Rossita M. Yunus

Early versus traditional postoperative feeding in patients undergoing resectional gastrointestinal surgery: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND A meta-analysis evaluating surgical outcomes following nutritional provision provided proximal to the anastomosis within 24 hours of gastrointestinal surgery compared with traditional postoperative management was conducted. METHODS Databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials comparing the outcomes of early and traditional postoperative feeding. Trials involving gastrointestinal tract resection followed by patients receiving nutritionally significant oral or enteral intake within 24 hours after surgery were included for analysis. RESULTS Fifteen studies involving a total of 1240 patients were analyzed. A statistically significant reduction (45%) in relative odds of total postoperative complications was seen in patients receiving early postoperative feeding (odds ratio [OR] 0.55; confidence interval [CI], 0.35 -0.87, P = .01). No effect of early feeding was seen with relation to anastomotic dehiscence (OR 0.75; CI, 0.39-1.4, P = .39), mortality (OR 0.71; CI, 0.32-1.56, P = .39), days to passage of flatus (weighted mean difference [WMD] -0.42; CI, -1.12 to 0.28, P = .23), first bowel motion (WMD -0.28; CI, -1.20 to 0.64, P = .55), or reduced length of stay (WMD -1.28; CI, -2.94 to 0.38, P = .13); however, the direction of clinical outcomes favored early feeding. Nasogastric tube reinsertion was less common in traditional feeding interventions (OR 1.48; CI, 0.93-2.35, P = .10). CONCLUSIONS Early postoperative nutrition is associated with significant reductions in total complications compared with traditional postoperative feeding practices and does not negatively affect outcomes such as mortality, anastomotic dehiscence, resumption of bowel function, or hospital length of stay.

Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials Comparing Open and Laparoscopic Anti-Reflux Surgery

OBJECTIVES:The aim of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis of randomized evidence to determine the relative merits of laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery (LARS) and open anti-reflux surgery (OARS) for proven gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD).METHODS:A search of the Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index, Current Contents, and PubMed databases identified all randomized clinical trials that compared LARS and OARS and that were published in the English language between 1990 and 2007. A meta-analysis was carried out in accordance with the QUOROM (Quality of Reporting of Meta-Analyses) statement. The six outcome variables analyzed were operating time, hospital stay, return to normal activity, perioperative complications, treatment failure, and requirement for further surgery. Random-effects meta-analyses were carried out using odds ratios (ORs) and weighted mean differences (WMDs).RESULTS:Twelve trials were considered suitable for the meta-analysis. A total of 503 patients underwent OARS and 533 had LARS. For three of the six outcomes, the summary point estimates favored LARS over OARS. There was a significant reduction of 2.68 days in the duration of hospital stay for the LARS group compared with that for the OARS group (WMD: −2.68, 95% confidence interval (CI): −3.54 to −1.81; P<0.0001), a significant reduction of 7.75 days in return to normal activity for the LARS group compared with that for the OARS group (WMD: −7.75, 95% CI: −14.37 to −1.14; P=0.0216), and finally, there was a statistically significant reduction of 65% in the relative odds of complication rates for the LARS group compared with that for the OARS group (OR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.16–0.75; P=0.0072). The duration of operating time was significantly longer (39.02 min) in the LARS group (WMD: 39.02, 95% CI: 17.99–60.05; P=0.0003). Treatment failure rates were comparable between the two groups (OR: 1.39, 95% CI: 0.71–2.72; P=0.3423). Despite this, the requirement for further surgery was significantly higher in the LARS group (OR: 1.79, 95% CI: 1.00–3.22; P=0.05).CONCLUSIONS:On the basis of this meta-analysis, the authors conclude that LARS is an effective and safe alternative to OARS for the treatment of proven GERD. LARS enables a faster convalescence and return to productive activity, with a reduced risk of complications and a similar treatment outcome, than an open approach. However, there is a significantly higher rate of re-operation (79%) in the LARS group.

Suture cruroplasty versus prosthetic hiatal herniorrhaphy for large hiatal hernia: a meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Objective:The aim was to conduct a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing 2 methods of hiatal closure for large hiatal hernia and to evaluate their strengths and flaws. Methods:Prospective RCTs comparing suture cruroplasty versus prosthetic hiatal herniorrhaphy for large hiatal hernia were selected by searching PubMed, Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index, Current Contents, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials published between January 1991 and October 2014. The outcome variables analyzed included operating time, complications, recurrence of hiatal hernia or wrap migration, and reoperation. These outcomes were unanimously decided to be important because they influence the practical approach toward patient management. Random effects model was used to calculate the effect size of both dichotomous and continuous data. Heterogeneity among the outcome variables of these trials was determined by the Cochrans Q statistic and I2 index. The meta-analysis was prepared in accordance with Preferred Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Results:Four RCTs were analyzed totaling 406 patients (Suture = 186, Prosthesis = 220). For only 1 of the 4 outcomes, ie, reoperation rate (OR 3.73, 95% CI 1.18, 11.82, P = 0.03), the pooled effect size favored prosthetic hiatal herniorrhaphy over suture cruroplasty. For other outcomes, comparable effect sizes were noted for both groups which included recurrence of hiatal hernia or wrap migration (OR 2.01, 95% CI 0.92, 4.39, P = 0.07), operating time (SMD −0.46, 95% CI −1.16, −0.24, P = 0.19) and complication rates (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.45, 2.50, P = 0.90). Conclusions:On the basis of our meta-analysis and its limitations, we believe that the prosthetic hiatal herniorrhaphy and suture cruroplasty produces comparable results for repair of large hiatal hernias. In the future, a number of issues need to be addressed to determine the clinical outcomes, safety, and effectiveness of these 2 methods for elective surgical treatment of large hiatal hernias. Presently, the use of prosthetic hiatal herniorrhaphy for large hiatal hernia cannot be endorsed routinely and the decision for the placement of mesh needs to be individualized based on the operative findings and the surgeons recommendation.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Perioperative Outcomes of Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy (POEM) and Laparoscopic Heller Myotomy (LHM) for Achalasia.

Aims and Objectives: Laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM) is the preferred surgical method for treating achalasia. However, peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is providing good short-term results. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the safety and efficacy of LHM and POEM. Materials and Methods: A search of PubMed, Cochrane database, Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index, and current contents for English-language articles comparing LHM and POEM between 2007 and 2016 was performed. Variables analyzed included prior endoscopic treatment, prior medical treatment, prior Heller myotomy, operative time, overall complications rate, postoperative gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), length of hospital stay, postoperative pain score, and long-term GERD. Results: Seven trials consisting of 483 (LHM=250, POEM=233) patients were analyzed. Preoperative variables, for example, prior endoscopic treatment [odds ratio (OR), 1.32; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.23-4.61; P=0.96], prior medical treatment [weighted mean difference (WMD), 1.22; 95% CI, 0.52-2.88; P=0.65], and prior Heller myotomy (WMD, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.13-1.67; P=0.25) were comparable. Operative time was 26.28 minutes, nonsignificantly longer for LHM (WMD, 26.28; 95% CI, −11.20 to 63.70; P=0.17). There was a comparable overall complication rate (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.56-2.77; P=0.59), postoperative GERD rate (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.70-2.30; P=0.44), length of hospital stay (WMD, 0.30; 95% CI, −0.24 to 0.85; P=0.28), postoperative pain score (WMD, −0.26; 95% CI, −1.58 to 1.06; P=0.70), and long-term GERD (WMD, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.27-4.1; P=0.08) for both procedures. There was a significantly higher short-term clinical treatment failure rate for LHM (OR, 9.82; 95% CI, 2.06-46.80; P<0.01). Conclusions: POEM compares favorably to LHM for achalasia treatment in short-term perioperative outcomes. However, there was a significantly higher clinical treatment failure rate for LHM on short-term postoperative follow-up. Presently long-term postoperative follow-up data for POEM beyond 1 year are unavailable and eagerly awaited.

Carbon dioxide versus air insufflation for elective colonoscopy: A meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Aims and Objective: The aim of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing 2 methods of colonic insufflation for elective colonoscopy, that is, carbon dioxide (CO2) or air, and to evaluate their efficiency, safety, and side effects. Materials and Methods: Prospective RCTs comparing CO2 versus air insufflation for colonic distension during colonoscopy were selected by searching PubMed, Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index, Current Contents, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials published between January 1980 and October 2014.The outcome variables analyzed included procedural and immediate postprocedural pain (during, end, or within 15 min after procedure), early postprocedural pain (between 30 and 120 min), intermediate postprocedural pain (360 min) and late postprocedural pain (720 to 1140 min), cecal/ileal intubation rate, cecal/ileal intubation time, and total colonoscopy examination time. These outcomes were unanimously decided to be important as they influence the practical approach toward patient management within and outside of hospital. Random effects model was used to calculate the effect size of both binary and continuous data. Heterogeneity among the outcome variables of these trials was determined by the Cochran Q statistic and I2 index. The meta-analysis was prepared in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Results: Twenty-four RCTs totaling 3996 patients (CO2=2017, Air=1979) were analyzed. Statistically significant differences for the pooled effect size were observed for procedural and immediate postprocedural pain [weighted mean difference (WMD)=0.49; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.32, 0.73; P=0.0005], early postprocedural pain between 30 and 120 minutes (WMD=0.25; 95% CI, 0.12, 0.49; P<0.0001), intermediate postprocedural pain, that is, 360 minutes after completion (WMD=0.35; 95% CI, 0.23, 0.52; P<0.0001), and late postprocedural pain between 720 and 1440 minutes (WMD=0.53; 95% CI, 0.34, 0.84; P=0.0061). Comparable effects were noted for cecal/ileal intubation rate (WMD=0.86; 95% CI, 0.61, 1.22; P=0.3975), cecal/ileal intubation time (WMD=−0.64; 95% CI, −1.38, 0.09; P=0.0860), and total examination time (WMD=−0.20; 95% CI, −0.96, 0.57; P=0.6133). Conclusions: On the basis of our meta-analysis and systematic review, we conclude that CO2 insufflation significantly reduces abdominal pain during and following the procedure lasting up to 24 hours. There is no difference in the cecal/ileal intubation rate and time and total examination time between the 2 methods. CO2 retention with CO2 insufflation during and after the colonoscopy shows inconsequential variation compared with air insufflation and has no adverse effect on patients. CO2 instead of air should be routinely utilized for colonoscopy.

Weight loss outcomes in laparoscopic vertical sleeve gastrectomy (LVSG) versus laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) procedures: a meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Purpose: Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) and laparoscopic vertical sleeve gastrectomy (LVSG) have been proposed as cost-effective strategies to manage morbid obesity. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the postoperative weight loss outcomes reported in randomized control trials (RCTs) for LVSG versus LRYGB procedures. Material and Methods: RCTs comparing the weight loss outcomes following LVSG and LRYGB in adult population between January 2000 and November 2015 were selected from PubMed, Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index, Current Contents, and the Cochrane database. The review was prepared in accordance with Preferred Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Results: Nine unique RCTs described over 10 publications involving a total of 865 patients (LVSG, n=437; LRYGB, n=428) were analyzed. Postoperative follow-up ranged from 3 months to 5 years. Twelve-month excess weight loss (EWL) for LVSG ranged from 69.7% to 83%, and for LRYGB, ranged from 60.5% to 86.4%. A number of studies reported slow weight gain between the second and third years of postoperative follow-up ranging from 1.4% to 4.2%EWL. This trend was seen to continue to 5 years postoperatively (8% to 10%EWL) for both procedures. Conclusions: In conclusion, LRYGB and LVSG are comparable with regards to the weight loss outcomes in the short term, with LRYGB achieving slightly greater weight loss. Slow weight recidivism is observed after the first postoperative year following both procedures. Long-term reporting of outcomes obtained from well-designed studies using intention-to-treat analyses are identified as a major gap in the literature at present.

Late Postoperative Complications in Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy (LVSG) Versus Laparoscopic Roux-en-y Gastric Bypass (LRYGB): Meta-analysis and Systematic Review.

Aims and Objectives: Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) and laparoscopic vertical sleeve gastrectomy (LVSG), have been proposed as cost-effective strategies to manage obesity-related chronic disease. The objectives of this meta-analysis and systematic review were to analyze the “late postoperative complication rate (>30 days)” for these 2 procedures. Materials and Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 2000 and 2015 comparing the late complication rates, that is, >30 days following LVSG and LRYGB in adult population (ie, 16 y and above) were selected from PubMed, Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index, Current Contents, and the Cochrane database. The outcome variables analyzed included mortality rate, major and minor complications, and interventions required for their management and readmission rates. Random effects model was used to calculate the effect size of both binary and continuous data. Heterogeneity among the outcome variables of these trials was determined by the Cochran Q statistic and I2 index. The meta-analysis was prepared in accordance with the Preferred Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Results: Six RCTs involving a total of 685 patients (LVSG, n=345; LRYGB, n=340) reported late major complications. A nonstatistical reduction in relative odds favoring the LVSG procedure was observed [odds ratio (OR), 0.64; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.21-1.97; P=0.4]. Four RCTs representing 408 patients (LVSG, n=208; LRYGB, n=200) reported late minor complications. A nonstatistically significant reduction of 36% in relative odds favoring the LVSG procedure was observed (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.28-1.47; P=0.3). A 37% relative reduction in odds was observed in favor of the LVSG for the need for additional interventions to manage late postoperative complications that did not reach statistical significance (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.19-2.05; P=0.4). No study specifically reported readmissions required for the management of late complication. Conclusions: This meta-analysis and systematic review of RCTs shows that the development of late (major and minor) complications is similar between LVSG and LRYGB procedures, 6 months to 3 years postoperatively, and they do not lead to higher readmission rate or reoperation rate for either procedure. However longer-term surveillance is required to accurately describe the patterns of late complications in these patients.

Increasing the Power of the Test Through Pre-Test – A Robust Method

Robust test procedures are developed for testing the intercept of a simple regression model when the slope is (i) completely unspecified, (ii) specified to a fixed value, or (iii) suspected to be a fixed value. Defining (i) unrestricted (UT), (ii) restricted (RT), and (iii) pre-test test (PTT) functions for the intercept parameter under the three choices of the slope, tests are formulated using the M-estimation methodology. The asymptotic distributions of the test statistics and their asymptotic power functions are derived. The analytical and graphical comparisons of the tests reveal that the PTT achieves a reasonable dominance over the other tests.

The bivariate noncentral chi-square distribution - A compound distribution approach

This paper proposes the bivariate noncentral chi-square (BNC) distribution by compounding the Poisson probabilities with the bivariate central chi-square distribution. The probability density and cumulative distribution functions of the joint distribution of the two noncentral chi-square variables are derived for arbitrary values of the correlation coefficient, degrees of freedom(s), and noncentrality parameters. Computational procedures to calculate the upper tail probabilities as well as the percentile points for selected values of the parameters, for both equal and unequal degrees of freedom, are discussed. The graphical representation of the distribution for different values of the parameters are provided. Some applications of the distribution are outlined.

Meta-analysis of early endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) ± endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) versus conservative management for gallstone pancreatitis (GSP)

Context: The utility of early endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)±endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) in the treatment of gallstone pancreatitis (GSP) is still contentious. Objectives: The aim was to conduct a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the treatment of GSP by early ERCP±ES versus conservative management and analyzing the patient outcomes. Data Sources: A search of Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index, Current Contents, PubMed, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews identified all RCTs comparing early ERCP to conservative management in GSP published between January 1970 and January 2014. Search terms included “Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)”; “Endoscopic sphincterotomy”; “Gallstones”; “Bile duct stones”; “Gallstone pancreatitis”; “Biliary pancreatitis”; “Randomize/Randomised controlled trials”; “Conservative management/treatment”; “Human”; “English.” Study Eligibility Criteria, Participants, and Interventions: Only prospective RCTs comparing early intervention (ie, between 24 and 72 h) with ERCP±ES versus conservative management in GSP were included. Study Appraisal and Synthesis Methods: Data extraction and critical appraisal was carried out independently by 2 authors (M.J.B. and M.A.M.) using predefined data fields. Variables analyzed included severity of pancreatitis (mild or severe), overall mortality, overall complications which included pseudocyst formation, organ failure (renal, respiratory, and cardiac), abnormal coagulation, biliary sepsis, and development of pancreatic abscess/phlegmon. The quality of RCTs was assessed using Jadad’s scoring system. Random-effects model was used to calculate the outcomes of both binary and continuous data. Heterogeneity among the outcome variables of these trials was determined by the Cochran Q statistic and I2 index. The meta-analysis was prepared in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines. Results: Eleven RCTs consisting of 1314 patients (conservative management=662, ERCP=652) were analyzed. There was a near significant decrease in mortality for ERCP group compared with conservatively managed patients with severe pancreatitis [odds ratio (OR) 0.45; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.19, 1.09; P=0.08]. In patients with mild pancreatitis, mortality results were comparable for both groups (OR 0.66; 95% CI, 0.02, 28.75; P=0.83). Overall complications were significantly reduced in the ERCP group in severe pancreatic patients (OR 0.32; 95% CI, 0.17, 0.61; P=0.00). In those with mild disease, a strong trend to decreased complications in the ERCP group was seen, however, this was not significant (OR 0.67; 95% CI, 0.43, 1.03; P=0.06). Conclusions: This meta-analysis demonstrates a significant decrease in complications in patients with severe GSP managed with early ERCP/ES compared with conservative management. As far as the mortality is concerned, no significant decrease was observed in mortality even in severe GSP patients treated with early ERCP/ES.