Common surgical procedures in pilonidal sinus disease: A meta-analysis, merged data analysis, and comprehensive study on recurrence

Abstract We systematically searched available databases. We reviewed 6,143 studies published from 1833 to 2017. Reports in English, French, German, Italian, and Spanish were considered, as were publications in other languages if definitive treatment and recurrence at specific follow-up times were described in an English abstract. We assessed data in the manner of a meta-analysis of RCTs; further we assessed non-RCTs in the manner of a merged data analysis. In the RCT analysis including 11,730 patients, Limberg & Dufourmentel operations were associated with low recurrence of 0.6% (95%CI 0.3–0.9%) 12 months and 1.8% (95%CI 1.1–2.4%) respectively 24 months postoperatively. Analysing 89,583 patients from RCTs and non-RCTs, the Karydakis & Bascom approaches were associated with recurrence of only 0.2% (95%CI 0.1–0.3%) 12 months and 0.6% (95%CI 0.5–0.8%) 24 months postoperatively. Primary midline closure exhibited long-term recurrence up to 67.9% (95%CI 53.3–82.4%) 240 months post-surgery. For most procedures, only a few RCTs without long term follow up data exist, but substitute data from numerous non-RCTs are available. Recurrence in PSD is highly dependent on surgical procedure and by follow-up time; both must be considered when drawing conclusions regarding the efficacy of a procedure

Evaluation of prognostic risk models for postoperative pulmonary complications in adult patients undergoing major abdominal surgery: a systematic review and international external validation cohort study

Background Stratifying risk of postoperative pulmonary complications after major abdominal surgery allows clinicians to modify risk through targeted interventions and enhanced monitoring. In this study, we aimed to identify and validate prognostic models against a new consensus definition of postoperative pulmonary complications. Methods We did a systematic review and international external validation cohort study. The systematic review was done in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We searched MEDLINE and Embase on March 1, 2020, for articles published in English that reported on risk prediction models for postoperative pulmonary complications following abdominal surgery. External validation of existing models was done within a prospective international cohort study of adult patients (≥18 years) undergoing major abdominal surgery. Data were collected between Jan 1, 2019, and April 30, 2019, in the UK, Ireland, and Australia. Discriminative ability and prognostic accuracy summary statistics were compared between models for the 30-day postoperative pulmonary complication rate as defined by the Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine Core Outcome Measures in Perioperative and Anaesthetic Care (StEP-COMPAC). Model performance was compared using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROCC). Findings In total, we identified 2903 records from our literature search; of which, 2514 (86·6%) unique records were screened, 121 (4·8%) of 2514 full texts were assessed for eligibility, and 29 unique prognostic models were identified. Nine (31·0%) of 29 models had score development reported only, 19 (65·5%) had undergone internal validation, and only four (13·8%) had been externally validated. Data to validate six eligible models were collected in the international external validation cohort study. Data from 11 591 patients were available, with an overall postoperative pulmonary complication rate of 7·8% (n=903). None of the six models showed good discrimination (defined as AUROCC ≥0·70) for identifying postoperative pulmonary complications, with the Assess Respiratory Risk in Surgical Patients in Catalonia score showing the best discrimination (AUROCC 0·700 [95% CI 0·683–0·717]). Interpretation In the pre-COVID-19 pandemic data, variability in the risk of pulmonary complications (StEP-COMPAC definition) following major abdominal surgery was poorly described by existing prognostication tools. To improve surgical safety during the COVID-19 pandemic recovery and beyond, novel risk stratification tools are required. Funding British Journal of Surgery Society