trial have shown that laparoscopic colectomy benefits patients with improved short‐term outcomes and comparable overall survival in respect to the open approach. These results, however, could not be applied to right colectomy owing to its wide range of resection and more complicated vascular regional anatomy.