To examine the feasibility and safety of robotic radical resection (RRR) for hilar cholangiocarcinoma (HCCA). A PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis with meta-regression was conducted, including studies reporting outcomes of RRR in patients with HCCA. Six studies comprising 295 patients were included. In highly selected patients (body mass index [BMI] < 25 kg/m” ; tumor size < 3 cm), RRR of HCCA proved safe and feasible (Clavien-Dindo ≥ III complications: 14.8% [95% confidence interval 8.7%–20.8%]; 30-day mortality:1.9% [0%–4.2%]; conversion to open surgery: 1.9% [0%–4.2%]; intraoperative blood loss: 210 mL [119–301 mL]; operative time: 481 minutes [339–623 minutes]; R0 resection rate: 82.2% [75.0%–89.4%]; retrieved lymph nodes: 12 [9–16]). Younger age (p = 0.008), higher BMI (p = 0.009), larger tumors (p = 0.048), and performing liver resections (p = 0.017) increased blood loss. American Society of Anesthesiologists status ≥ III (p < 0.001) and Bismuth IV disease (p < 0.001) increased operative times. Preoperative biliary drainage (p = 0.027) enhanced R0 resection rates. RRR led to less bleeding (mean difference [MD]: –184 mL, p = 0.0005), longer operative times (MD:162 minutes, p = 0.001), and improved R0 resection rates (odds ratio: 3.29, p = 0.006) compared with the open approach. Subject to selection bias and type 2 error, RRR for HCCA might be safe and feasible in highly selected patients (favorable BMI and tumor size). The findings should not be taken as definitive conclusions but may be used for hypothesis generation in subsequent trials.

To examine the feasibility and safety of robotic radical resection (RRR) for hilar cholangiocarcinoma (HCCA). A PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis with meta-regression was conducted, including studies reporting outcomes of RRR in patients with HCCA. Six studies comprising 295 patients were included. In highly selected patients (body mass index [BMI] < 25 kg/m” ; tumor size < 3 cm), RRR of HCCA proved safe and feasible (Clavien-Dindo ≥ III complications: 14.8% [95% confidence interval 8.7%–20.8%]; 30-day mortality:1.9% [0%–4.2%]; conversion to open surgery: 1.9% [0%–4.2%]; intraoperative blood loss: 210 mL [119–301 mL]; operative time: 481 minutes [339–623 minutes]; R0 resection rate: 82.2% [75.0%–89.4%]; retrieved lymph nodes: 12 [9–16]). Younger age (p = 0.008), higher BMI (p = 0.009), larger tumors (p = 0.048), and performing liver resections (p = 0.017) increased blood loss. American Society of Anesthesiologists status ≥ III (p < 0.001) and Bismuth IV disease (p < 0.001) increased operative times. Preoperative biliary drainage (p = 0.027) enhanced R0 resection rates. RRR led to less bleeding (mean difference [MD]: –184 mL, p = 0.0005), longer operative times (MD:162 minutes, p = 0.001), and improved R0 resection rates (odds ratio: 3.29, p = 0.006) compared with the open approach. Subject to selection bias and type 2 error, RRR for HCCA might be safe and feasible in highly selected patients (favorable BMI and tumor size). The findings should not be taken as definitive conclusions but may be used for hypothesis generation in subsequent trials.

To examine the feasibility and safety of robotic radical resection (RRR) for hilar cholangiocarcinoma (HCCA). A PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis with meta-regression was conducted, including studies reporting outcomes of RRR in patients with HCCA. Six studies comprising 295 patients were included. In highly selected patients (body mass index [BMI] < 25 kg/m” ; tumor size < 3 cm), RRR of HCCA proved safe and feasible (Clavien-Dindo ≥ III complications: 14.8% [95% confidence interval 8.7%–20.8%]; 30-day mortality:1.9% [0%–4.2%]; conversion to open surgery: 1.9% [0%–4.2%]; intraoperative blood loss: 210 mL [119–301 mL]; operative time: 481 minutes [339–623 minutes]; R0 resection rate: 82.2% [75.0%–89.4%]; retrieved lymph nodes: 12 [9–16]). Younger age (p = 0.008), higher BMI (p = 0.009), larger tumors (p = 0.048), and performing liver resections (p = 0.017) increased blood loss. American Society of Anesthesiologists status ≥ III (p < 0.001) and Bismuth IV disease (p < 0.001) increased operative times. Preoperative biliary drainage (p = 0.027) enhanced R0 resection rates. RRR led to less bleeding (mean difference [MD]: –184 mL, p = 0.0005), longer operative times (MD:162 minutes, p = 0.001), and improved R0 resection rates (odds ratio: 3.29, p = 0.006) compared with the open approach. Subject to selection bias and type 2 error, RRR for HCCA might be safe and feasible in highly selected patients (favorable BMI and tumor size). The findings should not be taken as definitive conclusions but may be used for hypothesis generation in subsequent trials.

BACKGROUND: The management of complex pattern of bleeding associated with pelvic trauma remains a big chalenge for trauma surgeons. We aimed to conduct a comprehensive meta-analysis to compare the outcomes of angioembolisation and pelvic packing in patients with pelvic trauma. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of electronic information sources, including MEDLINE; EMBASE; CINAHL; the CENTRAL; the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry; ClinicalTrials.gov; ISRCTN Register, and bibliographic reference lists. The primary outcome was defined as mortality. Combined overall effect sizes were calculated using random-effects models. Results are reported as the odds ratio (OR) and 95％ confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: We identified 3 observational studies reporting a total of 120 patients undergoing angioembolisation (n=60) or pelvic packing (n=60) for pelvic trauma. Reporting of the Injury Severity Score (ISS) was variable, with higher ISS in the pelvic packing group. The risk of bias was low in two studies, and moderate in one. The pooled analysis demonstrated that angioembolisation did not significantly reduce mortality in patients with pelvic trauma compared to surgery (OR=1.99; 95％CI= 0.83–4.78,P=0.12). There was mild between-study heterogeneity (I2=0％, P=0.65). CONCLUSION: Our analysis found no significant difference in mortality between angioembolisation and pelvic packing in patients with traumatic pelvic haemorrhage. The current level of evidence in this context is very limited and insufficient to support the superiority of a treatment modality. Future research is required.

To compare the procedural outcomes of minimally invasive and open central pancreatectomy. A systematic review in compliance with PRISMA statement standards was conducted to identify and analyze studies comparing the procedural outcomes of minimally invasive (laparoscopic or robotic) central pancreatectomy with the open approach. Random effects modeling using intention to treat data, and individual patient as unit of analysis, was used for analyses. Seven comparative studies including 289 patients were included. The two groups were comparable in terms of baseline characteristics. The minimally invasive approach was associated with less intraoperative blood loss (mean difference [MD]: −153.13 mL, p = 0.0004); however, this did not translate into less need for blood transfusion (odds ratio [OR]: 0.30, p = 0.06). The minimally invasive approach resulted in less grade B−C postoperative pancreatic fistula (OR: 0.54, p = 0.03); this did not remain consistent through sensitivity analyses. There was no difference between the two approaches in operative time (MD: 60.17 minutes, p = 0.31), Clavien–Dindo ≥ 3 complications (OR: 1.11, p = 0.78), postoperative mortality (risk difference:−0.00, p = 0.81), and length of stay in hospital (MD: −3.77 days, p = 0.08). Minimally invasive central pancreatectomy may be as safe as the open approach; however, whether it confers advantage over the open approach remains the subject of debate. Type 2 error is a possibility, hence adequately powered studies are required for definite conclusions; future studies may use our data for power analysis.

To compare the procedural outcomes of minimally invasive and open central pancreatectomy. A systematic review in compliance with PRISMA statement standards was conducted to identify and analyze studies comparing the procedural outcomes of minimally invasive (laparoscopic or robotic) central pancreatectomy with the open approach. Random effects modeling using intention to treat data, and individual patient as unit of analysis, was used for analyses. Seven comparative studies including 289 patients were included. The two groups were comparable in terms of baseline characteristics. The minimally invasive approach was associated with less intraoperative blood loss (mean difference [MD]: −153.13 mL, p = 0.0004); however, this did not translate into less need for blood transfusion (odds ratio [OR]: 0.30, p = 0.06). The minimally invasive approach resulted in less grade B−C postoperative pancreatic fistula (OR: 0.54, p = 0.03); this did not remain consistent through sensitivity analyses. There was no difference between the two approaches in operative time (MD: 60.17 minutes, p = 0.31), Clavien–Dindo ≥ 3 complications (OR: 1.11, p = 0.78), postoperative mortality (risk difference:−0.00, p = 0.81), and length of stay in hospital (MD: −3.77 days, p = 0.08). Minimally invasive central pancreatectomy may be as safe as the open approach; however, whether it confers advantage over the open approach remains the subject of debate. Type 2 error is a possibility, hence adequately powered studies are required for definite conclusions; future studies may use our data for power analysis.

To compare the procedural outcomes of minimally invasive and open central pancreatectomy. A systematic review in compliance with PRISMA statement standards was conducted to identify and analyze studies comparing the procedural outcomes of minimally invasive (laparoscopic or robotic) central pancreatectomy with the open approach. Random effects modeling using intention to treat data, and individual patient as unit of analysis, was used for analyses. Seven comparative studies including 289 patients were included. The two groups were comparable in terms of baseline characteristics. The minimally invasive approach was associated with less intraoperative blood loss (mean difference [MD]: −153.13 mL, p = 0.0004); however, this did not translate into less need for blood transfusion (odds ratio [OR]: 0.30, p = 0.06). The minimally invasive approach resulted in less grade B−C postoperative pancreatic fistula (OR: 0.54, p = 0.03); this did not remain consistent through sensitivity analyses. There was no difference between the two approaches in operative time (MD: 60.17 minutes, p = 0.31), Clavien–Dindo ≥ 3 complications (OR: 1.11, p = 0.78), postoperative mortality (risk difference:−0.00, p = 0.81), and length of stay in hospital (MD: −3.77 days, p = 0.08). Minimally invasive central pancreatectomy may be as safe as the open approach; however, whether it confers advantage over the open approach remains the subject of debate. Type 2 error is a possibility, hence adequately powered studies are required for definite conclusions; future studies may use our data for power analysis.

The role of surgical resection in patients with recurrent pancreatic cancer is unclear. We aimed to evaluate the survival outcomes of pancreatic re-resection for locally recurrent pancreatic cancer following index pancreatectomy. A literature search was carried out in CENTRAL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Web of Science. Proportion meta-analysis model was constructed to quantify 1 to 5-year survival after pancreatic re-resection for locally recurrent pancreatic cancer. Random-effects modelling was applied to calculate pooled outcome data. Fifteen retrospective studies were included, reporting a total of 250 patients who underwent pancreatic re-resection for locally recurrent pancreatic cancer following their index pancreatectomy. Pancreatic re-resection was associated with 1-year survival 70.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 65.0−76.2), 2-year survival 38.8% (95% CI, 28.6−49.0), 3-year survival 20.2% (95% CI, 13.8−26.7), and 5-year survival 9.2% (95% CI, 5.5−12.8). The between-study heterogeneity was insignificant in all outcome syntheses.Repeat pancreatectomy for local recurrence of pancreatic cancer in the remnant pancreas following the index pancreatectomy is associated with acceptable overall patient survival. We recommend selective re-resection of such recurrences in younger patients with favorable tumor size and location. Our findings may encourage more robust studies to be conducted in this context to provide stronger evidence.

To compare the outcomes of low central venous pressure (CVP) to standard CVP during laparoscopic liver resection. The study design was a systematic review following the PRISMA statement standards. The available literature was searched to identify all studies comparing low CVP with standard CVP in patients undergoing laparoscopic liver resection. The outcomes included intraoperative blood loss (primary outcome), need for blood transfusion, mean arterial pressure, operative time, Pringle time, and total complications. Random-effects modelling was applied for analyses. Type I and type II errors were assessed by trial sequential analysis (TSA). A total of 8 studies including 682 patients were included (low CVP group, 342; standard CVP group, 340). Low CVP reduced intraoperative blood loss during laparoscopic liver resection (mean difference [MD], –193.49 mL; 95% confidence interval [CI], –339.86 to –47.12; p = 0.01).However, low CVP did not have any effect on blood transfusion requirement (odds ratio [OR], 0.54; 95% CI, 0.28–1.03; p = 0.06), mean arterial pressure (MD, –1.55 mm Hg; 95% CI, –3.85–0.75; p = 0.19), Pringle time (MD, –0.99 minutes; 95% CI, –5.82–3.84; p = 0.69), operative time (MD, –16.38 minutes; 95% CI, –36.68–3.39; p = 0.11), or total complications (OR, 1.92; 95% CI, 0.97–3.80; p = 0.06). TSA suggested that the meta-analysis for the primary outcome was not subject to type I or II errors. Low CVP may reduce intraoperative blood loss during laparoscopic liver resection (moderate certainty); however, this may not translate into shorter operative time, shorter Pringle time, or less need for blood transfusion. Randomized controlled trials with larger sample sizes will provide more robust evidence.

This study aimed to compare outcomes of hand-sewn and stapler closure techniques of pancreatic stump in patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy (DP). Impact of stapler closure reinforcement using mesh on outcomes was also evaluated. Literature search was carried out using multiple data sources to identify studies that compared hand-sewn and stapler closure techniques in management of pancreatic stump following DP. Odds ratio (OR) was determined for clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) via random-effects modelling. Subsequently, trial sequential analysis was performed. Thirty-two studies with a total of 4,022 patients undergoing DP with hand-sewn (n = 1,184) or stapler (n = 2,838) closure technique of pancreatic stump were analyzed. Hand-sewn closure significantly increased the risk of clinically relevant POPF compared to stapler closure (OR: 1.56, p = 0.02). When stapler closure was considered, staple line reinforcement significantly reduced formation of such POPF (OR: 0.54, p = 0.002). When only randomized controlled trials were considered, there was no significant difference in clinically relevant POPF between hand-sewn and stapler closure techniques (OR: 1.20, p = 0.64) or between reinforced and standard stapler closure techniques (OR: 0.50, p = 0.08). When observational studies were considered, hand-sewn closure was associated with a significantly higher rate of clinically relevant POPF compared to stapler closure (OR: 1.59, p = 0.03). Moreover, when stapler closure was considered, staple line reinforcement significantly reduced formation of such POPF (OR: 0.55, p = 0.02). Trial sequential analysis detected risk of type 2 error. In conclusion, reinforced stapler closure in DP may reduce risk of clinically relevant POPF compared to hand-sewn closure or stapler closure without reinforcement.Future randomized research is needed to provide stronger evidence.