Background: The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has impacted volume, management strategies and patient outcomes of acute appendicitis. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate whether the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in higher incidence of complicated appendicitis in children presenting with acute appendicitis compared to the pre-COVID-19 period. The secondary aim was to investigate the proportion of the patients treated by non-operative management (NOM). Methods: A systematic search of four scientific databases was performed. The search terms used were (coronavirus OR SARS-CoV-2 OR COVID-19 OR novel coronavirus) AND (appendicitis). The inclusion criteria were all patients aged <18 years and diagnosed with acute appendicitis during the COVID-19 and pre-COVID-19 periods. The proportion of children presenting with complicated appendicitis and the proportion of children managed by NOM was compared between the two groups. The Downs and Black scale was used for methodological quality assessment. Results: The present meta-analysis included thirteen studies (twelve retrospective studies and one cross-sectional study). A total of 2782 patients (1239 during the COVID-19 period) were included. A significantly higher incidence of complicated appendicitis (RR = 1.63, 95% CI 1.33–2.01, p < 0.00001) and a significantly higher proportion of children managed via the NOM (RR = 1.95, 95% CI 1.45–2.61, p < 0.00001) was observed in patients during the COVID-19 pandemic when compared to the pre-COVID-19 period. Conclusion: There is a significantly higher incidence of complicated appendicitis in children during the COVID-19 pandemic than in the pre-COVID-19 period. Additionally, a significantly higher proportion of children was managed via the NOM during the pandemic in comparison to the pre-pandemic period.

Background: Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (LHR) in children has been widely performed in the last decades, although it is still not sufficiently researched in preterm infants. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the recurrence and complication rates following laparoscopic hernia repair among preterm (PT) versus full-term (FT) newborns. Methods: Scientific databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases) were systematically searched for relevant articles. The following terms were used: (laparoscopic hernia repair) AND (preterm). The inclusion criteria were all preterm newborns with a unilateral or bilateral inguinal hernia who underwent LHR. The main outcomes were the incidence of recurrence of hernia and the proportion of children developing postoperative complications in comparison with FT newborns following LHR. Results: The present meta-analysis included four comparative studies. Three studies had a retrospective study design while one was a prospective study. A total of 1702 children were included (PT n = 523, FT n = 1179). The incidence of hernia recurrence showed no significant difference between the PT versus FT groups (RR = 2.58, 95% CI 0.89–7.47, p = 0.08). A significantly higher incidence of complications was observed in the PT group compared to the FT group (RR = 4.05, 95% CI 2.11–7.77, p < 0.0001). The PT group of newborns accounted for 81% and 72% of the major and minor complications. The major complications were either non-surgical (i.e., severe respiratory distress requiring reintubation with prolonged ventilation (or high-frequency ventilation), seizures, bradycardia), or surgical (i.e., hydroceles requiring operative intervention and umbilical port-site hernia). Conclusions: LHR in PT infants is associated with similar recurrence rates as in FT infants. However, the incidence of complications is significantly higher in PT versus FT infants.

Background: Acute appendicitis is a frequently encountered surgical emergency. Despite several scoring systems, the possibility of delayed diagnosis persists. In addition, a delayed diagnosis leads to an increased risk of complicated appendicitis. Hence, there is a need to identify biological markers to help clinicians rapidly and accurately diagnose and prognosticate acute appendicitis with a high sensitivity and specificity. Although several markers have been evaluated, the pressing concern is still the low specificity of these markers. One such marker is serum ischemia-modified albumin (IMA), which can be a novel biomarker for accurately diagnosing and prognosticating acute appendicitis. Methods: The authors conducted a systematic search of the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus databases through February 2023 as per the PRISMA guidelines. The difference in the levels of IMA between patients with acute appendicitis vs. healthy controls, and the difference in the levels of IMA between patients with complicated vs. non-complicated acute appendicitis were taken as the outcome measures. Statistical analysis was performed using a random effects model and mean difference (MD) was calculated. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed by utilizing the Newcastle–Ottawa scale. Results: A total of six prospective comparative studies were included in the meta-analysis. The analysis revealed that the mean level of serum IMA was significantly raised in the acute appendicitis group (MD 0.21, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.37, p = 0.01). Similarly, the mean serum IMA levels were also raised in the complicated appendicitis group compared to the non-complicated appendicitis group (MD 0.05, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.10, p = 0.02). Three of the studies included were, however, of poor methodological quality. Conclusions: Serum IMA is a viable potential marker for diagnosing and prognosticating acute appendicitis. However, due to the limited methodological quality of available studies, further prospectively designed and adequately powered studies are needed.

Objective: Various studies have depicted the incidence of glove perforations during open (OS) and minimally invasive surgeries (MIS). The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the incidence of macroscopic and microscopic glove perforations during MIS and OS. Methods: The review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Scientific databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and EMBASE) were systematically searched for comparative studies depicting the glove perforation rates during MIS and OS. Risk ratios (RR) were calculated for both the outcomes (dichotomous) and the Mantel–Haenszel method was utilized for the estimation of pooled RR. The methodological quality assessment was performed by two independent investigators using the Downs and Black scale. The main outcomes of the study were the proportion of gloves with gross (macroscopic) perforations and the proportion of gloves with microscopic perforations. Results: Four comparative studies including a total of 1428 gloves (435 from the MIS group) were included. Pooling the data demonstrated no difference in the incidence of macroscopic glove perforations among the MIS and OS groups (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.54, p = 0.27). On the other hand, the incidence of microscopic perforations was significantly higher in the OS group versus the MIS group (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.95, p = 0.02). However, all the studies had a moderate risk of bias. Conclusions: When compared to OS, the macroscopic glove perforation rate during MIS showed no significant difference. The incidence of microscopic glove perforations was significantly higher during OS as compared to MIS. However, due to the moderate risk of bias of the available comparative studies, the level of evidence of these studies is limited.