Laparoscopic living donor right nephrectomy: Assessment of outcome and association of BMI to length of right renal vein

Anatomical Variants of the Renal Veins and Their Relationship with Morphofunctional Alterations of the Kidney: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prevalence

Background: Variations in renal veins are quite common, and most people do not experience issues due to them. However, these variations are important for healthcare professionals, especially in surgical procedures and imaging studies, as precise knowledge of vascular anatomy is essential to avoid complications during medical interventions. The purpose of this study was to expose the frequency of anatomical variations in the renal vein (RV) and detail their relationship with the retroperitoneal and renal regions. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in the Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, CINAHL, and LILACS databases from their inception until January 2024. Two authors independently carried out the search, study selection, and data extraction and assessed methodological quality using a quality assurance tool for anatomical studies (AQUA). Ultimately, consolidated prevalence was estimated using a random effects model. Results: In total, 91 studies meeting the eligibility criteria were identified. This study included 91 investigations with a total of 46,664 subjects; the meta-analysis encompassed 64 studies. The overall prevalence of multiple renal veins was 5%, with a confidence interval (CI) of 4% to 5%. The prevalence of the renal vein trajectory was 5%, with a CI of 4% to 5%. The prevalence of renal vein branching was 3%, with a CI of 0% to 6%. Lastly, the prevalence of unusual renal vein origin was 2%, with a CI of 1% to 4%. Conclusions: The analysis of these variants is crucial for both surgical clinical management and the treatment of patients with renal transplant and hemodialysis.

Vascular closure devices in living-donor nephrectomy: a much-needed systematic review and meta-analysis focusing on safety

OBJECTIVE

To assess the safety of vascular closure devices in living-donor nephrectomy (LDN), as staplers and non-transfixion techniques (polymer locking and metal clips) are the methods employed to secure the renal vessels during laparoscopic and robotic LDN, but the use of clips has come into question since the United States Food and Drug Administration and manufacturers issued a contraindication.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to assess the safety of vascular closure devices (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews [PROSPERO] registration: CRD42022364349). The PubMed, Scopus, the Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE), and the Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde (LILACS) databases were searched in September 2022. For comparative and non-comparative studies, incidence estimates and odds ratios (ORs), respectively, for the main variables regarding safety of vascular closure devices were pooled by using random effects meta-analyses. Quality assessment of the included comparative studies was conducted using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool.

RESULTS

Of the 863 articles obtained, data were retrieved from 44 studies, which included 42 902 patients. In non-comparative studies, the pooled estimate rates for device failure, severe haemorrhage rate, conversion to open surgery, and mortality were similar for both clips and staplers. Regarding the meta-analyses for comparative studies (three studies), there were no significant differences between the two groups for the severe haemorrhage rate (OR 0.57, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.18-1.75; P = 0.33), conversion to open surgery (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.08-1.54; P = 0.16), or death rate (OR 3.64, 95% CI 0.47-28.45; P = 0.22). Based on weak evidence, device failure was lower in the polymer clip group (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.23-0.75; P = 0.00).

CONCLUSIONS

This study has confirmed that there is no evidence for the superiority of any vascular closure device in terms of safety in LDN. Standardised recommendations for vascular control in this context should be carefully designed and prospectively evaluated.

Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer

Background

Compared with open gastrectomy (OG), laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for gastric cancer has achieved rapid development and popularities in the past decades. However, lack of comprehensive analysis in long-term oncological outcomes such as recurrence and mortality hinder its full support as a valid procedure. Therefore, there are still debates on whether one of these options is superior.

Aim

To evaluate the primary and secondary outcomes of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer patients

Methods

Two authors independently extracted study data. Risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for binary outcomes, mean difference (MD) or the standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes, and the hazard ratio (HR) for time-to-event outcomes. Review Manager 5.3 and STATA software were used for the meta-analysis.

Results

Seventeen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 5204 participants were included in this meta-analysis. There were no differences in the primary outcomes including the number of lymph nodes harvested during operation, severe complications, short-term and long-term recurrence, and mortality. As for secondary outcomes, compared with the OG group, longer operative time was required for patients in the LG group (MD = 58.80 min, 95% CI = [45.80, 71.81], P < 0.001), but there were less intraoperative blood loss (MD = − 54.93 ml, 95% CI = [− 81.60, − 28.26], P < 0.001), less analgesic administration (frequency: MD = − 1.73, 95% CI = [− 2.21, − 1.24], P < 0.001; duration: MD = − 1.26 days, 95% CI = [− 1.40, − 1.12], P < 0.001), shorter hospital stay (MD = − 1.37 days, 95% CI = [− 2.05, − 0.70], P < 0.001), shorter time to first flatus (MD = − 0.58 days, 95% CI = [− 0.79, − 0.37], P < 0.001), ambulation (MD = − 0.50 days, 95% CI = [− 0.90, − 0.09], P = 0.02) and oral intake (MD = − 0.64 days, 95% CI = [− 1.24, − 0.03], P < 0.04), and less total complications (RR = 0.81, 95% CI = [0.71, 0.93], P = 0.003) in the OG group. There was no difference in blood transfusions (number, quantity) between these two groups. Subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis, and the adjustment of Duval’s trim and fill methods for publication bias did not change the conclusions.

Conclusion

LG was comparable to OG in the primary outcomes and had some advantages in secondary outcomes for gastric cancer patients. LG is superior to OG for gastric cancer patients.