Adaptation, Psychological ; Stress, Psychological ; Students, Medical

Purpose: This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the outcomes of the watch-and-wait (WW) approach versus radical surgery (RS) in rectal cancers with clinical complete response (cCR) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Methods: This study followed the PRISMA guidelines. Major databases were searched to identify relevant articles. WW and RS were compared through meta-analyses of pooled proportions. Primary outcomes included overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), local recurrence, and distant metastasis rates. Pooled salvage surgery rates and outcomes were also collected. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was employed to assess the risk of bias. Results: Eleven studies including 1,112 rectal cancer patients showing cCR after neoadjuvant chemoradiation were included. Of these patients, 378 were treated nonoperatively with WW, 663 underwent RS, and 71 underwent local excision. The 2-year OS (risk ratio [RR], 0.95; P = 0.94), 5-year OS (RR, 2.59; P = 0.25), and distant metastasis rates (RR, 1.05; P = 0.80) showed no significant differences between WW and RS. Local recurrence was more frequent in the WW group (RR, 6.93; P < 0.001), and 78.4% of patients later underwent salvage surgery (R0 resection rate, 97.5%). The 2-year DFS (RR, 1.58; P = 0.05) and 5-year DFS (RR, 2.07; P = 0.02) were higher among RS cases. However, after adjustment for R0 salvage surgery, DFS showed no significant between-group difference (RR, 0.82; P = 0.41). Conclusion Local recurrence rates are higher for WW than RS, but complete salvage surgery is often possible with similar long-term outcomes. WW is a viable strategy for rectal cancer with cCR after neoadjuvant chemoradiation, but further research is required to improve patient selection.

Purpose: Central venous stenosis is a recurring problem affecting dialysis access patency. Increasing evidence suggests that the use of drug-coated balloons (DCBs) improves target lesion primary patency (TLPP) in dialysis access. However, few studies have investigated the use of DCBs specifically in central venous stenosis. Thus, this study presents our initial experience with DCBs in the central vein of a dialysis access circuit. Materials and Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study of all hemodialysis patients who underwent central vein angioplasty with DCB between February 2017 and March 2018 at Singapore General Hospital. We compared the primary patency post DCB angioplasty to the primary patency of the patient’s previous plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA). Results: We observed a 100% anatomic and procedural success rate with no complications. The median follow-up period was 151 days (interquartile range, 85.5- 234 days) and no patients were lost to follow-up. The 30- and 90-day TLPPs after DCB were 93.3% and 75.7%, respectively. The mean primary patency in our study group post-DCB during the follow-up period was 164 days (vs. 140 days in the POBA group). However, no statistically significant difference was detected. Conclusion DCB showed a similar TLPP to that for POBA in treating central venous stenosis with a trend toward a longer re-intervention-free period for DCB. However, there were numerous confounding factors and a well-designed randomized controlled trial is warranted to assess the true utility of DCB in treating central venous stenosis.

Purpose: This study compared the short- and long-term clinical outcomes of laser hemorrhoidoplasty (LH) vs. conventional hemorrhoidectomy (CH) in patients with grade II/III hemorrhoids. Methods: PubMed/Medline and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized and nonrandomized studies comparing LH against CH in grade II/III hemorrhoids. The primary outcomes included postoperative use of analgesia, postoperative morbidity (bleeding, urinary retention, pain, thrombosis), and time of return to work/daily activities. Results: Nine studies totaling 661 patients (LH, 336 and CH, 325) were included. The LH group had shorter operative time (P<0.001) and less intraoperative blood loss (P<0.001). Postoperative pain was lower in the LH group, with lower postoperative day 1 (mean difference [MD], –2.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], –3.44 to –0.75; P=0.002) and postoperative day 7 (MD, –3.94; 95% CI, –6.36 to –1.52; P=0.001) visual analogue scores and use of analgesia (risk ratio [RR], 0.59; 95% CI, 0.42–0.81; P=0.001). The risk of postoperative bleeding was also lower in the LH group (RR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.12– 0.28; P<0.001), with a quicker return to work or daily activities (P=0.002). The 12-month risks of bleeding (P>0.999) and prolapse (P=0.240), and the likelihood of complete resolution at 12 months, were similar (P=0.240). Conclusion LH offers more favorable short-term clinical outcomes than CH, with reduced morbidity and pain and earlier return to work or daily activities. Medium-term symptom recurrence at 12 months was similar. Our results should be verified in future well-designed trials with larger samples.

Purpose: Prehabilitation (PH) is purported to improve patients’ preoperative functional status. This systematic review and meta-analysis sought to compare short-term postoperative outcomes between patients who underwent a protocolized PH program and the existing standard of care among colorectal cancer patients awaiting surgery. Methods: A search in MEDLINE/PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Scopus, and CINAHL was conducted to identify relevant articles. Repetitive and exhaustive combinations of MeSH search terms (“prehabilitation,” “colorectal cancer,” “colon cancer,” and “rectal cancer”) were used to identify randomized and nonrandomized studies comparing PH versus standard of care for colorectal cancer patients awaiting surgery. The primary outcomes included postoperative morbidity, length of hospital stay, and readmission rates. Results: Seven studies including 1,042 colorectal cancer patients (PH, 382) were included. No significant differences were found in intraoperative outcomes. The postoperative complication rates were comparable between groups (Clavien-Dindo grades I and II: risk ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.62–1.07; P=0.15; Clavien-Dindo grades ≥III: risk ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.72–1.44; P=0.92). There were also no significant differences in length of hospital stay (P=0.21) or the risk of 30-day readmission (P=0.68). Conclusion Although PH does not appear to improve short-term postoperative outcomes following colorectal cancer surgery, the quality of evidence is impaired by the limited trials and heterogeneity. Thus, further large-scale trials are warranted to draw definitive conclusions and establish the long-term effects of PH.