Robotic-assisted surgery is expected to have advantages over standard laparoscopic approach in patients undergoing curative surgery for rectal cancer. PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar were searched from database inception to 10 November 2021, for both RCTs and observational studies comparing robotic-assisted versus standard laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer resection. Where possible, data were pooled using random effects meta-analysis. Forty-Two were considered eligible for the meta-analysis. Survival to hospital discharge or 30-day overall survival rate was 99.6% for RG and 98.8% for LG (OR = 2.10; 95% CI: 1.00 to 4.43; p = 0.05). Time to first flatus in the RG group was 2.5 ± 1.4 days and was statistically significantly shorter than in LG group (2.9 ± 2.0 days; MD = −0.34; 95%CI: −0.65 to 0.03; p = 0.03). In the case of time to a liquid diet, solid diet and bowel movement, the analysis showed no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05). Length of hospital stay in the RG vs. LG group varied and amounted to 8.0 ± 5.3 vs. 9.5 ± 10.0 days (MD = −2.01; 95%CI: −2.90 to −1.11; p < 0.001). Overall, 30-days complications in the RG and LG groups were 27.2% and 19.0% (OR = 1.11; 95%CI: 0.80 to 1.55; p = 0.53), respectively. In summary, robotic-assisted techniques provide several advantages over laparoscopic techniques in reducing operative time, significantly lowering conversion of the procedure to open surgery, shortening the duration of hospital stay, lowering the risk of urinary retention, improving survival to hospital discharge or 30-day overall survival rate.

Background: This meta-analysis outlines the role of elevated lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels in assessing the severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods: The current study was designed as a systematic review and meta-analysis. Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched to identify the usefulness of LDH as a marker of COVID-19 severity. All extracted data were analyzed using RevMan V.5.4 or STATA V.14 software. Results: A total of 264 records were selected for this meta-analysis. Pooled analysis showed that LDH levels were statistically significantly lower in the group of survivors compared to patients who died in hospital (standardized mean differences [SMD] = –3.10; 95% confidence interval [CI]: –3.40 to –2.79; I² = 99%; p < 0.001). Lower LDH levels were observed in non-severe groups compared to severe course of COVID-19 (SMD = –2.38; 95% CI: –2.61 to –2.14; I² = 99%; p < 0.001). The level of LDH was statistically significantly lower in the severe group compared to the critical group (SMD = –1.48; 95% CI: –2.04 to –0.92; I² = 98%; p < 0.001). Patients who did not require treatment in the intensive care unit (ICU) showed significantly lower levels of LDH compared to patients who required treatment in the ICU (SMD = –3.78; 95% CI: –4.48 to –3.08; I² = 100%; p < 0.001). Conclusions: This meta-analysis showed that elevated LDH was associated with a poor outcome in COVID-19. Background: This meta-analysis outlines the role of elevated lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels in assessing the severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods: The current study was designed as a systematic review and meta-analysis. Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched to identify the usefulness of LDH as a marker of COVID-19 severity. All extracted data were analyzed using RevMan V.5.4 or STATA V.14 software. Results: A total of 264 records were selected for this meta-analysis. Pooled analysis showed that LDH levels were statistically significantly lower in the group of survivors compared to patients who died in hospital (standardized mean differences [SMD] = –3.10; 95% confidence interval [CI]: –3.40 to –2.79; I² = 99%; p < 0.001). Lower LDH levels were observed in non-severe groups compared to severe course of COVID-19 (SMD = –2.38; 95% CI: –2.61 to –2.14; I² = 99%; p < 0.001). The level of LDH was statistically significantly lower in the severe group compared to the critical group (SMD = –1.48; 95% CI: –2.04 to –0.92; I² = 98%; p < 0.001). Patients who did not require treatment in the intensive care unit (ICU) showed significantly lower levels of LDH compared to patients who required treatment in the ICU (SMD = –3.78; 95% CI: –4.48 to –3.08; I² = 100%; p < 0.001). Conclusions: This meta-analysis showed that elevated LDH was associated with a poor outcome in COVID-19.

Since the outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by the severe respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), millions of people have died, and the medical system has faced significant difficulties. Our purpose was to perform a meta-analysis to estimate the effect of vitamin C on in-hospital mortality and the ICU or hospital length of stay for patients diagnosed with COVID-19. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis in the following databases: PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We included studies that evaluated the effect of vitamin C supplementation, compared with standard treatment in COVID-19 patients who are ≥18 y of age. Nineteen trials were included in the meta-analysis. In-hospital mortality with and without vitamin C supplementation was 24.1% vs. 33.9% (OR = 0.59; 95%CI: 0.37 to 0.95; p = 0.03), respectively. Sub-analysis showed that, in randomized clinical trials, in-hospital mortality varied and amounted to 23.9% vs. 35.8% (OR = 0.44; 95%CI: 0.25 to 0.76; p = 0.003), respectively. In the non-randomized trials, in-hospital mortality was 24.2% vs. 33.5% (OR = 0.72; 95%CI: 0.38 to 1.39; p = 0.33), respectively. The ICU length of stay was longer in patients treated with vitamin C vs. standard therapy, 11.1 (7.3) vs. 8.3 (4.7) days (MD = 1.91; 95%CI: 0.89 to 2.93; p < 0.001), respectively. Acute kidney injury in patients treated with and without vitamin C varied and amounted to 27.8% vs. 45.0% (OR = 0.56; 95%CI: 0.40 to 0.78; p < 0.001), respectively. There were no differences in the frequency of other adverse events among patients’ treatment with and without vitamin C (all p > 0.05). The use of vitamin C reduces hospital mortality. The length of stay in the ICU is longer among patients treated with vitamin C. In terms of patient safety, vitamin C has an acceptable profile. Low doses of vitamin C are effective and safe. Despite some evidence of the usefulness of vitamin C in modifying the course of COVID-19, it is too early to modify guidelines and recommendations. Further studies, in particular randomized clinical trials, are necessary.

Despite the technological advances and improved surgical skills, the incidence of anastomotic leakage following colorectal cancer surgery still ranges from 4% to 19%. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of indocyanine green (ICG) use in colorectal cancer surgery. An online search of the Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases (from inception to 10 November 2021) was performed, in addition to manual screening. Thirty-two studies involving 11,047 patients were considered eligible for the meta-analysis. The anastomotic leak rate in the ICG and non-ICG groups varied and amounted to 3.7% vs. 7.6%, respectively (RR = 0.46; 95% CI: 0.39–0.56; p < 0.001). The rate in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was 8.1% in the ICG group compared with 12.1% in the non-ICG group (RR = 0.67; 95% CI: 0.46–0.98; p = 0.04). In non-RCTs, it equaled 3.1% vs. 7.3%, respectively (RR = 0.43; 95% CI: 0.35–0.52; p < 0.001). Although the publications encompassed in our meta-analysis present different patients, with different factors influencing the results, a pooled analysis revealed a lower incidence of anastomotic leak in cases with ICG use. There are several other convincing advantages: safety, simplicity, and short time of the method adjustment. The presented meta-analysis indicates ICG perfusion assessment as a tool worth considering to decrease the rate of complications following colorectal surgery—valuable in the context of other, well-known risk factors.

One-lung ventilation is also used in some thoracic or cardiac surgery, vascular surgery and oesophageal procedures. We conducted a search of the literature for relevant studies in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus and Cochrane Library. The final literature search was performed on 10 December 2022. Primary outcomes included the quality of lung collapse. Secondary outcome measures included: the success of the first intubation attempt, malposition rate, time for device placement, lung collapse and adverse events occurrence. Twenty-five studies with 1636 patients were included. Excellent lung collapse among DLT and BB groups was 72.4% vs. 73.4%, respectively (OR = 1.20; 95%CI: 0.84 to 1.72; p = 0.31). The malposition rate was 25.3% vs. 31.9%, respectively (OR = 0.66; 95%CI: 0.49 to 0.88; p = 0.004). The use of DLT compared to BB was associated with a higher risk of hypoxemia (13.5% vs. 6.0%, respectively; OR = 2.27; 95%CI: 1.14 to 4.49; p = 0.02), hoarseness (25.2% vs. 13.0%; OR = 2.30; 95%CI: 1.39 to 3.82; p = 0.001), sore throat (40.3% vs. 23.3%; OR = 2.30; 95%CI: 1.68 to 3.14; p < 0.001), and bronchus/carina injuries (23.2% vs. 8.4%; OR = 3.45; 95%CI: 1.43 to 8.31; p = 0.006). The studies conducted so far on comparing DLT and BB are ambiguous. In the DLT compared to the BB group, the malposition rate was statistically significantly lower, and time to tube placement and lung collapse was shorter. However, the use of DLT compared to BB can be associated with a higher risk of hypoxemia, hoarseness, sore throat and bronchus/carina injuries. Multicenter randomized trials on larger groups of patients are needed to draw definitive conclusions regarding the superiority of any of these devices.

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is the leading cause of death worldwide. Patients with pre-existing CAD were shown to have a more severe course of COVID-19, but this association has not been clarified. We performed a meta-analysis to determine the association between CAD and COVID-19 outcomes. We searched Scopus, Medline (PubMed), Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane databases up to 2 November 2021. There were 62 studies with a total population of 49,286 patients included in the meta-analysis. CAD occurrence in survivor vs. non-survivor groups varied and amounted to 9.2% vs. 22.9%, respectively (OR = 0.33; 95%CI: 0.29 to 0.39; I² = 70%; p < 0.001). CAD was also associated with increased severity of COVID-19 disease and was (10.8% vs. 5.6%, respectively, for severe vs. non-severe groups (OR = 2.28; 95%CI: 1.59 to 3.27; I² = 72%; p < 0.001). The role of history of CAD in mortality and severe condition in COVID-19 presents itself as prominent—although a risk of bias in retrospective trials needs to be assessed, in case of our meta-analysis the statistically significant results when it comes to higher mortality among patients with CAD compared to non-CAD patients, a more severe condition observed in patients with CAD, and a visibly more frequent admission to intensive care unit in patients with CAD, it seems that an incidence of cardiovascular events plays a role in COVID-19 prognosis.