Two-stage vs single-stage management for concomitant gallstones and common bile duct stones

AIM:To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of twostage vs single-stage management for concomitant gallstones and common bile duct stones.METHODS:Four databases,including PubMed,Embase,the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Science Citation Index up to September 2011,were searched to identify all randomized controlled trials(RCTs).Data were extracted from the studies by two independent reviewers.The primary outcomes were stone clearance from the common bile duct,postoperative morbidity and mortality.The secondary outcomes were conversion to other procedures,number of procedures per patient,length of hospital stay,total operative time,hospitalization charges,patient acceptance and quality of life scores.RESULTS:Seven eligible RCTs [five trials(n = 621) comparing preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography(ERCP)/endoscopic sphincterotomy(EST) + laparoscopic cholecystectomy(LC) with LC + laparoscopic common bile duct exploration(LCBDE);two trials(n = 166) comparing postoperative ERCP/EST + LC with LC + LCBDE],composed of 787 patients in total,were included in the final analysis.The metaanalysis detected no statistically significant difference between the two groups in stone clearance from the common bile duct [risk ratios(RR) =-0.10,95% confidence intervals(CI):-0.24 to 0.04,P = 0.17],postoperative morbidity(RR = 0.79,95% CI:0.58 to 1.10,P = 0.16),mortality(RR = 2.19,95% CI:0.33 to 14.67,P = 0.42),conversion to other procedures(RR = 1.21,95% CI:0.54 to 2.70,P = 0.39),length of hospital stay(MD = 0.99,95% CI:-1.59 to 3.57,P = 0.45),total operative time(MD = 12.14,95% CI:-1.83 to 26.10,P = 0.09).Two-stage(LC + ERCP/EST) management clearly required more procedures per patient than single-stage(LC + LCBDE) management.CONCLUSION:Single-stage management is equivalent to two-stage management but requires fewer procedures.However,patient's condition,operator's expertise and local resources should be taken into account in making treatment decisions.

Single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy vs conventional laparoscopic appendectomy:Systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM: To assess the differences in clinical benefits and disadvantages of single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy(SILA) and conventional laparoscopic appendectomy(CLA).METHODS: The Cochrane Library,MEDLINE,Embase,Science Citation Index Expanded,and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database were electronically searched up through January 2013 to identify randomized controlled trails(RCTs) comparing SILA with CLA.Data was extracted from eligible studies to evaluate the pooled outcome effects for the total of 1068 patients.The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.2.0.For dichotomous data and continuous data,the risk ratio(RR) and the mean difference(MD) were calculated,respectively,with 95%CI for both.For continuous outcomes with different measurement scales in different RCTs,the standardized mean difference(SMD) was calculated with 95%CI.Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed when necessary.RESULTS: Six RCTs were identified that compared SILA(n = 535) with CLA(n = 533).Five RCTs had a high risk of bias and one RCT had a low risk of bias.SILA was associated with longer operative time(MD = 5.68,95%CI: 3.91-7.46,P < 0.00001),higher conversion rate(RR = 5.14,95%CI: 1.25-21.10,P = 0.03) and better cosmetic satisfaction score(MD = 0.52,95%CI: 0.30-0.73,P < 0.00001) compared with CLA.No significant differences were found for total complications(RR = 1.15,95%CI: 0.76-1.75,P = 0.51),drain insertion(RR = 0.72,95%CI: 0.41-1.25,P = 0.24),or length of hospital stay(SMD = 0.04,95%CI:-0.08-0.16,P = 0.57).Because there was not enough data among the analyzed RCTs,postoperative pain was not calculated.CONCLUSION: The benefit of SILA is cosmetic satisfaction,while the disadvantages of SILA are longer operative time and higher conversion rate.

Prognostic value of lymphovascular invasion in Bismuth-Corlette type Ⅳ hilar cholangiocarcinoma

AIM To assess the prognostic value of lymphovascular invasion(LVI)in Bismuth-Corlette typeⅣhilar cholangiocarcinoma(HC)patients. METHODS A retrospective analysis was performed on 142consecutively recruited typeⅣHC patients undergoing radical resection with at least 5 years of followup.Survival analysis was performed by the KaplanMeier method,and the association between the clinicopathologic variables and survival was evaluated by log-rank test.Multivariate analysis was adopted to identify the independent prognostic factors for overall survival(OS)and disease-free survival(DFS).Multiple logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the association between LVI and potential variables. RESULTS LVI was confirmed histopathologically in 29(20.4%)patients.Multivariate analysis showed that positive resection margin(HR=6.255,95%CI:3.485-11.229,P<0.001),N1 stage(HR=2.902,95%CI:1.132-7.439,P=0.027),tumor size>30 mm(HR=1.942,95%CI:1.176-3.209,P=0.010)and LVI positivity(HR=2.799,95%CI:1.588-4.935,P<0.001)were adverse prognostic factors for DFS.The independent risk factors for OS were positive resection margin(HR=6.776,95%CI:3.988-11.479,P<0.001),N1 stage(HR=2.827,95%CI:1.243-6.429,P=0.013),tumor size>30 mm(HR=1.739,95%CI:1.101-2.745,P=0.018)and LVI positivity(HR=2.908,95%CI:1.712-4.938,P<0.001).LVI was associated with N1 stage and tumor size>30 mm.Multiple logistic regression analysis indicated that N1 stage(HR=3.312,95%CI:1.338-8.198,P=0.026)and tumor size>30 mm(HR=3.258,95%CI:1.288-8.236,P=0.013)were associated with LVI. CONCLUSION LVI is associated with N1 stage and tumor size>30mm and adversely influences DFS and OS in typeⅣHC patients.

Carbon dioxide insufflation for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography:A meta-analysis and systematic review

AIM:To assess the safety and efficacy of carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). METHODS:The Cochrane Library, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Excerpta Medica Database, Science Citation Index Expanded, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and references in relevant publications were searched up to December 2011 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CO2 insufflation with air insufflation during ERCP. The trials were included in the review irrespec-tive of sample size, publication status, or language. Study selection and data extraction were performed by two independent authors. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.1.6. A random-effects model was used to analyze various outcomes.Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed if necessary. R ESULTS:Seven double-blind RCTs involving a total of 818 patients were identified that compared CO2 insufflation (n = 404) with air insufflation (n = 401) during ERCP. There were a total of 13 post-random- ization dropouts in four RCTs. Six RCTs had a high risk of bias and one had a low risk of bias. None of the RCTs reported any severe gas-related adverse events in either group. A meta-analysis of 5 RCTs (n = 459) indicated that patients in the CO2 insufflation group had less post-ERCP abdominal pain and distension for at least 1 h compared with patients in the air insuf-flation group. There were no significant differences in mild cardiopulmonary complications [risk ratio (RR) = 0.43, 95% CI:0.07-2.66, P = 0.36], cardiopulmonary (e.g., blood CO2 level) changes [standardized mean difference (SMD) = -0.97, 95% CI: -2.58-0.63, P = 0.23], cost analysis (mean difference = 3.14, 95% CI:-14.57-20.85, P = 0.73), and total procedure time (SMD = -0.05, 95% CI:-0.26-0.17, P = 0.67) between the two groups. C ONCLUSION:CO2 insufflation during ERCP appears to be safe and reduces post-ERCP abdominal pain and discomfort.