Meta-analysis of trials comparing laparoscopic transperitoneal and retroperitoneal adrenalectomy

Background. Laparoscopic adrenalectomies are being performed increasingly, either with transperitoneal or retroperitoneal approaches. Studies comparing the 2 approaches have not shown the superiority of either technique, but these studies are limited by small sample sizes and single-institution designs. To overcome these limitations, we performed a meta-analysis of studies comparing lateral transperitoneal adrenalectomy and retroperitoneal adrenalectomy. Methods. A systematic review of studies comparing lateral transperitoneal adrenalectomy and retroperitoneal adrenalectomy was conducted. Study endpoints included perioperative outcomes and measures of postoperative recovery. Meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model, pooling variables evaluated by more than 3 studies. Results. Twenty-one studies comparing a total of 1,205 lateral transperitoneal adrenalectomies and 688 retroperitoneal adrenalectomies were suitable for meta-analysis. Patients in the 2 groups were similar in term of age, sex, body mass index, lesion size and location, and rates of malignancy. There were no statistically significant differences between lateral transperitoneal adrenalectomy and retroperitoneal adrenalectomy in terms of operative time, blood loss, hospital stay, time to oral intake, overall and major morbidity, and mortality. Conclusion. Both lateral transperitoneal adrenalectomy and retroperitoneal adrenalectomy are associated with very low rates of perioperative complications. According to our meta-analysis, clinical outcomes after either technique are similar. For most adrenal lesions requiring operation, minimally invasive adrenalectomy can be performed safely and effectively with either transperitoneal or the retroperitoneal approach. Additional studies may be needed to analyze if any difference in long-term results exist.</br

Metaanalysis of trials comparing minimally invasive and open distal pancreatectomies

Background The current literature suggests that minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is associated with faster recovery and less morbidity than open surgery. However, most studies have been limited by a small sample size and a single-institution design. To overcome this problem, the first metaanalysis of studies comparing MIDP and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) has been performed. Methods A systematic literature review was conducted to identify studies comparing MIDP and ODP. Perioperative outcomes (e.g., morbidity and mortality, pancreatic fistula rates, blood loss) constituted the study end points. Metaanalyses were performed using a random-effects model. Results For the metaanalysis, 10 studies including 349 patients undergoing MIDP and 380 patients undergoing ODP were considered suitable. The patients in the two groups were similar with respect to age, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) classification, and indication for surgery. The rate of conversion from full laparoscopy to hand-assisted procedure was 37%, and that from minimally invasive to open procedure was 11%. Patients undergoing MIDP had less blood loss, a shorter time to oral intake, and a shorter postoperative hospital stay. The mortality and reoperative rates did not differ between MIDP and ODP. The MIDP approach had fewer overall complications [odds ratio (OR), 0.49; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.27–0.89], major complications (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.34–0.96), surgical-site infections (OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.19–0.53), and pancreatic fistulas (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.47–0.98). Conclusions The MIDP procedure is feasible, safe, and associated with less blood loss and overall complications, shorter time to oral intake, and shorter postoperative hospital stay. Furthermore, the minimally invasive approach reduces the rate of pancreatic leaks and surgical-site infections after ODP

Validation of the surgical Apgar score in a veteran population undergoing general surgery

Background: The Surgical Apgar Score (SAS, a 10-point score calculated using limited intraoperative data) can correlate with postoperative morbidity and mortality after general surgery. We evaluated reliability of SAS in a veteran population. Study Design: We prospectively collected demographics, medical history, type of surgery, and postoperative outcomes for any veteran undergoing general surgery at our institution (2006-2011). We categorized patients in 4 SAS groups and compared differences in morbidity and mortality. Results: Our study population included 2,125 patients (SAS ≤4: n = 29; SAS 5−6: n = 227; SAS 7−8: n = 797; SAS 9−10: n = 1,072). Low-SAS patients were likely to have significant preoperative comorbidities and to undergo major surgery, and had increased postoperative morbidity and 30-day mortality. Conclusions: The SAS is easily calculated from 3 routinely available intraoperative measurements, correlates with fixed preoperative risk (acute conditions, pre-existing comorbidities, operative complexity), and effectively identifies veterans at high risk for postoperative complications.</br