OBJECTIVE: Extensive  intraperitoneal lavage (EIPL) is a novel therapeutic intervention that aims to limit the chance of peritoneal metastasis during gastrectomy. Clinical trials on using EIPL after gastrectomy show controversial results. We aimed to summarize the evidence of efficacy and safety for using EIPL after gastrectomy to limit the possibility of peritoneal metastasis and improve survival.
METHODS: A literature search on PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Sciences was conducted till June 2023 to identify eligible RCTs that assess the efficacy and safety of EIPL after gastrectomy. The hazard ratio with 95% CI was used to determine the survival probability, the risk ratio with 95% CI was used to assess the surgical outcomes, and ROB-2 and GRADE guidelines were used to assess the risk of bias and the certainty of evidence respectively.
RESULTS: Six eligible studies with a total of 1993 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Regarding survival benefits, the survival of the EIPL group did not differ significantly from the non-EIPL group, and the pooled HR of overall survival was 0.86 (95% CI 0.58-1.26) P = 0.44, the disease-free survival was 0.81 (0.58-1.13) P = 0.21, and peritoneal recurrence-free survival was 0.97 (0.79-1.2) P = 0.25. There is no significant association between EIPL and short-term postoperative outcomes. The use of EIPL does not appear to affect postoperative mortality, infection, anastomotic leakage, bleeding, ileus, or hospital stay.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study yielded insufficient evidence about the survival benefits and surgical outcomes of EIPL in patients with gastric cancer after gastrectomy. Therefore, it is not recommended for treating gastric cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: Emergency treatment of acute diverticulitis remains a hazy field. Despite a number of clinical studies, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), guidelines and surgical societies recommendations, the most critical hot topics have yet to be addressed.
METHODS: Literature research from 1963 until today was performed. Data regarding the principal RCTs and observational studies were summarized in descriptive tables. In particular we aimed to focus on the following topics: the role of laparoscopy, the acute care setting, the RCTs, guidelines, observational studies and classifications proposed by literature, the problem in case of a pandemic, and the importance of adapting treatment /place/surgeon conditions.
RESULTS: In the evaluation of these points we did not try to find any prospective evolution of the concepts achievements. On the contrary we simply report the individuals strands of research from a retrospective point of view, similarly to what Steve Jobes said: \"you can\'t connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them looking backwards. So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future\". We have finally obtained what can be defined \"a narrative review of the literature on diverticulitis\".
CONCLUSIONS: Not only evidence-based medicine but also the contextualization, as also the role of \'competent\' surgeons, should guide to novel approach in acute diverticulitis management.

BACKGROUND: Staging laparoscopy for gastric cancer is recommended to assess the tumor\'s locoregional extension and exclude peritoneal disease. As there is no consensus on optimizing the procedure\'s diagnostic accuracy, we aimed to systematically review the literature on operative techniques, followed by peritoneal lavage fluid assessment in gastric cancer patients. Specifically, we sought to indicate the most common characteristics of the procedure and cytological evaluation.
METHODS: This study was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The protocol for this systematic review was registered on PROSPERO database (CRD: 42022306746). On September 2022, a search was carried out using Embase, Medline ALL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science Core Collection.
RESULTS: The search identified 1632 studies on staging laparoscopy and 2190 studies on peritoneal fluid assessment. Some 212 studies were included. Open Hasson was the method of choice in accessing the peritoneal cavity in 65% of the studies, followed by establishing a pneumoperitoneum at 10-12 mmHg in 52% of reports. Most frequently, the patient was positioned supine (70%), while a 30° scope and three ports were used to assess the peritoneal cavity clockwise (72%, 77%, and 85%, respectively). Right and left upper abdomen quadrants were the predominant area of laparoscopic exploration (both 65%), followed by the primary tumor region (54%), liver and pelvis (both 30%), and small bowel and spleen (19% and 17%, respectively). Regions of peritoneal lavage and aspiration were limited to the pelvis (50%), followed by right and left upper abdomen quadrants (37.5% and 50%, respectively). No studies compared different methods of operative techniques or analysis of ascites/fluid.
CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates a high heterogeneity in the technique of staging laparoscopy and peritoneal fluid assessment in gastric cancer patients. Further research and initiatives to reach a consensus on the standardization of the procedure are warranted.

The aims of this review were to determine whether positive peritoneal lavage cytology (CY+) precludes radical resection in pancreatic cancer and to propose prospections for future studies.
MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central were searched for related articles. Dichotomous variables and survival outcomes were analyzed with the estimation of odds ratio and hazards ratio (HR), respectively.
A total of 4905 patients were included, of which 7.8% were CY+. Positive peritoneal lavage cytology was correlated with poor overall survival (univariate survival analysis [HR, 2.35; P < 0.00001]; multivariate analysis [HR, 1.62; P < 0.00001]), poor recurrence-free survival (univariate survival analysis [HR, 2.50; P < 0.00001]; multivariate analysis [HR, 1.84; P < 0.00001]), and higher initial peritoneal recurrence rate (odds ratio, 5.49; P < 0.00001).
Although CY+ predicts poor prognosis and a higher risk of peritoneal metastasis after curative resection, it is not sufficient to preclude curative resection based on the current evidence, and high-quality trials should be conducted to assess the prognostic impact of operation among resectable CY+ patients. In addition, more sensitive and accurate methods to detect peritoneal exfoliated tumor cells and more effective comprehensive treatment for resectable CY+ pancreatic cancer patients are clearly warranted.

Intraoperative peritoneal lavage (IOPL) with saline has been widely used in surgical practice. However, the effectiveness of IOPL with saline in patients with intra-abdominal infections (IAIs) remains controversial. This study aims to systematically review randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effectiveness of IOPL in patients with IAIs.
The databases of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane library, CNKI, WanFang, and CBM databases were searched from inception to December 31, 2022. Random-effects models were used to calculate the risk ratio (RR), mean difference, and standardized mean difference. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to rate the quality of the evidence.
Ten RCTs with 1318 participants were included, of which eight studies on appendicitis and two studies on peritonitis. Moderate-quality evidence showed that the use of IOPL with saline was not associated with a reduced risk of mortality (0% vs. 1.1%; RR, 0.31 [95% CI, 0.02-6.39]), intra-abdominal abscess (12.3% vs. 11.8%; RR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.70-1.48]; I2 = 24%), incisional surgical site infections (3.3% vs. 3.8%; RR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.18-2.86]; I2 = 50%), postoperative complication (11.0% vs. 13.2%; RR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.39-1.41]; I2 = 64%), reoperation (2.9% vs. 1.7%; RR,1.71 [95% CI, 0.74-3.93]; I2 = 0%) and readmission (5.2% vs. 6.6%; RR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.48-1.87]; I2 = 7%) in patients with appendicitis when compared to non-IOPL. Low-quality evidence showed that the use of IOPL with saline was not associated with a reduced risk of mortality (22.7% vs. 23.3%; RR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.45-2.09], I2 = 0%) and intra-abdominal abscess (5.1% vs. 5.0%; RR, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.16-6.98], I2 = 0%) in patients with peritonitis when compared to non-IOPL.
IOPL with saline use in patients with appendicitis was not associated with significantly decreased risk of mortality, intra-abdominal abscess, incisional surgical site infection, postoperative complication, reoperation, and readmission compared with non-IOPL. These findings do not support the routine use of IOPL with saline in patients with appendicitis. The benefits of IOPL for IAI caused by other types of abdominal infections need to be investigated.

BACKGROUND: The prognostic significance of peritoneal lavage cytology (PLC) in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the prognostic impact of PLC status in PDAC patients.
METHODS: Patients intending to undergo resection for PDAC between 2007 and 2020 were included. Survival was compared among patients who underwent resection with negative or positive PLC status and those who did not undergo resection. Univariable and multivariable analyses were conducted to evaluate the prognostic impact of positive PLC status. A systematic literature review was performed to evaluate the correlation between prognosis and the positive PLC rate.
RESULTS: A total of 480 patients formed the study cohort and were divided as follows: 438 in the negative PLC group, 18 in the positive PLC group, and 24 in the no resection group. Although the median survival time significantly differed between the negative and positive PLC groups (35.7 vs. 13.6 months, P < 0.001), it did not significantly differ between the positive PLC and no resection groups (13.6 vs. 12.2 months, P = 0.605). Multivariable analyses demonstrated that positive PLC status (hazard ratio = 3.54, 95% confidence interval = 1.97-6.38, P < 0.001) was the strongest poor prognostic factor. Based on statistical analyses for the systematic review, the prognostic impact of positive PLC status weakened significantly as the institutional positive PLC rate increased (P = 0.044).
CONCLUSIONS: Resection did not improve the prognosis of patients with positive PLC status in our cohort. The institutional positive PLC rate may be a good reference for surgical indication in these patients.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether hysteroscopy (HSC) increases the risk of intraperitoneal dissemination in endometrial cancer patients.
METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive review of multiple databases. Quality assessments of eligible studies were performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa and Jadad scales. Positive peritoneal cytology (PPC) as the outcome of interest was compared between endometrial cancer patients with and without HSC. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated as a measure of effects.
RESULTS: Three case-control studies and eight retrospective cohort studies included 3364 patients, of whom 1116 underwent preoperative HSC, which resulted in a significantly higher PPC rate (OR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.31-2.54; p = 0.0004). I2 was 11%, and the heterogeneity was acceptable. The difference between the groups with stages I-II was statistically insignificant (OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 0.75-2.99; p = 0.25). When liquid was used as the uterine distension medium during HSC and the intrauterine pressure was controlled under 80 mmHg, the difference between the two groups was also insignificant (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.50-2.79; p = 0.71). However, when the intrauterine pressure exceeded 80 mmHg, the difference between the two groups was statistically significant (OR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.28-3.73; p = 0.004).
CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis indicates that preoperative HSC in patients with endometrial cancer may increase the risk of intraperitoneal dissemination of malignant cells, which may be associated with intrauterine pressure >80 mmHg but not with stages I-II. There is no reason to avoid HSC for the diagnosis of endometrial cancer, especially in early stages, but intrauterine pressure should possibly be controlled below 80 mmHg.

OBJECTIVE: We investigated risk factors and common causes of tubo-ovarian abscess (TOA) in non-sexually active females in order to aid in earlier diagnosis, treatment, and improved outcomes.
METHODS: This is a retrospective observational case series of all non-sexually active females younger than age 25 years who were diagnosed with TOA. Review of the existing literature was also performed.
METHODS: Academic tertiary care children\'s hospital.
METHODS: Ten patients meeting study inclusion criteria were identified for the study, and 33 other patients were identified in the literature.
RESULTS: Average age at time of diagnosis was 14 years. Average body mass index was 24 kg/m2. Most presented with abdominal pain, often associated with fevers, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Seven of 10 patients were treated surgically with pelvic washout (4 primarily and 3 after failing empiric antibiotic therapy). Most frequently, anaerobic gut flora were isolated on culture. All patients received broad-spectrum intravenous antibiotics, and were then discharged on a course of doxycycline and metronidazole or clindamycin. Three patients required additional admissions and multiple rounds of antibiotics due to persistent symptoms. The average length of stay was 3 days for patients treated with antibiotics only and 6 days for patients requiring surgical intervention. Six patients had complete resolution of symptoms and improvement on ultrasound within 2-4 weeks. The remainder were lost to follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: These cases, in conjunction with previous case reports, emphasize the importance of considering TOA in patients with concerning imaging or examination findings despite lack of sexual activity. Given the large proportion of cases attributable to anaerobic gut flora, treatment with antibiotics with adequate anaerobic coverage is recommended. Surgical drainage is not always necessary, but is often needed for diagnostic purposes or in patients not clinically improving with conservative measures.

Intra-abdominal infections (IAIs) are common surgical emergencies and cause a significant worldwide burden per year. Since the concept of intraoperative peritoneal lavage (IOPL) was proposed in 1905, it has been widely used in the surgery practice. However, the effectiveness of IOPL in patients with IAIs has always been controversial. Our objective is to identify whether it is beneficial to flush the abdominal cavity with saline in IAIs surgery through a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis.
This protocol is reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols. Electronic databases (including the Cochrane library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, etc) and clinical trial registry platforms will be searched from inception to 8 September 2019. Randomised controlled trials, quasi-randomised clinical trials and cohort studies comparing IOPL and suction alone in IAIs will be included. The primary outcomes are mortality and abscess rate. Two independent reviewers will screen literature, collect data and assess risk of bias of included studies. Discussion or a third reviewer will be referred for any disagreements. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach will be used to assess the quality of the evidence. We will perform meta-analysis using random-effects model. Subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis and publication bias will be conducted if data are enough.
Ethical approval is not required for this systematic review and meta-analysis protocol. Results of this study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, presented at relevant conferences and disseminated to local and international policy makers.
CRD42019145109.

BACKGROUND: Diverticulitis is one of the most common gastrointestinal diseases in western population. Colonic resection is recommended by international guidelines as a routinely used technique for purulent diverticulitis. Laparoscopic lavage was introduced as a non-resection alternative. The studies available so far have shown contradictory results. This meta-analysis aims to compare laparoscopic lavage versus colonic resection in patients with Hinchey Ⅲ-Ⅳ diverticulitis.
METHODS: We did a systematic review of articles published before March 20, 2019, with no language restriction by searching PubMed, Cochrane library, EMBASE databases, clinicaltrials.gov, and Google Scholar databases. We included all RCTs and cohort studies comparing outcomes between patients with Hinchey Ⅲ-Ⅳ diverticulitis undergoing laparoscopic lavage versus colonic resection. Important outcomes were mortality, complications, length of stay, readmission and reoperation rates. We combined data to assess the outcomes using DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model.
RESULTS: A total of 569 patients with diverticulitis of which more than 80% were Hinchey Ⅲ were enrolled from 3 RCTs and 5 cohort studies. Laparoscopic lavage was associated with shorter operative time (WMD -78.9, 95%CI -100.58 to -57.11, P < 0.0001) and total postoperative hospital stay (WMD -7.62, 95%CI -11.60 to -3.63, P = 0.0002) but a higher rate of intra-abdominal abscess (OR 2.69, 95%CI 1.39 to 5.21, P = 0.0032) and secondary peritonitis (OR 5.30, 95%CI 1.91 to 14.73, P = 0.0014).
CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic lavage for patients with Hinchey Ⅲ to Ⅳ diverticulitis does provide similar mortality, shorter operative time and hospital stay. However, the evidence so far suggests that it might be inadequate for sepsis control and may result in more unplanned reoperations. Further studies are needed to standardize the formal indication for laparoscopic lavage.