Meta-analysis of well-designed nonrandomized comparative studies of surgical procedures is as good as randomized controlled trials

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy in patients with overweight or obesity: a meta-analysis protocol

INTRODUCTION

The prevalence of overweight or obesity among patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy is on the rise. The utilisation of robotic assistance has the potential to enhance the feasibility of performing minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy in this particular group of patients who are at a higher risk. The objective of this meta-analysis is to assess the safety and effectiveness of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy in individuals with overweight or obesity.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This investigation will systematically search for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised comparative studies that compare robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy with open or laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy in patients with overweight or obesity, using PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library databases. The methodological quality of studies will be evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for RCTs and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. RevMan software (V.5.4.1) will be used for statistical analysis. The OR and weighted mean differences will be calculated separately for dichotomous and continuous data. The selection of a fixed-effects or random-effects model will depend on the level of heterogeneity observed among the included studies.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study will be conducted based on data in the published literature from publicly available databases. Therefore, ethics approval is not applicable. The results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42023462321.

Safety and effectiveness of minimally invasive central pancreatectomy versus open central pancreatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Central pancreatectomy is a surgical procedure for benign and low-grade malignant tumors which located in the neck and proximal body of the pancreas that facilitates the preservation of pancreatic endocrine and exocrine functions but has a high morbidity rate, especially postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness between minimally invasive central pancreatectomy (MICP) and open central pancreatectomy (OCP) basing on perioperative outcomes.

METHODS

An extensive literature search to compare MICP and OCP was conducted from October 2003 to October 2023 on PubMed, Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Fixed-effect models or random effects were selected based on heterogeneity, and pooled odds ratios (ORs) or mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 10 studies with a total of 510 patients were included. There was no significant difference in POPF between MICP and OCP (OR = 0.95; 95% CI [0.64, 1.43]; P = 0.82), whereas intraoperative blood loss (MD = - 125.13; 95% CI [- 194.77, -55.49]; P < 0.001) and length of hospital stay (MD = - 2.86; 95% CI [- 5.00, - 0.72]; P = 0.009) were in favor of MICP compared to OCP, and there was a strong trend toward a lower intraoperative transfusion rate in MICP than in OCP (MD = 0.34; 95% CI [0.11, 1.00]; P = 0.05). There was no significant difference in other outcomes between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

MICP was as safe and effective as OCP and had less intraoperative blood loss and a shorter length of hospital stay. However, further studies are needed to confirm the results.

Rapid review: A review of methods and recommendations based on current evidence

Rapid review (RR) could accelerate the traditional systematic review (SR) process by simplifying or omitting steps using various shortcuts. With the increasing popularity of RR, numerous shortcuts had emerged, but there was no consensus on how to choose the most appropriate ones. This study conducted a literature search in PubMed from inception to December 21, 2023, using terms such as "rapid review" "rapid assessment" "rapid systematic review" and "rapid evaluation". We also scanned the reference lists and performed citation tracking of included impact studies to obtain more included studies. We conducted a narrative synthesis of all RR approaches, shortcuts and studies assessing their effectiveness at each stage of RRs. Based on the current evidence, we provided recommendations on utilizing certain shortcuts in RRs. Ultimately, we identified 185 studies focusing on summarizing RR approaches and shortcuts, or evaluating their impact. There was relatively sufficient evidence to support the use of the following shortcuts in RRs: limiting studies to those published in English-language; conducting abbreviated database searches (e.g., only searching PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL); omitting retrieval of grey literature; restricting the search timeframe to the recent 20 years for medical intervention and the recent 15 years for reviewing diagnostic test accuracy; conducting a single screening by an experienced screener. To some extent, the above shortcuts were also applicable to SRs. This study provided a reference for future RR researchers in selecting shortcuts, and it also presented a potential research topic for methodologists.

Application of TiLOOP bra in implant-based breast reconstruction is associated with decreased complication risk compared with other meshes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

TiLOOP bra has been used for over 15 years, however, evidence regarding its safety in implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) for patients with breast cancer after mastectomy is still limited. We performed this meta-analysis to evaluate its risks and benefits in IBBR comparing with other meshes.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched to identify relevant studies comparing postoperative complications between TiLOOP bra and other reconstruction techniques in IBBR with or without meshes. We also compared patient satisfaction in physical well-being between two groups. Risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated.

RESULTS

Seven studies representing 1203 cases were analyzed. Compared with other meshes, the use of TiLOOP bra significantly reduced the risk of infection (RR = 0.53, 95% CI, 0.32-0.86), seroma (RR = 0.21, 95% CI, 0.07-0.61), red breast syndrome (RR = 0.10, 95% CI, 0.02-0.45), and capsular contracture (RR = 0.20, 95% CI, 0.05-0.75). Patient satisfaction in physical well-being was comparable between two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

TiLOOP bra in IBBR has a favored safety profile over other meshes, which significantly reduced postoperative complication risk and did not affect patient satisfaction. Although prospective well-designed controlled studies are still warranted, TiLOOP bra is safe and reliable at present.

Synthesis methods used to combine observational studies and randomised trials in published meta-analyses

BACKGROUND

This study examined the synthesis methods used in meta-analyses pooling data from observational studies (OSs) and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from various medical disciplines.

METHODS

We searched Medline via PubMed to identify reports of systematic reviews of interventions, including and pooling data from RCTs and OSs published in 110 high-impact factor general and specialised journals between 2015 and 2019. Screening and data extraction were performed in duplicate. To describe the synthesis methods used in the meta-analyses, we considered the first meta-analysis presented in each article.

RESULTS

Overall, 132 reports were identified with a median number of included studies of 14 [9-26]. The median number of OSs was 6.5 [3-12] and that of RCTs was 3 [1-6]. The effect estimates recorded from OSs (i.e., adjusted or unadjusted) were not specified in 82% (n = 108) of the meta-analyses. An inverse-variance common-effect model was used in 2% (n = 3) of the meta-analyses, a random-effects model was used in 55% (n = 73), and both models were used in 40% (n = 53). A Poisson regression model was used in 1 meta-analysis, and 2 meta-analyses did not report the model they used. The mean total weight of OSs in the studied meta-analyses was 57.3% (standard deviation, ± 30.3%). Only 44 (33%) meta-analyses reported results stratified by study design. Of them, the results between OSs and RCTs had a consistent direction of effect in 70% (n = 31). Study design was explored as a potential source of heterogeneity in 79% of the meta-analyses, and confounding factors were investigated in only 10% (n = 13). Publication bias was assessed in 70% (n = 92) of the meta-analyses. Tau-square was reported in 32 meta-analyses with a median of 0.07 [0-0.30].

CONCLUSION

The inclusion of OSs in a meta-analysis on interventions could provide useful information. However, considerations of several methodological and conceptual aspects of OSs, that are required to avoid misleading findings, were often absent or insufficiently reported in our sample.

Healthcare outcomes assessed with observational study designs compared with those assessed in randomized trials: a meta-epidemiological study

BACKGROUND

Researchers and decision-makers often use evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to determine the efficacy or effectiveness of a treatment or intervention. Studies with observational designs are often used to measure the effectiveness of an intervention in 'real world' scenarios. Numerous study designs and their modifications (including both randomised and observational designs) are used for comparative effectiveness research in an attempt to give an unbiased estimate of whether one treatment is more effective or safer than another for a particular population. An up-to-date systematic analysis is needed to identify differences in effect estimates from RCTs and observational studies. This updated review summarises the results of methodological reviews that compared the effect estimates of observational studies with RCTs from evidence syntheses that addressed the same health research question.

OBJECTIVES

To assess and compare synthesised effect estimates by study type, contrasting RCTs with observational studies. To explore factors that might explain differences in synthesised effect estimates from RCTs versus observational studies (e.g. heterogeneity, type of observational study design, type of intervention, and use of propensity score adjustment). To identify gaps in the existing research comparing effect estimates across different study types.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science databases, and Epistemonikos to May 2022. We checked references, conducted citation searches, and contacted review authors to identify additional reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included systematic methodological reviews that compared quantitative effect estimates measuring the efficacy or effectiveness of interventions tested in RCTs versus in observational studies. The included reviews compared RCTs to observational studies (including retrospective and prospective cohort, case-control and cross-sectional designs). Reviews were not eligible if they compared RCTs with studies that had used some form of concurrent allocation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Using results from observational studies as the reference group, we examined the relative summary effect estimates (risk ratios (RRs), odds ratios (ORs), hazard ratios (HRs), mean differences (MDs), and standardised mean differences (SMDs)) to evaluate whether there was a relatively larger or smaller effect in the ratio of odds ratios (ROR) or ratio of risk ratios (RRR), ratio of hazard ratios (RHR), and difference in (standardised) mean differences (D(S)MD). If an included review did not provide an estimate comparing results from RCTs with observational studies, we generated one by pooling the estimates for observational studies and RCTs, respectively. Across all reviews, we synthesised these ratios to produce a pooled ratio of ratios comparing effect estimates from RCTs with those from observational studies. In overviews of reviews, we estimated the ROR or RRR for each overview using observational studies as the reference category. We appraised the risk of bias in the included reviews (using nine criteria in total). To receive an overall low risk of bias rating, an included review needed: explicit criteria for study selection, a complete sample of studies, and to have controlled for study methodological differences and study heterogeneity. We assessed reviews/overviews not meeting these four criteria as having an overall high risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of the evidence, consisting of multiple evidence syntheses, with the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 39 systematic reviews and eight overviews of reviews, for a total of 47. Thirty-four of these contributed data to our primary analysis. Based on the available data, we found that the reviews/overviews included 2869 RCTs involving 3,882,115 participants, and 3924 observational studies with 19,499,970 participants. We rated 11 reviews/overviews as having an overall low risk of bias, and 36 as having an unclear or high risk of bias. Our main concerns with the included reviews/overviews were that some did not assess the quality of their included studies, and some failed to account appropriately for differences between study designs - for example, they conducted aggregate analyses of all observational studies rather than separate analyses of cohort and case-control studies. When pooling RORs and RRRs, the ratio of ratios indicated no difference or a very small difference between the effect estimates from RCTs versus from observational studies (ratio of ratios 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01 to 1.15). We rated the certainty of the evidence as low. Twenty-three of 34 reviews reported effect estimates of RCTs and observational studies that were on average in agreement. In a number of subgroup analyses, small differences in the effect estimates were detected: - pharmaceutical interventions only (ratio of ratios 1.12, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.21); - RCTs and observational studies with substantial or high heterogeneity; that is, I2 ≥ 50% (ratio of ratios 1.11, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.18); - no use (ratio of ratios 1.07, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.11) or unclear use (ratio of ratios 1.13, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.25) of propensity score adjustment in observational studies; and - observational studies without further specification of the study design (ratio of ratios 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.18). We detected no clear difference in other subgroup analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no difference or a very small difference between effect estimates from RCTs and observational studies. These findings are largely consistent with findings from recently published research. Factors other than study design need to be considered when exploring reasons for a lack of agreement between results of RCTs and observational studies, such as differences in the population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes investigated in the respective studies. Our results underscore that it is important for review authors to consider not only study design, but the level of heterogeneity in meta-analyses of RCTs or observational studies. A better understanding is needed of how these factors might yield estimates reflective of true effectiveness.

The Effects of Theta/Beta-based Neurofeedback Training on Attention in Children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Neurofeedback training is a common treatment option for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Given theta/beta-based neurofeedback (T/B NF) training targets at the electrophysiological characteristics of children with ADHD, benefits for attention may be expected. PsycINFO, PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched through December 31, 2020. Studies were evaluated with Risk of Bias tools. Within-group effects based on Pre- and Post-treatment comparisons of the Intervention Group, and Between-group effects based on the between-group differences from Pre-treatment to Post-treatment were calculated. Nineteen studies met selection criteria for systematic review, 12 of them were included in meta-analysis. Within-group effects were medium at Post-treatment and large at Follow-up. Between-group analyses revealed that T/B NF was superior to waitlist control and physical activities, but not stimulant medication. Results showed that T/B NF has benefits for attention in children with ADHD, however, cautions should be taken when interpreting the findings.

Comparison of bilateral axillo-breast approach robotic thyroidectomy and open thyroidectomy for papillary thyroid carcinoma

For papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC) surgery requiring total thyroidectomy and central lymph node dissection, it is controversial whether the bilateral axillo-breast approach robotic thyroidectomy (BABA RT) can replace the open thyroidectomy (OT). To evaluate the efficacy of two surgical approaches. Relevant literatures were searched from PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library. Studies comparing two surgical approaches and meeting the inclusion criteria were selected. Compared with OT, BABA RT showed a similar incidence of postoperative complications, including recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy, hypocalcemia, hypoparathyroidism, bleeding, chyle leakage and incision infection, as well as number of retrieved central lymph nodes and postoperative total dose of radioactive iodine. However, BABA RT involved longer operative time (weighted mean difference [WMD] 72.62, 95% confidence interval [CI] 48.15-97.10, P < .00001) and higher postoperative stimulated thyroglobulin level ([WMD] 0.12, 95% [CI] 0.05-0.19, P = .0006). The efficacy of BABA RT is basically similar to OT in this meta-analysis, but the higher postoperative stimulated thyroglobulin level attracts our attention. Longer operative time requires us to shorten. Randomized clinical trials with large samples and longer follow-up data are still essential to further demonstrate the value of the BABA RT.

Clinical outcomes for grades III-V acromioclavicular dislocations favor double-button fixation compared to clavicle hook plate fixation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of both randomized controlled and observational studies comparing double-button suture fixation to hook plate fixation for types III-IV acromioclavicular joint dislocation.

METHODS

Systematic review of Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar, including all levels 1-3 studies from 2000 to 2022. Clinical outcome scores, range of motion, and complications were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's ROB2 tool and ROBINs-I tool. MINORS and modified Coleman Methodology Score (CMS) were used to assess within study quality. The GRADE system was used to assess the overall quality of the body of evidence. Heterogeneity was assessed using χ2 and I2 statistics.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies were included. Three of the four included LOE II and eleven of the LOE III studies had a high risk of bias. Study quality was considered poor and fair for 67% by MINORS criteria and 93% for CMS criteria. The pooled estimate (SMD 0.662) for all clinical outcomes was statistically significant and in favor of button repair (p = 0.0001). The pooled estimate (SMD 0.662) for all VAS pain scores was statistically significant, again in favor of button repair (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this meta-analysis demonstrated significantly better outcomes of button repair for acute ACJ dislocations when compared to clavicle hook plate. Button repair is also associated with a 2.2 times lower risk for complications. However, risk of bias is high, and study quality within and between studies was low. These results, therefore, must be viewed with caution.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III; systematic review and meta-analysis.

Risk factors for death in hospitalized COVID-19 patients in Africa: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus disease 2019 has quickly spread worldwide since it first appeared in Wuhan, China, in late 2019. The most affected country in Africa was South Africa. This study aimed to identify the risk factors for death in hospitalized COVID-19 patients in Africa.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. We searched articles from the following database: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Medline, and COVID-19 Research Database. We used Google Scholar for gray literature. The language used in this article was English. The last search was conducted on January 15, 2023. Pooled HRs, or ORs, and 95% confidence intervals, were calculated separately to identify the risk factors for death in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Heterogeneity was assessed by Cochran's Q statistic and the I2 test. The Egger test was used to assess publication bias. Subgroup analysis was performed to determine the source of heterogeneity. Data analysis was performed using Stata version 17. A P value < .05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

A total of 16,600 articles were obtained from the database search; finally, 16 articles met the inclusion criteria and were eligible for data extraction. The analysis revealed that the pooled prevalence of mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients was 13.9%. Advanced age was a significant risk factor for death in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, with the pooled coronavirus mortality HR and OR being 3.73 (95% CI: 2.27-5.19) and 1.04 (95% CI: 1.02-1.06), respectively. In addition, male gender (pOR 1.23; 95% CI: 1.07-1.40), patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) (pOR 1.26; 95% CI: 1.01-1.51), hypertension (HTN) (pOR 1.56; 95% CI: 1.27-1.85), chronic kidney disease (CKD) (pHR 5.43; 95% CI: 0.18-10.67), severe or critical conditions (pOR 9.04; 95% CI: 3.14-14.94) had a significantly increased risk of coronavirus-related mortality. The main limitations of the present study stem from the predominant use of published studies, which could introduce publication bias.

CONCLUSION

According to this study, advanced age, male gender, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, and severe or critical condition were clinical risk factors associated with death outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients in Africa.

Did the dislocation risk after primary total hip arthroplasty decrease over time? A meta-analysis across six decades

BACKGROUND

While continuous optimization is attempted to decrease the incidence of dislocation after total hip arthroplasty (THA), dislocation remains a major complication. This meta-analysis aims to analyze the evolution of the dislocation risk after primary THA over the decades and to evaluate its potential publication bias.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A systematic search was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines for this meta-analysis in the literature published between 1962 and 2020. MEDLINE, Cochrane and Embase databases were searched for studies reporting the dislocation risk and length of follow-up. Studies that reported on revision rates only and did not mention separate dislocations were excluded. All study designs were eligible. Study quality was assessed by existing quality assessment tools adjusted for arthroplasty research. Overall risk and yearly dislocation rates were calculated and related to historical time frame, study design, sample size and length of follow-up.

RESULTS

In total, 174 studies were included with an overall moderate quality. In total there were 85.209 dislocations reported in 5.030.293 THAs, showing an overall dislocation risk of 1.7%, with a median follow-up of 24 months. The overall dislocation risk classified per decade decreased from 3.7% in 1960-1970 to 0.7% in 2010-2020. The yearly dislocation rate decreased from 1.8 to 0.7% within these same decades. There was no significant correlation between the reported dislocation risk and the duration of follow-up (p = 0.903) or sample size (p = 0.755). The reported dislocation risk was higher in articles with registry data compared to other study designs (p = 0.021).

CONCLUSION

The dislocation risk in THA has been decreasing over the past decades to 0.7%. Non-selective registry studies reported a higher dislocation risk compared to studies with selective cohorts and RCTs. This indicates that the actual dislocation risk is higher than often reported and 'real-world data' are reflected better in large-scale cohorts and registries.

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for colonoscopic perforation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of laparoscopic surgery (LS) for the treatment of colonoscopic perforation is still controversial. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of LS versus open surgery (OS) for colonoscopic perforation.

METHODS

All clinical trials that compared laparoscopic with OS for colonoscopic perforation published in English were identified in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library searches. A modified scale was used to assess the quality of the literature. We analyzed the age, sex ratio, aim of colonoscopy, history of abdominopelvic surgery, type of procedure, size of perforation, operation time, postoperative fasting time, hospital stay, postoperative complication morbidity, and postoperative mortality. Meta-analyses were performed using weighted mean differences for continuous variables, and odds ratios for dichotomous variables.

RESULTS

No eligible randomized trials were identified, but eleven nonrandomized trials were analyzed. In the pooled data of 192 patients who underwent LS and 131 OS, there were no significant differences in age, sex ratio, aim of colonoscopy, history of abdominopelvic surgery, perforation size, and operative time between the groups. LS group had shorter time of hospital stay and postoperative fasting time, less postoperative complication morbidity, but there were no significant difference in postoperative mortality rate between LS group and OS group.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the current meta-analysis, we conclude that LS is a safe and efficacious technique for colonoscopic perforation, with fewer postoperative complications, less hospital mortality, and faster recovery compared with OS.

Is it feasible and ethical to randomize patients between surgery and non-surgical treatments for gastrointestinal cancers?

Background

In several settings in the treatment of gastrointestinal cancers, it is unclear if the addition of surgery to a multimodal treatment strategy, or in some circumstances its omission, lead to a better outcome for patients. In such situations of clinical equipoise, high-quality evidence from randomised-controlled trials is needed to decide which treatment approach is preferable.

Objective

In this article, we outline the importance of randomised trials comparing surgery with non-surgical therapies for specific scenarios in the treatment of gastrointestinal cancers. We explain the difficulties and solutions of designing these trials and recruiting patients in this context.

Methods

We performed a selective review based on a not systematic literature search in core databases, supplemented by browsing health information journals and citation searching. Only articles in English were selected. Based on this search, we discuss the results and methodological characteristics of several trials which randomised patients with gastrointestinal cancers between surgery and non-surgical treatments, highlighting their differences, advantages, and limitations.

Results and conclusions

Innovative and effective cancer treatment requires randomised trials, also comparing surgery and non-surgical treatments for defined scenarios in the treatment of gastrointestinal malignancies. Nevertheless, potential obstacles to designing and carrying out these trials must be recognised ahead of time to avoid problems before or during the trial.

The obesity paradox in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate whether there was a difference in survival after initial percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) among ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with different body mass index (BMI).

METHODS

Literature retrieval was conducted on PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CNKI, and Wanfang databases to obtain the published studies on the survival of STEMI patients with different BMI after initial PCI from the establishment of the database to 2022. All statistical analyses were performed using STATA16.0.

RESULTS

Two hundred thirty-nine studies were retrieved, and 12 studies were eventually included. Meta-analysis showed that overweight patients [OR = 0.66, 95% CI (0.58, 0.76), p < .001] and obese patients [OR = 0.60, 95% CI (0.51, 0.72), p < .001] had lower in-hospital mortality than healthy-weight patients. Overweight patients [OR = 0.66, 95% CI (0.58, 0.74), p < .001] and obese patients [OR = 0.62, 95% CI (0.53, 0.72), p < .001] had lower short-term mortality than healthy-weight patients. In addition, overweight patients [OR = 0.63, 95% CI (0.58, 0.69), p < .001] and obese patients [OR = 0.59, 95% CI (0.52, 0.66), p < .001] also had lower long-term mortality than healthy-weight patients. There was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality [OR = 1.06, 95% CI (0.89, 1.27), p > .05], short-term mortality [OR = 1.04, 95% CI (0.89, 1.22), p > .05], and long-term mortality [OR = 1.07, 95% CI (0.95, 1.20), p > .05] between overweight and obese patients.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis confirmed an obesity paradox in STEMI patients following PCI. The obesity paradox exists in in-hospital, short-term, and long-term conditions.

Natural experiments for orthopaedic trauma research: An introduction

Natural experiments are observational studies of medical treatments in which treatment allocation is determined by factors outside the control of the investigators, arguably resembling experimental randomisation. Natural experiments in the field of orthopaedic trauma research are scarce. However, they have great potential due to the process governing treatment allocation and the existence of opposing treatment strategies between hospitals or between regions as a result of local education, conviction, or cultural and socio-economic factors. Here, the possibilities and opportunities of natural experiments in the orthopaedic trauma field are discussed. Potential solutions are presented to improve the validity of natural experiments and how to assess the credibility of such studies. Above all, it is meant to spark a discussion about its role within the field of orthopaedic trauma research.

A Meta-Analysis of Short-Term Outcomes After Laparoscopic Lavage Versus Colonic Resection in the Treatment of Perforated Diverticulitis

The management of perforated non-faeculent diverticulitis has traditionally involved performing a colonic resection (CR). Laparoscopic lavage (LL) has emerged as a less invasive alternative in recent years. The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the role of LL in the surgical treatment of perforated non-faeculent diverticulitis. To that end, we conducted a search on Embase, Medline, and Cochrane databases for comparative studies in the English language published till June 2021 [PROSPERO (CRD42021269410)]. The risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2) and the methodological index for non-randomised studies (MINORS). Data were analysed using Cochrane RevMan. Pooled odds ratio (POR) and cumulative weighted ratios (CWR) were calculated. A total of 13 studies involving 1061 patients were found eligible, including seven studies based on three randomised control trials (RCTs). LL was associated with a reduced risk of wound infection, stoma formation, and need for further surgery by 77% [POR: 0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.07-0.74], 83% (POR: 0.17, 95% CI: 0.05-0.56), and 53% (POR: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.23-0.97) respectively. Duration of surgery and hospitalisation was reduced by 54% and 43% respectively. However, LL was associated with higher rates of unplanned reoperations (POR: 2.05, 95% CI: 1.22-3.42), recurrence (POR: 9.47, 95% CI: 3.24-27.67), and peritonitis (POR: 8.92, 95% CI: 2.71-29.33). No differences in mortality or readmission rates were observed. LL in Hinchey III diverticulitis lowers the incidence of stoma formation and overall reoperations without an increase in mortality but at the cost of higher recurrence rates and peritonitis. A limitation of this study was the inclusion of non-RCTs. An elective resection should be considered after LL. Guidelines for surgical techniques in LL need to be standardised.

Laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic and periampullary tumor: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and non-randomized comparative studies

Objective

This meta-analysis compares the perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) to those of open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) for pancreatic and periampullary tumors.

Background

LPD has been increasingly applied in the treatment of pancreatic and periampullary tumors. However, the perioperative outcomes of LPD versus OPD are still controversial.

Methods

PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized comparative trials (NRCTs) comparing LPD versus OPD for pancreatic and periampullary tumors. The main outcomes were mortality, morbidity, serious complications, and hospital stay. The secondary outcomes were operative time, blood loss, transfusion, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), bile leak (BL), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), lymph nodes harvested, R0 resection, reoperation, and readmission. RCTs were evaluated by the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. NRCTs were assessed using a modified tool from the Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies. Data were pooled as odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD). This study was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42022338832).

Results

Four RCTs and 35 NRCTs concerning a total of 40,230 patients (4,262 LPD and 35,968 OPD) were included. Meta-analyses showed no significant differences in mortality (OR 0.91, p = 0.35), serious complications (OR 0.97, p = 0.74), POPF (OR 0.93, p = 0.29), PPH (OR 1.10, p = 0.42), BL (OR 1.28, p = 0.22), harvested lymph nodes (MD 0.66, p = 0.09), reoperation (OR 1.10, p = 0.41), and readmission (OR 0.95, p = 0.46) between LPD and OPD. Operative time was significantly longer for LPD (MD 85.59 min, p < 0.00001), whereas overall morbidity (OR 0.80, p < 0.00001), hospital stay (MD -2.32 days, p < 0.00001), blood loss (MD -173.84 ml, p < 0.00001), transfusion (OR 0.62, p = 0.0002), and DGE (OR 0.78, p = 0.002) were reduced for LPD. The R0 rate was higher for LPD (OR 1.25, p = 0.001).

Conclusions

LPD is associated with non-inferior short-term surgical outcomes and oncologic adequacy compared to OPD when performed by experienced surgeons at large centers. LPD may result in reduced overall morbidity, blood loss, transfusion, and DGE, but longer operative time. Further RCTs should address the potential advantages of LPD over OPD.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO, identifier CRD42022338832.

Surgical treatment of neuromuscular Early Onset Scoliosis with a bilateral posterior one-way rod compared to the Spring Distraction System: study protocol for a limited-efficacy Randomized Controlled Trial (BiPOWR)

BACKGROUND

Early Onset Scoliosis (EOS) is a progressive spinal deformity in children, and a potentially life-threatening disease. "Growth-friendly" surgical techniques aim to control the deformity, while allowing the spine and trunk to maintain growth. Current "growth-friendly" systems such as the traditional growing rod (TGR) and magnetically controlled growing rod (MCGR) have limitations that reduce their efficacy and cost-effectiveness. Recently, two "growth-friendly" systems have been developed that mitigate many of these limitations, the Spring Distraction System (SDS) and the One Way Self-Expanding Rod (OWSER). The purpose of the multicenter BiPOWR trial is to investigate, describe and compare the 1-year limited-efficacy and -safety of both strategies in the treatment of neuromuscular EOS.

METHODS

After informed consent, 28 neuromuscular EOS patients will be randomized to receive either the SDS or the OWSER. Patients and caregivers will be blinded to allocation until after surgery. Primary outcomes will be maintenance of coronal curve correction and the occurrence of serious adverse events. In addition, spinal growth, implant lengthening, and perioperative findings are recorded systematically. At each follow-up moment, the Early Onset Scoliosis Questionnaire (EOSQ-24) will be used to assess health-related quality of life. All outcomes will be compared between groups.

DISCUSSION

The BiPOWR trial is the first randomized controlled trial that compares two specific "growth-friendly" implants in a specified EOS population. It will determine the 1-year limited-efficacy and safety of the SDS and OWSER implants.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04021784 (13-06-2019). CCMO registry: NL64018.041.17 (06-05-2019).

Bone marrow stimulation in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair is a cost-effective and straightforward technique to reduce retear rates: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Bone marrow stimulation (BMS) has been considered a well-established method for treating knee and ankle osteochondral lesions. Some studies have also shown that BMS can promote healing of the repaired tendon and enhance biomechanical properties during rotator cuff repair. Our purpose was to compare the clinical outcomes of arthroscopic repair rotator cuff (ARCR) with and without BMS.

Methods

A systematic review with meta-analysis was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Google scholar, ScienceDirect, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to March 20, 2022. Data on retear rates, shoulder functional outcomes, visual analog score and range of motion were pooled and analyzed. Dichotomous variables were presented as odds ratios (OR), and continuous variables were presented as mean differences (MD). Meta-analyses were conducted with Review Manager 5.3.

Results

Eight studies involving 674 patients were included, with mean follow-up period ranging from 12 to 36.8 months. Compared to ARCR alone, the intraoperative combination of the BMS resulted in lower retear rates (P < 0.0001), but showed similar results in Constant score (P = 0.10), University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) score (P = 0.57), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score (P = 0.23), Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score (P = 0.31), VAS (visual analog score) score (P = 0.34), and range of motion (ROM) (forward flexion, P = 0.42; external rotation, P = 0.21). After sensitivity analyses and subgroup analyses, no significant changes in statistical results were observed.

Conclusion

Compared to ARCR alone, the combination of intraoperative BMS can significantly reduce the retear rates, but showed similar short-term results in functional outcomes, ROM and pain. Better clinical outcomes are anticipated in the BMS group by improving structural integrity during long-term follow-up. Currently, BMS may be a viable option in ARCR based on its straightforward and cost-effective advantages.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: CRD42022323379.

An empirical comparison of the harmful effects for randomized controlled trials and non-randomized studies of interventions

Introduction: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard to evaluate the efficacy of interventions (e.g., drugs and vaccines), yet the sample size of RCTs is often limited for safety assessment. Non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSIs) had been proposed as an important alternative source for safety assessment. In this study, we aimed to investigate whether there is any difference between RCTs and NRSIs in the evaluation of adverse events. Methods: We used the dataset of systematic reviews with at least one meta-analysis including both RCTs and NRSIs and collected the 2 × 2 table information (i.e., numbers of cases and sample sizes in intervention and control groups) of each study in the meta-analysis. We matched RCTs and NRSIs by their sample sizes (ratio: 0.85/1 to 1/0.85) within a meta-analysis. We estimated the ratio of the odds ratios (RORs) of an NRSI against an RCT in each pair and used the inverse variance as the weight to combine the natural logarithm of ROR (lnROR). Results: We included systematic reviews with 178 meta analyses, from which we confirmed 119 pairs of RCTs and NRSIs. The pooled ROR of NRSIs compared to that of RCTs was estimated to be 0.96 (95% confidence interval: 0.87 and 1.07). Similar results were obtained with different sample size subgroups and treatment subgroups. With the increase in sample size, the difference in ROR between RCTs and NRSIs decreased, although not significantly. Discussion: There was no substantial difference in the effects between RCTs and NRSIs in safety assessment when they have similar sample sizes. Evidence from NRSIs might be considered a supplement to RCTs for safety assessment.

Systematic review and meta-analysis for the impact of rod materials and sizes in the surgical treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis

PURPOSE

To assess surgical and safety outcomes associated with different rod materials and diameters in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) surgery.

METHODS

A systematic literature review and meta-analysis evaluated the surgical management of AIS patients using pedicle screw fixation systems (i.e., posterior rods and pedicle screws) with rods of different materials and sizes. Postoperative surgical outcomes (e.g., kyphosis and coronal correction) and complications (i.e., hyper/hypo-lumbar lordosis, proximal junctional kyphosis, revisions, reoperations, and infections) were assessed. Random-effects models (REMs) pooled data for outcomes reported in ≥ 2 studies.

RESULTS

Among 75 studies evaluating AIS surgery using pedicle screw fixation systems, 46 described rod materials and/or diameters. Two studies directly comparing titanium (Ti) and cobalt-chromium (CoCr) rods found that CoCr rods provided significantly better postoperative kyphosis angle correction vs. Ti rods during a shorter follow-up (0-3 months, MD = - 2.98°, 95% CI - 5.79 to - 0.17°, p = 0.04), and longer follow-up (≥ 24 months, MD = - 3.99°, 95% CI - 6.98 to - 1.00, p = 0.009). Surgical infection varied from 2% (95% CI 1.0-3.0%) for 5.5 mm rods to 4% (95% CI 2.0-7.0%) for 6 mm rods. Reoperation rates were lower with 5.5 mm rods 1% (95% CI 0.0-3.0%) vs. 6 mm rods [6% (95% CI 2.0-9.0%); p = 0.04]. Differences in coronal angle, lumbar lordosis, proximal junctional kyphosis, revisions, and infections did not differ significantly (p > 0.05) among rods of different materials or diameters.

CONCLUSION

For AIS, CoCr rods provided better correction of thoracic kyphosis compared to Ti rods. Patients with 5.5 mm rods had fewer reoperations vs. 6.0 and 6.35 mm diameter rods.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Systematic review and meta-analysis for the impact of rod materials and sizes in the surgical treatment of adult spine deformity

PURPOSE

To assess clinical and safety outcomes associated with different rod materials and diameters in adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery.

METHODS

A systematic literature review and meta-analysis evaluated ASD surgery using pedicle screw fixation systems with rods of different materials and sizes. Postoperative outcomes (i.e., Cobb, sagittal vertical axis, and pelvic tilt angle) and complications (i.e., pseudarthrosis and rod breakage) were assessed. Random effects models (REMs) pooled data for outcomes reported in ≥ 2 studies.

RESULTS

Among 50 studies evaluating ASD surgery using pedicle screw fixation systems, 17 described rod material/diameter. Postoperative outcomes did not statistically differ between cobalt-chromium (CoCr) vs. titanium (Ti) rods (n = 2 studies; mean [95% confidence interval (CI)] sagittal vertical axis angle: CoCr 37.00° [18.58°-55.42°] and Ti 32.58° [24.62°-40.54°]; mean [95% CI] pelvic tilt angle: CoCr 26.20° [22.87°-29.53°] and Ti 20.15° [18.0°-22.31°]). The pooled proportion (95% CI) of pseudarthrosis was 15% (7-22%) for CoCr and 12% (- 8-32%) for stainless steel (SS) (n = 2 studies each; Chi2 = 0.07, p = 0.79). The pooled proportion (95% CI) of broken rods was 12% (1-22%) for Ti (n = 3 studies) and 10% (2-19) for CoCr (n = 1 study). Among 6.0-6.35 mm rods, the pooled (95% CI) postoperative Cobb angle (n = 2) was 12.01° (9.75°-14.28°), sagittal vertical axis angle (n = 4) was 35.32° (30.02°-40.62°), and pelvic tilt angle was 21.11° (18.35°-23.86°).

CONCLUSIONS

For ASD patients undergoing posterior fixation and fusion, there are no statistically significant differences in postoperative outcomes or complications among rods of varying materials and diameters. Benchmark postsurgical outcomes and complication rates by rod material and diameter are provided.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Risk factors for mortality in COVID-19 patients in sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Aim

Mortality rates of coronavirus-2019 (COVID-19) disease continue to increase worldwide and in Africa. In this study, we aimed to summarize the available results on the association between sociodemographic, clinical, biological, and comorbidity factors and the risk of mortality due to COVID-19 in sub-Saharan Africa.

Methods

We followed the PRISMA checklist (S1 Checklist). We searched PubMed, Google Scholar, and European PMC between January 1, 2020, and September 23, 2021. We included observational studies with Subjects had to be laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patients; had to report risk factors or predictors of mortality in COVID-19 patients, Studies had to be published in English, include multivariate analysis, and be conducted in the sub-Saharan region. Exclusion criteria included case reports, review articles, commentaries, errata, protocols, abstracts, reports, letters to the editor, and repeat studies. The methodological quality of the studies included in this meta-analysis was assessed using the methodological items for nonrandomized studies (MINORS). Pooled hazard ratios (HR) or odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated separately to identify mortality risk. In addition, publication bias and subgroup analysis were assessed.

Results and discussion

Twelve studies with a total of 43598 patients met the inclusion criteria. The outcomes of interest were mortality. The results of the analysis showed that the pooled prevalence of mortality in COVID-19 patients was 4.8%. Older people showed an increased risk of mortality from SARS-Cov-2. The pooled hazard ratio (pHR) and odds ratio (pOR) were 9.01 (95% CI; 6.30–11.71) and 1.04 (95% CI; 1.02–1.06), respectively. A significant association was found between COVID-19 mortality and men (pOR = 1.52; 95% CI 1.04–2). In addition, the risk of mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 infection was strongly influenced by chronic kidney disease (CKD), hypertension, severe or critical infection on admission, cough, and dyspnea. The major limitations of the present study are that the data in the meta-analysis came mainly from studies that were published, which may lead to publication bias, and that the causal relationship between risk factors and poor outcome in patients with COVID-19 cannot be confirmed because of the inherent limitations of the observational study.

Conclusions

Advanced age, male sex, CKD, hypertension, severe or critical condition on admission, cough, and dyspnea are clinical risk factors for fatal outcomes associated with coronavirus. These findings could be used for research, control, and prevention of the disease and could help providers take appropriate measures and improve clinical outcomes in these patients.

Quadriceps Tendon Autograft Versus Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone and Hamstring Tendon Autografts for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The best type of autograft for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction remains debatable.

HYPOTHESIS

Compared with bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) and hamstring tendon (HT) autografts, the quadriceps tendon (QT) autograft has comparable graft survival as well as clinical function and pain outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN

Meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library to July 2020. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies reporting comparisons of QT versus BPTB or HT autografts for ACL reconstruction were included. All analyses were stratified according to study design: RCTs or observational studies.

RESULTS

A total of 24 studies were included: 7 RCTs and 17 observational studies. The 7 RCTs included 388 patients, and the 17 observational studies included 19,196 patients. No significant differences in graft failure (P = .36), the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score (P = .39), or the side-to-side difference in stability (P = .60) were noted between QT and BPTB autografts. However, a significant reduction in donor site morbidity was noted in the QT group compared with the BPTB group (risk ratio [RR], 0.17 [95% CI, 0.09-0.33]; P < .001). No significant differences in graft failure (P = .57), the IKDC subjective score (P = .25), or the side-to-side stability difference (P = .98) were noted between QT and HT autografts. However, the QT autograft was associated with a significantly lower rate of donor site morbidity than the HT autograft (RR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.39-0.93]; P = .02). A similar graft failure rate between the QT and control groups was observed after both early and late full weightbearing, after early and late full range of motion, and after using the QT autograft with a bone plug and all soft tissue QT grafts. However, a significantly lower rate of donor site morbidity was observed in the QT group compared with the control group after both early and late full weightbearing, after early and late full range of motion, and after using the QT autograft with a bone plug and all soft tissue QT grafts. No difference in effect estimates was seen between RCTs and observational studies.

CONCLUSION

The QT autograft had comparable graft survival, functional outcomes, and stability outcomes compared with BPTB and HT autografts. However, donor site morbidity was significantly lower with the QT autograft than with BPTB and HT autografts.

Diabetes Mellitus is Associated With Higher COVID-19 Mortality Rates in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

The rate of COVID-19-related mortality among patients with diabetes mellitus in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) is unknown. The current study aimed to determine the mortality rate of COVID-19 among diabetes patients in SSA. We performed a systematic review of research articles until July 1, 2021. A literature review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines to gather relevant data. A random effects model was used to calculate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used Egger's tests and Begg's funnel plot to examine publication bias. The mortality rate of 7778 COVID-19 patients was analyzed using data from seven studies. The I² test was used to determine the heterogeneity between studies. The meta-analysis revealed that diabetes mellitus was linked to a 1.39-fold increase in the risk of death among COVID-19 inpatients (95% CI: 1.02-1.76). According to our findings, there was no significant heterogeneity between studies, and there was no publication bias. The present review describes an association between diabetes mellitus and the risk of COVID-19 mortality in SSA.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Mega Meta-Analysis

Background

Laparoscopic gastrectomy and robotic gastrectomy are the most widely adopted treatment of choice for gastric cancer. To systematically assess the safety and effectiveness of robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer, we carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis on short-term and long-term outcomes of robotic gastrectomy.

Methods

In order to find relevant studies on the efficacy and safety of robotic gastrectomy (RG) and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) in the treatment of gastric cancer, numerous medical databases including PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Library, Embase, Google Scholar, and China Journal Full-text Database (CNKI) were consulted, and Chinese and English studies on the efficacy and safety of RG and LG in the treatment of gastric cancer published from 2012 to 2022 were screened according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, and a meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.4 software.

Results

The meta-analysis inlcuded 48 literatures, with 20,151 gastric cancer patients, including 6,175 in the RG group and 13,976 in the LG group, respectively. Results of our meta-analysis showed that RG group had prololonged operative time (WMD = 35.72, 95% CI = 28.59–42.86, P < 0.05) (RG: mean ± SD = 258.69 min ± 32.98; LG: mean ± SD = 221.85 min ± 31.18), reduced blood loss (WMD = −21.93, 95% CI = −28.94 to −14.91, P < 0.05) (RG: mean ± SD = 105.22 ml ± 62.79; LG: mean ± SD = 127.34 ml ± 79.62), higher number of harvested lymph nodes (WMD = 2.81, 95% CI = 1.99–3.63, P < 0.05) (RG: mean ± SD = 35.88 ± 4.14; LG: mean ± SD = 32.73 ± 4.67), time to first postoperative food intake shortened (WMD = −0.20, 95% CI = −0.29 to −0.10, P < 0.05) (RG: mean ± SD = 4.5 d ± 1.94; LG: mean ± SD = 4.7 d ± 1.54), and lower length of postoperative hospital stay (WMD = −0.54, 95% CI = −0.83 to −0.24, P < 0.05) (RG: mean ± SD = 8.91 d ± 6.13; LG: mean ± SD = 9.61 d ± 7.74) in comparison to the LG group. While the other variables, for example, time to first postoperative flatus, postoperative complications, proximal and distal mar gin, R₀ resection rate, mortality rate, conversion rate, and 3-year overall survival rate were all found to be statistically similar at P > 0.05.

Conclusions

In the treatment of gastric cancer, robotic gastrectomy is a safe and effective procedure that has both short- and long-term effects. To properly evaluate the advantages of robotic surgery in gastric cancer, more randomised controlled studies with rigorous research methodologies are needed.

Does Caudate Resection Improve Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Curative Resection for Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Margin-negative (R0) resection is the strongest positive prognostic factor in perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHC). Due to its anatomic location, the caudate lobe is frequently involved in PHC. This review aimed to examine the impact of caudate lobe resection (CLR) in addition to hepatectomy and bile duct resection for patients with PHC.

METHODS

The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were systematically reviewed from inception to October 2021 to identify studies comparing patients undergoing surgical resection with hepatectomy and bile duct resection with or without CLR for treatment of PHC. Outcomes included the proportion of patients achieving R0 resection, overall survival (OS), and perioperative morbidity.

RESULTS

Altogether, 949 studies were screened. The review included eight observational studies reporting on 1137 patients. The patients who underwent CLR had a higher likelihood of R0 resection (odds ratio [OR], 5.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.64-12.95) and a better OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.65; 95% CI, 0.54-0.79) than those who did not. The use of CLR did not increase the risk of perioperative morbidity (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.65-1.63).

CONCLUSIONS

Given the higher likelihood of R0 resection, improved OS, and no apparent increase in perioperative morbidity, this review supports routine caudate lobectomy in the surgical management of PHC. These results should be interpreted with caution given the lack of high-quality prospective data and the high probability of selection bias.

Survival of Patients Subjected to Hepatectomy After Spontaneous Rupture of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Meta-analysis of High-quality Propensity Score Matching Studies

Background

The spontaneous rupture of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is associated with high mortality rates, and liver resection can provide better outcomes than other available treatments. However, the survival length of patients subjected to hepatectomy after spontaneous rupture of hepatocellular carcinoma remains controversial.

Method

Articles reporting the comparison of the survival outcome between patients with rupture HCC (rHCC) and non-rupture HCC (nrHCC) from the inception until December 31, 2021 by PubMed, Web of Science, OVID, and the Cochrane Library databases were included. The high-quality propensity score matching analysis was used to investigate the impact of rupture on disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) between the rHCC and nrHCC group with no heterogeneity.

Result

A total of 606 patients from six cohort studies were included. The major baseline characteristics of the eligible patients were well balanced between rHCC and nrHCC group. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year hazard ratios of DFS were 3.45 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.54–4.68), 3.63 (95% CI 2.87–4.60), and 3.72 (95% CI 2.93–4.72), respectively. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year hazard ratios of OS were 5.01 (95% CI 3.26–7.69), 5.49 (95% CI 4.08–7.39), and 4.20 (95% CI 3.20–5.51), respectively.

Conclusion

The present meta-analysis demonstrated that the DSF and OS were significantly shorter in the rHCC group than in the nrHCC group, thus revealing that spontaneous HCC rupture was a predictor of poor survival.

Mortality associated with COVID-19 and hypertension in sub-Saharan Africa. A systematic review and meta-analysis

Hypertension is a common comorbidity in COVID-19 patients. However, little data is available on mortality in COVID-19 patients with hypertension in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Herein, the authors conducted a systematic review of research articles published from January 1, 2020 to July 1, 2021. Our aim was to evaluate the magnitude of COVID-19 mortality in patients with hypertension in SSA. Following the PRISMA guidelines, two independent investigators conducted the literature review to collect relevant data. The authors used a random effect model to estimate the odds ratio, or hazard ratio, with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Furthermore, the authors used Egger's tests to check for publication bias. For mortality analysis, the authors included data on 29 945 COVID-19 patients from seven publications. The authors assessed the heterogeneity across studies with the I² test. Finally, the pooled analysis revealed that hypertension was associated with an increased odds of mortality among COVID-19 inpatients (OR 1.32; 95% CI, 1.13-1.50). Our analysis revealed neither substantial heterogeneity across studies nor a publication bias. Therefore, our prespecified results provided new evidence that hypertension could increase the risk of mortality from COVID-19 in SSA.

Partial Versus Total Omentectomy in Patients with Gastric Cancer: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Surgical treatment is the key to cure localized gastric cancer. There is no strong evidence that supports the value of omentectomy. Thus, a meta-analysis was conducted to compare the safety and efficiency of partial and total omentectomy in patients with gastric cancer. Methods: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched. All studies that compared total and partial omentectomy as treatments for gastric cancer were included. The primary outcomes were patients' overall survival and disease-free survival, while the secondary outcomes were perioperative outcome and postoperative complications. Results: A total of nine studies were examined, wherein 1043 patients were included in the partial omentectomy group, and 1995 in the total omentectomy group. The partial omentectomy group was associated with better overall survival (hazard ratio: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.66 to 0.98, p = 0.04, I² = 0%), shorter operative time, and lesser blood loss than the total omentectomy group. In addition, no statistically significant difference was observed in the number of dissected lymph nodes, length of hospital stays, complication rate, and disease-free survival. Conclusions: Our results show that, compared with total omentectomy in gastric cancer surgery, partial omentectomy had non-inferior oncological outcomes and comparable safety outcomes.

Pooled Analysis of Gastric Emptying in Patients With Obesity: Implications for Oral Absorption Projection

PURPOSE

Gastric emptying time is one of limiting factors that determines the pharmacokinetic properties of drugs administered by mouth. Despite the high prevalence of obesity worldwide, modifications in gastric emptying time have not been systematically addressed in this set of patients. The current analysis aims to quantitatively address obesity-related changes in gastric emptying time of solids, semisolids, and liquids compared with lean individuals, highlighting the relevant pharmacokinetic implications of oral drug absorption in patients with obesity.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase for all relevant articles published until November 1, 2020. Differences in gastrointestinal variables in relation to gastric emptying between obese and lean individuals were quantified by weighted mean difference (WMD) and ratio of means (RoM). Robustness of the analyses was evaluated by subgroup analysis and publication bias test.

FINDINGS

A total of 17 studies with 906 participants were included. The gastric half-emptying time of solids (WMD, -10.4 minutes; P = 0.001; RoM, 0.90; P = 0.01) and liquids (WMD, -6.14 minutes; P < 0.001; RoM, 0.83, P = 0.03) was significantly shorter in individuals with obesity compared with lean individuals. These findings were confirmed by the subgroup analyses and publication bias tests.

IMPLICATIONS

Our pooled analysis systemically quantifies the differences in gastric half-emptying time between individuals with obesity and lean individuals, facilitating better understanding and prediction of drug absorption in individuals with obesity through physiologically based pharmacokinetic approaches. Obesity is associated with a faster transit of both solids and liquids through the stomach.

In-house versus on-call trauma surgeon coverage: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

A rapid trauma response is essential to provide optimal care for severely injured patients. However, it is currently unclear if the presence of an in-house trauma surgeon affects this response during call and influences outcomes. This study compares in-hospital mortality and process-related outcomes of trauma patients treated by a 24/7 in-house versus an on-call trauma surgeon.

METHODS

PubMed/Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL databases were searched on the first of November 2020. All studies comparing patients treated by a 24/7 in-house versus an on-call trauma surgeon were considered eligible for inclusion. A meta-analysis of mortality rates including all severely injured patients (i.e., Injury Severity Score of ≥16) was performed. Random-effect models were used to pool mortality rates, reported as risk ratios. The main outcome measure was in-hospital mortality. Process-related outcomes were chosen as secondary outcome measures.

RESULTS

In total, 16 observational studies, combining 64,337 trauma patients, were included. The meta-analysis included 8 studies, comprising 7,490 severely injured patients. A significant reduction in mortality rate was found in patients treated in the 24/7 in-house trauma surgeon group compared with patients treated in the on-call trauma surgeon group (risk ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.78-0.95; p = 0.002; I2 = 0%). In 10 of 16 studies, at least 1 process-related outcome improved after the in-house trauma surgeon policy was implemented.

CONCLUSION

A 24/7 in-house trauma surgeon policy is associated with reduced mortality rates for severely injured patients treated at level I trauma centers. In addition, presence of an in-house trauma surgeon during call may improve process-related outcomes. This review recommends implementation of a 24/7 in-house attending trauma surgeon at level I trauma centers. However, the final decision on attendance policy might depend on center and region-specific conditions.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Systematic review/meta-analysis, level III.

Decreased Mortality in Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients Treated With Tocilizumab: A Rapid Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies

Background

We systematically reviewed the literature to answer the following research questions: 1) does IL-6 (receptor) antagonist therapy reduce mortality in COVID-19 patients compared to patients not treated with IL-6 (receptor) antagonists and 2) is there an increased risk of side effects in COVID-19 patients treated with IL-6 (receptor) antagonists compared to patients not treated with IL-6 (receptor) antagonists?.

Methods

We systematically searched PubMed, PMC PubMed Central, MEDLINE, WHO COVID-19 Database, Embase, Web-of-Science, COCHRANE LIBRARY, Emcare and Academic Search Premier (until June 30th2020). Random effects meta-analysis was used to pool the risk ratio and risk difference of individual studies. Risk of bias was appraised using the MINORS checklist.

Results

The search strategy retrieved 743 unique titles of which 10 studies (all on tocilizumab) comprising 1358 patients were included. Nine out of ten studies were considered to be of high quality. Meta-analysis showed that the tocilizumab group had lower mortality than the control group. The risk ratio (RR) was 0.27 95%CI 0.12 to 0.59 and the risk difference (RD) was 12% 95%CI 4.6% to 20% in favour of the tocilizumab group. With only a few studies available there were no differences observed regarding side effects.

Conclusions

Our results showed that mortality was 12% lower for COVID-19 patients treated with tocilizumab compared to COVID-19 patients who were not treated with tocilizumab. The number needed to treat was 11, suggesting that for every 11 (severe) COVID-19 patients treated with tocilizumab 1 death is prevented. These results require confirmation by randomized controlled trials.

Passive Versus Active Intra-Abdominal Drainage Following Pancreatic Resection: Does A Superior Drainage System Exist? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is a major source of morbidity following pancreatic resection. Surgically placed drains under suction or gravity are routinely used to help mitigate the complications associated with POPF. Controversy exists as to whether one of these drain management strategies is superior. The objective was to identify and compare the incidence of POPF, adverse events, and resource utilization associated with passive gravity (PG) versus active suction (AS) drainage following pancreatic resection. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to May 18, 2020. Outcomes of interest included POPF, post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), surgical site infection (SSI), other major morbidity, and resource utilization. Descriptive qualitative and pooled quantitative meta-analyses were performed. One randomized control trial and five cohort studies involving 10 663 patients were included. Meta-analysis found no difference in the odds of developing POPF between AS and PG (p = 0.78). There were no differences in other endpoints including PPH (p = 0.58), SSI (wound p = 0.21, organ space p = 0.05), major morbidity (p = 0.71), or resource utilization (p = 0.72). The risk of POPF or other adverse outcomes is not impacted by drain management following pancreatic resection. Based on current evidence, a suggestion cannot be made to support the use of one drain over another at this time. There is a trend toward increased intra-abdominal wound infections with AS drains (p = 0.05) that merits further investigation.

The Effectiveness of Different Concepts of Bracing in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis (AIS): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Brace treatment is the most common noninvasive treatment in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS); however it is currently not fully known whether there is a difference in effectiveness between brace types/concepts. All studies on brace treatment for AIS were searched for in PubMed and EMBASE up to January 2021. Articles that did not report on maturity of the study population were excluded. Critical appraisal was performed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies tool (MINORS). Brace concepts were distinguished in prescribed wearing time and rigidity of the brace: full-time, part-time, and night-time, rigid braces and soft braces. In the meta-analysis, success was defined as ≤5° curve progression during follow-up. Of the 33 selected studies, 11 papers showed high risk of bias. The rigid full-time brace had on average a success rate of 73.2% (95% CI 61-86%), night-time of 78.7% (72-85%), soft braces of 62.4% (55-70%), observation only of 50% (44-56%). There was insufficient evidence on part-time wear for the meta-analysis. The majority of brace studies have significant risk of bias. No significant difference in outcome between the night-time or full-time concepts could be identified. Soft braces have a lower success rate compared to rigid braces. Bracing for scoliosis in Risser 0-2 and 0-3 stage of maturation appeared most effective.

Robot-assisted thoracic surgery versus video-assisted thoracic surgery for lung lobectomy or segmentectomy in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis

Background

It remains no clear conclusion about which is better between robot-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) and video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) for the treatment of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Therefore, this meta-analysis aimed to compare the short-term and long-term efficacy between RATS and VATS for NSCLC.

Methods

Pubmed, Cochrane Library, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Medline, and Web of Science databases were comprehensively searched for studies published before December 2020. The quality of the articles was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and the data analyzed using the Review Manager 5.3 software. Fixed or random effect models were applied according to heterogeneity. Subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were conducted.

Results

A total of 18 studies including 11,247 patients were included in the meta-analyses, of which 5114 patients were in the RATS group and 6133 in the VATS group. Compared with VATS, RATS was associated with less blood loss (WMD = − 50.40, 95% CI -90.32 ~ − 10.48, P = 0.010), lower conversion rate (OR = 0.50, 95% CI 0.43 ~ 0.60, P < 0.001), more harvested lymph nodes (WMD = 1.72, 95% CI 0.63 ~ 2.81, P = 0.002) and stations (WMD = 0.51, 95% CI 0.15 ~ 0.86, P = 0.005), shorter duration of postoperative chest tube drainage (WMD = − 0.61, 95% CI -0.78 ~ − 0.44, P < 0.001) and hospital stay (WMD = − 1.12, 95% CI -1.58 ~ − 0.66, P < 0.001), lower overall complication rate (OR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.83 ~ 0.99, P = 0.020), lower recurrence rate (OR = 0.51, 95% CI 0.36 ~ 0.72, P < 0.001), and higher cost (WMD = 3909.87 USD, 95% CI 3706.90 ~ 4112.84, P < 0.001). There was no significant difference between RATS and VATS in operative time, mortality, overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS). Sensitivity analysis showed that no significant differences were found between the two techniques in conversion rate, number of harvested lymph nodes and stations, and overall complication.

Conclusions

The results revealed that RATS is a feasible and safe technique compared with VATS in terms of short-term and long-term outcomes. Moreover, more randomized controlled trials comparing the two techniques with rigorous study designs are still essential to evaluate the value of robotic surgery for NSCLC.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-021-08241-5.

Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic minor hepatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted and laparoscopic surgery are the most minimally invasive surgical approaches for the removal of liver lesions. Minor hepatectomy is a common surgical procedure. In this study, we evaluated the advantages and disadvantages of robot-assisted vs laparoscopic minor hepatectomy (LMH).

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to identify comparative studies on robot-assisted vs. laparoscopicminor hepatectomy up to February, 2020. The odds ratios (OR) and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the fixed-effects model or random-effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 12 studies involving 751 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Among them, 297 patients were in the robot-assisted minor hepatectomy (RMH) group and 454 patients were in the LMH group. There were no significant differences in intraoperative blood loss (P = .43), transfusion rates (P = .14), length of hospital stay (P > .64), conversion rate (P = .62), R0 resection rate (P = .56), complications (P = .92), or mortaliy (P = .37) between the 2 groups. However, the RMH group was associated with a longer operative time (P = .0003), and higher cost (P < .00001) compared to the LMH group. No significant differences in overall survival or disease free survival between the 2 groups were observed. In the subgroup analysis of left lateral sectionectomies, RMH was still associated with a longer operative time, but no other differences in clinical outcomes were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Although RMH is associated with longer operation times and higher costs, it exhibits the same safety and effectiveness as LMH. Prospective randomized controlled clinical trials should now be considered to obtain better evidence for clinical consensus.

Endometrial preparation for frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To compare the effects of different endometrial preparation protocols for frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) cycles and present treatment hierarchy.

METHODS

Systematic review with meta-analysis was performed by electronic searching of MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and Google Scholar up to Dec 26, 2020. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or observational studies comparing 7 treatment options (natural cycle with or without human chorionic gonadotrophin trigger (mNC or tNC), artificial cycle with or without gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist suppression (AC+GnRH or AC), aromatase inhibitor, clomiphene citrate, gonadotropin or follicle stimulating hormone) in FET cycles were included. Meta-analyses were performed within random effects models. Primary outcome was live birth presented as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Twenty-six RCTs and 113 cohort studies were included in the meta-analyses. In a network meta-analysis, AC ranked last in effectiveness, with lower live birth rates when compared with other endometrial preparation protocols. In pairwise meta-analyses of observational studies, AC was associated with significant lower live birth rates compared with tNC (OR 0.81, 0.70 to 0.93) and mNC (OR 0.85, 0.77 to 0.93). Women who achieved pregnancy after AC were at an increased risk of pregnancy-induced hypertension (OR 1.82, 1.37 to 2.38), postpartum haemorrhage (OR 2.08, 1.61 to 2.78) and very preterm birth (OR 2.08, 1.45 to 2.94) compared with those after tNC.

CONCLUSION

Natural cycle treatment has a higher chance of live birth and lower risks of PIH, PPH and VPTB than AC for endometrial preparation in women receiving FET cycles.

Acceptance and Use of Home-Based Electronic Symptom Self-Reporting Systems in Patients With Cancer: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Electronic symptom self-reporting systems (e-SRS) have been shown to improve symptoms and survival in patients with cancer. However, patient engagement in using e-SRS for voluntary symptom self-reporting is less optimal. Multiple factors can potentially affect patients' acceptance and engagement in using home-based e-SRS. However, such factors have not been fully explored in cancer populations.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to understand the acceptance and use of home-based e-SRS by patients with cancer and identify associated facilitators and barriers.

METHODS

PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and PsycINFO (January 2010 to March 2020) were searched using a combination of Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and keywords such as symptom self-reporting, electronic/technology, cancer, and their synonyms. Included studies focused on the use of home-based e-SRS by patients with cancer and their families. Studies on patients' use of e-SRS in clinical settings only were excluded. Of the 3740 papers retrieved, 33 were included in the final review. Factors associated with patient acceptance and use of e-SRS were extracted and synthesized.

RESULTS

Most e-SRS were web based (22/33, 66%) or mobile app based (9/33, 27%). The e-SRS initial acceptance, represented by patient enrollment rates, ranged from 40% (22/55) to 100% (100/100). High e-SRS acceptance was rated by 69% (59/85) to 77.6% (337/434) of the patients after they used the system. The e-SRS use, measured by patients' response rates to questionnaires (ranging from 1596/3521, 45.33% to 92%) or system log-on rates (ranging from 4/12, 33% to 99/100, 99%), declined over time in general patterns. Few studies (n=7) reported e-SRS use beyond 6 months, with the response rates ranging from 62% (40/64) to 85.1% (541/636) and the log-on rates ranging from 63.6% (103/162) to 77% (49/64). The availability of compatible devices and technical support, interactive system features, information accessibility, privacy, questionnaire quality, patient physical/psychosocial status, and age were associated with patient acceptance and use of home-based e-SRS.

CONCLUSIONS

Acceptance and use of home-based e-SRS by patients with cancer varied significantly across studies, as assessed by a variety of approaches. The lack of access to technology has remained a barrier to e-SRS adoption. Interactive system features and personalized questionnaires may increase patient engagement. More studies are needed to further understand patients' long-term use of home-based e-SRS behavior patterns to develop personalized interventions to support symptom self-management and self-reporting of patients with cancer for optimal health outcomes.

Updated Meta-analysis of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Surgery for Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare the short-term and long-term outcomes of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) with those of open pancreas surgery (OPS) for the treatment of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (pNENs).

METHODS

Studies reporting the effects of MIS and OPS for pNENs, published on PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library before May 2020 were reviewed.

RESULTS

Seventeen cohort studies with a total of 1853 patients were eligible for analysis, including 655 patients in the MIS group and 1198 patients in the OPS group. The estimated blood loss, postoperative hospitalization time, overall complications, severe complications, spleen preservation, mortality, and recurrence in the MIS group were lower than those in the OPS group. The R0 rate, 3-year overall survival (OS), and 5-year OS in the MIS group were higher than those in the OPS group. There were no significant differences in operative time, postoperative pancreatic fistula, clinical postoperative pancreatic fistula, postoperative bleeding, reoperation, readmission, and 1-year OS.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive surgery can reach lower recurrence rate, higher long-term survival rate, and better outcomes in terms of estimated blood loss, postoperative hospitalization time, R0 rate, mortality, overall complications, and severe complications for pNENs. More high quality studies need to be conducted for further verification.

Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

To date, robotic surgery has been widely used worldwide. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate short-term and long-term outcomes of robotic gastrectomy (RG) in gastric cancer patients to determine whether RG can replace laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG).

Methods

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was applied to perform the study. Pubmed, Cochrane Library, WanFang, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and VIP databases were comprehensively searched for studies published before May 2020 that compared RG with LG. Next, two independent reviewers conducted literature screening and data extraction. The quality of the literature was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), and the data analyzed using the Review Manager 5.3 software. Random effects or fixed effects models were applied according to heterogeneity.

Results

A total of 19 studies including 7275 patients were included in the meta-analyses, of which 4598 patients were in the LG group and 2677 in the RG group. Compared with LG, RG was associated with longer operative time (WMD = −32.96, 95% CI −42.08 ~ −23.84, P < 0.001), less blood loss (WMD = 28.66, 95% CI 18.59 ~ 38.73, P < 0.001), and shorter time to first flatus (WMD = 0.16 95% CI 0.06 ~ 0.27, P = 0.003). There was no significant difference between RG and LG in terms of the hospital stay (WMD = 0.23, 95% CI −0.53 ~ 0.98, P = 0.560), overall postoperative complication (OR = 1.07, 95% CI 0.91 ~ 1.25, P = 0.430), mortality (OR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.24 ~ 1.90, P = 0.450), the number of harvested lymph nodes (WMD = −0.96, 95% CI −2.12 ~ 0.20, P = 0.100), proximal resection margin (WMD = −0.10, 95% CI −0.29 ~ 0.09, P = 0.300), and distal resection margin (WMD = 0.15, 95% CI −0.21 ~ 0.52, P = 0.410). No significant differences were found between the two treatments in overall survival (OS) (HR = 0.95, 95% CI 0.76 ~ 1.18, P = 0.640), recurrence-free survival (RFS) (HR = 0.91, 95% CI 0.69 ~ 1.21, P = 0.530), and recurrence rate (OR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.67 ~ 1.21, P = 0.500).

Conclusions

The results of this study suggested that RG is as acceptable as LG in terms of short-term and long-term outcomes. RG can be performed as effectively and safely as LG. Moreover, more randomized controlled trials comparing the two techniques with rigorous study designs are still essential to evaluate the value of the robotic surgery for gastric cancer.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary information accompanies this paper at 10.1186/s12957-020-02080-7.

Effects of smartphone-based interventions and monitoring on bipolar disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Recently, there has been a range of studies about smartphone-based interventions and monitoring for reducing symptoms of bipolar disorder (BD). However, their efficacy for BD remains unclear.

AIM

To compare the effect of smartphone-based interventions and monitoring with control methods in treating patients with BD.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed on PubMed, Embase, Clinical trials, psycINFO, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) or single-group trials in which smartphone-based interventions and monitoring were compared with control methods or baseline in patients with symptoms of BD were included. Data were synthesized using a random-effects or a fixed-effects model to analyze the effects of psychological interventions and monitoring delivered via smartphone on psychiatric symptoms in patients with BD. The primary outcome measures were set for mania and depression symptoms. Subgroups were created to explore which aspects of smartphone interventions are relevant to the greater or lesser efficacy of treating symptoms.

RESULTS

We identified ten articles, including seven RCTs (985 participants) and three single-group trials (169 participants). Analysis of the between-group study showed that smartphone-based interventions were effective in reducing manic [g = -0.19, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.33 to -0.04, P = 0.01] and depressive (g = -0.28, 95%CI: -0.55 to -0.01, P < 0.05) symptoms. In within-group analysis, smartphone-based interventions significantly reduced manic (g = 0.17, 95%CI: 0.04 to 0.30, P < 0.01) and depressive (g = 0.48, 95%CI: 0.18 to 0.78) symptoms compared to the baseline. Nevertheless, smartphone-based monitoring systems significantly reduced manic (g = 0.27, 95%CI: 0.02 to 0.51, P < 0.05) but not depressive symptoms. Subgroup analysis indicated that the interventions with psychoeducation had positive effects on depressive (g = -0.62, 95%CI: -0.81 to -0.43, P < 0.01) and manic (g = -0.24, 95%CI: -0.43 to -0.06, P = 0.01) symptoms compared to the controlled conditions, while the interventions without psychoeducation did not (P > 0.05). The contacts between therapists and patients that contributed to the implementation of psychological therapy reduced depression symptoms (g = -0.47, 95%CI: -0.75 to -0.18, P = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Smartphone-based interventions and monitoring have a significant positive impact on depressive and manic symptoms of BD patients in between-group and within-group analysis.

Safety and efficacy of robot-assisted versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a meta-analysis of multiple worldwide centers

The objective of the study is to compare the safety and efficacy of robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) with open PD. The PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases were searched for the literature available from their respective inception dates up to May 2020 to find studies comparing robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). The RevMan 5.3 statistical software was used for analysis to evaluate surgical outcome and oncology safety. The combination ratio (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using fixed-effect or random effect models. 18 cohort studies from 16 medical centers were eligible with a total of 5795 patients including 1420 RPD group patients and 4375 OPD group patients. The RPD group fared better than the OPD group in terms of estimated blood loss (EBL) (WMD = - 175.65, 95% CI (- 251.85, - 99.44), P < 0.00001), wound infection rate (RR = 0.60, 95% CI (0.44, 0.81), P = 0.001), reoperation rate (RR = 0.61, 95% CI (0.41, 0.91), P = 0.02), hospital day (WMD = - 2.95, 95% CI (- 5.33, - 0.56), P = 0.02), intraoperative blood transfusion (RR = 0.56, 95% CI (0.42, 0.76), P = 0.0001), overall complications (RR = 0.78, 95% CI (0.64, 0.95), P = 0.01), and clinical postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) (RR = 0.54, 95% CI (0.41, 0.70), P < 0.0001). In terms of lymph node clearance (WMD = 0.48, 95% CI (- 2.05, 3.02), P = 0.71), R0 rate (RR = 1.05, 95% CI (1.00, 1.11), P = 0.05), postoperative pancreatic fistula (RR = 1, 95% CI (0.85, 1.19), P = 0.97), bile leakage (RR = 0.99, 95% CI (0.54, 1.83), P = 0.98), delayed gastric emptying (DGE) (RR = 0.79, 95% CI (0.60, 1.03), P = 0.08), 90-day mortality (RR = 0.82, 95% CI (0.62, 1.10), P = 0.19), and severe complications (RR = 0.98, 95% CI (0.71, 1.36), P = 0.91), and there were no significant differences between the two groups. Robotic surgery was inferior to open surgery in terms of operational time (WMD = 80.85, 95% CI (16.09, 145.61), P = 0.01). RPD is not inferior to OPD, and it is even more advantageous for EBL, wound infection rate, reoperation rate, hospital stay, intraoperative transfusion, overall complications and clinical POPF. However, these findings need to be further verified by high-quality randomized controlled trials.

Laparoscopic versus open distal gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and high-quality nonrandomized comparative studies

BACKGROUND

Controversy persists about the effects of laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) versus open distal gastrectomy (ODG) on short-term surgical outcomes and long-term survival within the field of advanced gastric cancer (AGC).

METHODS

Studies published from January 1994 to February 2020 that compare LDG and ODG for AGC were identified. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. The selection of high-quality nonrandomized comparative studies (NRCTs) was based on a validated tool (Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies, MINORS). The short- and long-term outcomes of both procedures were compared.

RESULTS

Overall, 30 studies were included in this meta-analysis, which comprised of 8 RCTs and 22 NRCTs involving 16,029 patients (7864 LDGs, 8165 ODGs). The recurrence, 3-year disease-free survival (DFS), 3-year overall survival (OS), and 5-year OS rates for LDG and ODG were comparable. LDG was associated with a lower postoperative complication rate (OR 0.79; P < 0.00001), lower estimated volume of blood loss (WMD -102.21 mL; P < 0.00001), shorter postoperative hospital stay (WMD -1.96 days; P < 0.0001), shorter time to first flatus (WMD -0.54 day; P = 0.0007) and shorter time to first liquid diet (WMD -0.66 day; P = 0.001). The number of lymph nodes retrieved, mortality, intraoperative complications, intraoperative blood transfusion, and time to ambulation were similar. However, LDG was associated with a longer surgical time (WMD 33.57 min; P < 0.00001).

CONCLUSIONS

LDG with D2 lymphadenectomy is a safe and effective technique for patients with AGC when performed by experienced surgeons at high-volume specialized centers.

Re-evaluating "Success" as It Pertains to Surgical Trials

The objective of this article is to review the difficulties with the design and interpretation of surgical clinical trials. Few surgical procedures are evaluated in a randomized fashion. There are a number of factors that make the design of surgical trials diffiuclt, and many surgical questions cannot be answered with a clinical trial. Issues with standardization of the surgical procedure, variability of surgical skills, and changes in surgical expertise over time further complicate the design and implementation of surgical trials. Statistical methods for surgical trials often require a noninferiorty design and are more complicated to interpret than the more common superiority trial. Even when properly conducted, both superiority and noninferiority trials are often misinterpreted. Because of the relatively high success rate in surgery, trials require large numbers of patients and noninferiority trials are often inconclusive with respect to the primary outcome. Surgical trials are often misinterpreted or over interpreted, and there can be confusion in how the findings of these trials should be incorportated into clinical practice. The interpretation of the results of a surgical trial often differ significantly from the primary and secondary outcomes that were specified in the trial design.

Conventional Two-Stage Hepatectomy or Associating Liver Partitioning and Portal Vein Ligation for Staged Hepatectomy for Colorectal Liver Metastases? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Pushing the surgical limits for initially unresectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) are two approaches for sequential liver resection: two-stage hepatectomy (TSH) and associating liver partitioning and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy (ALPPS). However, the role of each treatment modality remains ill-defined. The present meta-analysis was designed to compare the safety, efficacy, and oncological benefits between ALPPS and TSH in the management of advanced CRLM.

Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted from online databases through to February 2020. Single-arm synthesis and cumulative meta-analysis were performed.

Results: Eight studies were included, providing a total of 409 subjects for analysis (ALPPS: N = 161; TSH: N = 248). The completions of the second stage of the hepatectomy [98 vs. 78%, odds ratio (OR) 5.75, p < 0.001] and R0 resection (66 vs. 37%; OR 4.68; p < 0.001) were more frequent in patients receiving ALPPS than in those receiving TSH, and the waiting interval was dramatically shortened in ALPPS (11.6 vs. 45.7 days, weighted mean difference = −35.3 days, p < 0.001). Nevertheless, the rate of minor complications was significantly higher in ALPPS (59 vs. 18%, OR 6.5, p < 0.001) than in TSH. The two treatments were similar in 90-day mortality (7 vs. 5%, p = 0.43), major complications (29 vs. 22%, p = 0.08), posthepatectomy liver failure (PHLF; 9 vs. 9%, p = 0.3), biliary leakage (11 vs. 14%, p = 0.86), length of hospital stay (27.95 vs. 26.88 days, p = 0.8), 1-year overall survival (79 vs. 84%, p = 0.61), 1-year recurrence (49 vs. 39%, p = 0.32), and 1-year disease-free survival (34 vs. 39%, p = 0.66). Cumulative meta-analyses indicated chronological stability for the pooled effect sizes of resection rate, 90-day mortality, major complications, and PHLF.

Conclusions: Compared with TSH, ALPPS for advanced CRLM resulted in superior surgical efficacy with comparable perioperative mortality rate and short-term oncological outcomes, while this was at the cost of increased perioperative minor complications.

Surgical outcomes of colonic stents as a bridge to surgery versus emergency surgery for malignant colorectal obstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of high quality prospective and randomised controlled trials

Self-expanding metallic stent placement as a bridge to surgery has been reported as an alternative to emergency surgery for acute malignant colorectal obstruction. However, results from clinical trials and previous meta-analyses are conflicting. We carried out a meta-analysis to compare the surgical and oncological outcomes between emergency surgery and self-expanding metallic stents for malignant large bowel obstruction. Pubmed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science and Cochrane were searched for prospective and randomised controlled trials. The outcomes of focus included 3- and 5-year overall and disease-free survival, overall tumour recurrence, overall complication and 30-day mortality rate, length of hospital and ICU stay, overall blood loss, number of patients requiring transfusion, total number of lymph nodes harvested, stoma and primary anastomosis rate. Twenty-seven studies were included with a total of 3894 patients. There was no significant difference in terms of 3-year and 5-year disease-free and overall survival. Stenting resulted in less blood loss (mean difference -234.72, P < 0.00001) and higher primary anastomosis rate (RR 1.25, P < 0.00001). For curative cases, bridge to surgery groups had lower 30-day mortality rate (RR 0.65, P = 0.01), lower overall complication rate (RR 0.65, P < 0.0001), more lymph nodes harvested (mean difference 2.51, P = 0.005), shorter ICU stay (mean difference -2.27, P = 0.02) and hospital stay (mean difference -7.24, 95% P < 0.0001). Compared to emergency surgery, self-expanding metallic stent interventions improve short-term surgical outcomes, especially in the curative setting, but have similar long-term oncological and survival outcomes.

Outcomes of Adenotonsillectomy for Obstructive Sleep Apnea in Prader-Willi Syndrome: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Prader-Willi syndrome (PWS) increases the risk of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) due to obesity, hypotonia, and abnormal ventilatory responses. We evaluated post-adenotonsillectomy complications, polysomnography changes, and quality of life in children with OSA and PWS.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis by searching PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Scopus. Two researchers independently reviewed studies about adenotonsillectomy for OSA in patients <21 years with PWS. We extracted study design, patient numbers, age, complications, polysomnography, and quality of life. We pooled postoperative changes in apnea hypopnea index (AHI) for meta-analysis. We applied Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS) criteria to assess study quality.

RESULTS

The initial search yielded 169 studies. We included 68 patients from eight studies with moderate to high risk of bias. Six studies reported on complications and 12 of 51 patients (24%) had at least one. Velopharyngeal insufficiency was the most commonly reported complication (7/51, 14%). We included seven studies in meta-analysis. Mean postoperative improvement in AHI was 7.7 (95% CI: 4.9-10.5). Postoperatively 20% (95% CI: 3%-43%) had resolution of OSA with AHI < 1.5 while 67% (95% CI: 50%-82%) had improvement from severe/moderate OSA to mild/resolved (AHI < 5). Two studies evaluated quality of life and demonstrated improvement.

CONCLUSIONS

Children with PWS undergoing adenotonsillectomy for OSA have a substantial risk of postoperative complications that may require additional interventions, especially velopharyngeal insufficiency. Despite improvements in polysomnography and quality of life, many patients had residual OSA. This information can be used to counsel families when considering OSA treatment options. Laryngoscope, 131:898-906, 2021.

Impact of parallel processing of regional anesthesia with block rooms on resource utilization and clinical outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Block rooms allow parallel processing of surgical patients with the purported benefits of improving resource utilization and patient outcomes. There is disparity in the literature supporting these suppositions. We aimed to synthesize the evidence base for parallel processing by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis. A systematic search was undertaken of Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the National Health Service (NHS) National Institute for Health Research Centre for Reviews and Dissemination database, and Google Scholar for terms relating to regional anesthesia and block rooms. The primary outcome was anesthesia-controlled time (ACT; time from entry of the patient into the operating room (OR) until the start of surgical prep plus surgical closure to exit of patient from the OR). Secondary outcomes of interest included other resource-utilization parameters such as turnover time (TOT; time between the exit of one patient from the OR and the entry of another), time spent in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU), OR throughput, and clinical outcomes such as pain scores, nausea and vomiting, and patient satisfaction. Fifteen studies were included involving 8888 patients, of which 3364 received care using a parallel processing model. Parallel processing reduced ACT by a mean difference (95% CI) of 10.4 min (16.3 to 4.5; p<0.0001), TOT by 16.1 min (27.4 to 4.8; p<0.0001) and PACU stay by 26.6 min (47.1 to 6.1; p=0.01) when compared with serial processing. Moreover, parallel processing increased daily OR throughout by 1.7 cases per day (p<0.0001). Clinical outcomes all favored parallel processing models. All studies showed moderate-to-critical levels of bias. Parallel processing in regional anesthesia appears to reduce the ACT, TOT, PACU time and improved OR throughput when compared with serial processing. PROSPERO CRD42018085184.