The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy of robot distal gastrectomy (RDG) versus laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) for gastric cancer. Studies included only those that utilized propensity score matching (PSM). A systematic literature search was conducted in several major global databases, including PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar, up to June 2024. Articles were screened based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Baseline data and primary and secondary outcome measures (e.g., operative time, estimated blood loss, lymph-node yield dissection, length of hospital stay, and time to first flatus) were extracted. The quality of PSM studies was assessed using the ROBINS-I, and data were analyzed using Review Manager 5.4.1 software. A total of 12 propensity score-matched studies involving 3688 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Robot-assisted surgery resulted in a longer operative time (WMD 30.64 min, 95% CI 15.63 - 45.66; p < 0.0001), less estimated blood loss (WMD 29.54 mL, 95% CI - 47.14 - 11.94; p = 0.001), more lymph-node yield (WMD 5.14, 95% CI 2.39 - 7.88; p = 0.0002), and a shorter hospital stay (WMD - 0.36, 95% CI - 0.60 - 0.12; p = 0.004) compared with laparoscopic surgery. There were no significant differences between the two surgical methods in terms of time to first flatus, overall complications, and major complications. Robot distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer reduces intraoperative blood loss, increases lymph-node yield, and shortens hospital stay compared with laparoscopic surgery, despite a longer operative time. There are no significant differences in time to first flatus and complication rates between the two groups.

This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy of robot-assisted vs. laparoscopic adrenalectomy in individuals with obesity. We performed an extensive review of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for research on adrenalectomy in individuals with obesity up to August 2024. Only studies comparing robot-assisted surgery with laparoscopic surgery were included. Only articles written in English were included. We utilized established criteria for inclusion and exclusion, concentrating on randomized controlled trials and cohort studies. The ROBINS-I instrument was employed to assess the bias risk in non-randomized control studies. Review Manager 5.4.1 was utilized to conduct the meta-analysis. The final analysis incorporated four retrospective cohort studies with a total of 492 individuals with obesity (261 receiving RA and 231 undergoing LA). The results showed that RA was linked to a shorter duration of hospitalization and less estimated blood loss in comparison to LA. Nonetheless, there were no notable distinctions between the two surgical methods in terms of OT, laparotomy conversion rates, overall postoperative complications, or death rates after surgery. In conclusion, RA is a reliable and safe choice for individuals with obesity. It offers notable advantages over LA in terms of LOHS and EBL.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive oncological resections have become increasingly widespread in the surgical management of cancers. However, the role of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for gallbladder cancer (GBC) remains unclear. We aim to perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis of existing literature to evaluate the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic and robotic surgery in the management of GBC compared to open surgery (OS) by comparing outcomes.
METHODS: A literature search of the PubMed/MEDLINE (2000 to December 2021) and EMBASE (2000 to December 2021) databases was conducted. The primary outcome studied was overall survival, and secondary outcomes studied were postoperative morbidity, severe complications, incidence of bile leak, length of hospital stay, operation time, R0 resection rate, local recurrence and lymph node yield.
RESULTS: Thirty-two full-text articles met the eligibility criteria and were included in the final analysis with a total of 5883 patients undergoing either OS or MIS (laparoscopic or robotic) for GBC. 1- and 2-stage meta-analyses did not reveal any significant differences between OS, laparoscopic and robotic surgery in terms of overall survival, R0 resection, lymph node harvest, local recurrence and post-operative complications. Patients who underwent OS had significantly longer hospitalization stay and intra-operative blood loss compared to those who underwent laparoscopic or robotic surgery. Network meta-analysis did not reveal any significant differences between post-operative and survival outcomes of laparoscopic vs robotic surgery groups.
CONCLUSIONS: This network meta-analysis suggests that both laparoscopic and robotic surgery are safe and effective approaches in the surgical management of GBC, with post-operative and survival outcomes comparable to OS. An MIS approach may also lead to shorter hospitalization stay, less intraoperative blood loss and post-operative complications compared to OS. There was no obvious benefit of either MIS approach (laparoscopic versus robotic) over the other.

BACKGROUND: This study compares the effect of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) on postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) in patients with obesity undergoing laparoscopic bariatric surgery (LBS) under general anesthesia with mechanical ventilation.
METHODS: A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, China National Knowledge Internet, Wanfang database, and Google Scholar for studies published up to July 29, 2023, without time or language restrictions. The search terms included \"PEEP,\" \"laparoscopic,\" and \"bariatric surgery.\" Randomized controlled trials comparing different levels of PEEP or PEEP with zero-PEEP (ZEEP) in patients with obesity undergoing LBS were included. The primary outcome was a composite of PPCs, and the secondary outcomes were intraoperative oxygenation, respiratory compliance, and mean arterial pressure (MAP). A fixed-effect or random-effect model was selected for meta-analysis based on the heterogeneity of the included studies.
RESULTS: Thirteen randomized controlled trials with a total of 708 participants were included for analysis. No statistically significant difference in PPCs was found between the PEEP and ZEEP groups (risk ratio = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.05-1.60; p = 0.15). However, high PEEP ≥ 10 cm H2O significantly decreased PPCs compared with low PEEP < 10 cm H2O (risk ratio = 0.20, 95% CI: 0.05-0.89; p = 0.03). The included studies showed no significant heterogeneity (I2 = 20% & 0%). Compared with ZEEP, PEEP significantly increased intraoperative oxygenation and respiratory compliance (WMD = 74.97 mm Hg, 95% CI: 41.74-108.21; p < 0.001 & WMD = 9.40 ml cm H2O- 1, 95% CI: 0.65-18.16; p = 0.04). High PEEP significantly improved intraoperative oxygenation and respiratory compliance during pneumoperitoneum compared with low PEEP (WMD = 66.81 mm Hg, 95% CI: 25.85-107.78; p = 0.001 & WMD = 8.03 ml cm H2O- 1, 95% CI: 4.70-11.36; p < 0.001). Importantly, PEEP did not impair hemodynamic status in LBS.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with obesity undergoing LBS, high PEEP ≥ 10 cm H2O could decrease PPCs compared with low PEEP < 10 cm H2O, while there was a similar incidence of PPCs between PEEP (8-10 cm H2O) and the ZEEP group. The application of PEEP in ventilation strategies increased intraoperative oxygenation and respiratory compliance without affecting intraoperative MAP. A PEEP of at least 10 cm H2O is recommended to reduce PPCs in patients with obesity undergoing LBS.
BACKGROUND: CRD42023391178 in PROSPERO.

BACKGROUND: Appendectomy is the preferred treatment for acute uncomplicated appendicitis and the most common emergency abdominal surgery. While previous studies have investigated variables affecting post-appendectomy complications, local research is limited, and data on complication rates are scarce. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate appendectomy outcomes and the factors influencing them.
METHODS: This retrospective record review included all patients who underwent appendectomies at our center between 2013 and 2023, excluding those who underwent appendectomies as part of other procedures. Data were retrieved from the hospital database and recorded on predesigned Google Forms.
RESULTS: A total of 556 patients were included. Complications occurred in 60 patients (10.8%); the most common included intra-abdominal collections (n=19, 3.4%), postoperative fever (n=13, 2.3%), and surgical site infections (n=11, 2.0%). The most frequently documented histopathological diagnoses included acute appendicitis (n=402, 72.3%), perforated appendicitis (n=109, 19.6%), and gangrenous appendicitis (n=19, 4.4%). Surgical site infection rates were higher after open appendectomies (6.0% vs. 0.9%, P=0.006), while intra-abdominal collections were more frequent after laparoscopic appendectomies (4.1% vs. 0.0%, P=0.095). Additionally, histopathology results showing complicated or chronic appendicitis were associated with higher complication rates (P<0.001, odds ratio=3.793, 95% confidence interval=1.957-7.350).
CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest retrospective review of appendectomy cases in Saudi Arabia. However, this study was conducted in a tertiary care center, which may have caused the rates of complications to appear lower than those in primary centers. We recommend a multi-center study be conducted to establish more accurate results.

This meta-analysis aimed to compare perioperative outcome measures between the AirSeal system and conventional insufflation system in robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. Up to May 2024, comprehensive searches were conducted across various prominent databases worldwide, such as PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar, focusing solely on English-language materials. Reviews and protocols devoid of published data were excluded, along with conference abstracts and articles unrelated to the study\'s aims. Primary outcome measures encompassed operative duration and hospitalization length, while secondary outcome measures included estimated blood loss and complications. The meta-analysis included five cohort studies, encompassing a total of 1503 patients. In comparison to the conventional insufflation system group, the AirSeal group displayed shorter operative times (WMD - 15.62, 95% CI - 21.87 to - 9.37; p < 0.00001) and reduced hospital stays (WMD - 0.45, 95% CI - 0.60 to - 0.30; p < 0.00001). Fewer major complications (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.66; p = 0.01). Notably, there were no significant differences observed in estimated blood loss or overall complications between the two groups. Compared to conventional insufflation systems, employing the AirSeal system in robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy appears to potentially decrease operative time and hospital length of stay without a concurrent rise in estimated blood loss or complication rates.

OBJECTIVE: Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) has emerged as an alternative to open technique in treating periampullary tumors. However, the safety and efficacy of LPD compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) remain unclear. Thus, we conducted an updated meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of LPD versus OPD in patients with periampullary tumors, with a particular focus on the pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma patient subgroup.
METHODS: According to PRISMA guidelines, we searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library in December 2023 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that directly compare LPD versus OPD in patients with periampullary tumors. Endpoints and sensitive analysis were conducted for short-term endpoints. All statistical analysis was performed using R software version 4.3.1 with a random-effects model.
RESULTS: Five RCTs yielding 1018 patients with periampullary tumors were included, of whom 511 (50.2%) were randomized to the LPD group. Total follow-up time was 90 days. LPD was associated with a longer operation time (MD 66.75; 95% CI 26.59 to 106.92; p = 0.001; I2 = 87%; Fig. 1A), lower intraoperative blood loss (MD - 124.05; 95% CI - 178.56 to - 69.53; p < 0.001; I2 = 86%; Fig. 1B), and shorter length of stay (MD - 1.37; 95% IC - 2.31 to - 0.43; p = 0.004; I2 = 14%; Fig. 1C) as compared with OPD. In terms of 90-day mortality rates and number of lymph nodes yield, no significant differences were found between both groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis of RCTs suggests that LPD is an effective and safe alternative for patients with periampullary tumors, with lower intraoperative blood loss and shorter length of stay.

BACKGROUND: Intraoperative laparoscopic ultrasonography (LUS) or intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) can be used for visualisation of the biliary tract during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The aim of this systematic review was to compare use of LUS with IOC.
METHODS: PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched (last update: April 2024). PICO: P = patients undergoing intraoperative imaging of the biliary tree during laparoscopic cholecystectomy for gallstone disease; I = intervention: LUS; C = comparison: IOC; O = outcomes: mortality, bile duct injury, retained gallstone, conversion to open cholecystectomy, procedural failure, operation time including imaging time. Included articles were critically appraised using checklists. Conclusions were based on studies without major risk of bias. Meta-analyses were performed using random effects models. Certainty of evidence was assessed according to GRADE.
RESULTS: Sixteen non-randomised studies met the PICO. Two before/after studies (594 versus 807 patients) contributed to conclusions regarding mortality (no events; very low certainty evidence), bile duct injury (1 versus 0 events; very low certainty evidence), retained gallstone (2 versus 2 events; very low certainty evidence), and conversion to open cholecystectomy (6 versus 21 events; risk ratio: 0.38 (95% confidence interval: 0.15-0.95); I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence). Seven additional studies, using intra-individual comparisons, contributed to conclusions regarding procedural failure; risk ratio: 1.12 (95% confidence interval: 0.70-1.78; I2 = 83%; very low certainty evidence). No studies reported operation time. Mean imaging time for LUS and IOC, reported in 12 studies, was 4.8‒10.2 versus 10.9‒17.9 min (mean difference: - 7.8 min (95% confidence interval: - 9.3 to - 6.3); I2 = 95%; moderate certainty evidence).
CONCLUSIONS: It is uncertain whether there is any difference in mortality/bile duct injury/retained gallstone using LUS compared with IOC, but LUS may be associated with fewer conversions to open cholecystectomy and is probably associated with shorter imaging time.

The aim of the present study was to compare flexible ureteroscopy and laparoscopy in the treatment of peripelvic renal cysts, so as to determine the best treatment method for patients with peripelvic renal cysts. A systematic search of the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CONAHL, Clinicaltrials.gov, Google Scholar, CNKI and WanFang DATA databases was conducted for articles published over 22 years (December 1980-December 2022) using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. By searching the database, a total of 594 studies were found, of which eight were analyzed as evidence. A total of 394 patients were included in the present study. Of these, 193 were treated laparoscopically and 201 were treated by flexible ureteroscopy. In terms of analysis results, radiation reexamination after laparoscopic therapy had a higher success rate. Ureteroscopy has advantages in the time spent in the operation, the amount of blood lost during the operation, the time to recover the anal exhaust after the operation and the length of postoperative hospital stay. There were no significant difference in postoperative recurrence or complications between the two surgical methods. After comprehensive analysis, it was considered that flexible ureteroscopy has more advantages in the treatment of peripelvic renal cyst, which is mainly manifested in the duration of operation, the total amount of blood loss during operation, the interval of recovery of anal exhaust after operation and the total length of postoperative hospital stay. It is worth further exploration and promotion.

UNASSIGNED: Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been accepted as a safe and effective treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, its impact on elderly patients remains uncertain. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of LLR with open liver resection (OLR) in elderly HCC patients.
UNASSIGNED: We conducted a search across the Ovid-Medline, Ovid-EMBASE, and Cochrane Library to identify comparative studies involving primary HCC in elderly patients (≥65 years). Efficacy-related outcomes encompassed overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS), while safety-related outcomes included post-operative mortality, complications, and length of stay (LOS).
UNASSIGNED: We identified nine eligible cohort studies comprising 1,599 patients. LLR demonstrated comparable 3- and 5-year DFS [hazard ratio (HR) =1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.98-1.02; HR =1.02, 95% CI: 0.99-1.05] and 3- and 5-year OS (HR =1.01, 95% CI: 0.99-1.02; HR =1.02, 95% CI: 0.99-1.06, respectively) compared to OLR. In terms of safety, there was no significant difference between LLR and OLR in in-hospital mortality [odds ratio (OR) =0.19; 95% CI: 0.02-1.69], 30-day mortality (OR =0.33; 95% CI: 0.03-3.20), and 90-day mortality (OR =0.70; 95% CI: 0.32-1.53). Additionally, LLR presented fewer overall complications (OR =0.53; 95% CI: 0.41-0.67), a lower rate of major complications (OR =0.51; 95% CI: 0.35-0.74), a reduced incidence of liver failure (OR =0.56; 95% CI: 0.33-0.94), and a shorter LOS compared to OLR (mean difference: -14.47 days).
UNASSIGNED: LLR exhibited comparable clinical efficacy and superior safety and fewer complications when compared to OLR in elderly patients with HCC requiring surgery.