Objective: This study aimed to compare outcomes after laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair (LPEHR) with mesh or primary repair alone. Summary of Background Data: High recurrence rates after LPEHR have been reported. Whether the use of mesh improves outcomes remains elusive. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LPEHR with mesh repair versus suture repair alone. Early (≤6 months) and late (>6 months) recurrence rates were used as primary endpoints to assess efficacy. Intraoperative complications, overall morbidity, and reoperation rates were used as secondary endpoints to assess safety. A meta-analysis was conducted using relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the analyzed outcomes. Results: Seven RCTs comparing mesh (n = 383) versus suture only (n = 352) repair were included for analysis. Patients undergoing LPEHR with mesh reinforcement had similar early (RR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.26–2.07, P = 0.46) and late (RR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.27–2.08, P = 0.48) recurrence rates as those with primary repair. Similar recurrence rates were also found when stratifying the analysis by the type of mesh utilized (absorbable and nonabsorbable). Intraoperative complications (RR = 1.03, 95% CI = 0.33–3.28, P = 0.92) and reoperation rates (RR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.29–1.92, P = 0.45) were also similar in both groups. Overall morbidity, however, was higher after mesh repair with nonabsorbable mesh (RR = 1.45, 95% CI = 1.24–1.71, P < 0.01) Conclusions: Patients undergoing LPEHR have similar early and late recurrence rates with either mesh reinforcement or suture only repair, regardless of the type of mesh utilized. Overall morbidity, however, seems to be higher in patients repaired with nonabsorbable mesh.

Introduction: Increases in the rates of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) have paralleled rises in the prevalence of overweight and obesity. Despite not being fully understood, obesity-related EAC seems to have different carcinogenic pathways. Areas covered: This comprehensive review will thoroughly evaluate the current literature, describing the underlying mechanisms that help understanding the strong association between obesity and esophageal cancer. Expert commentary: The risk of esophageal cancer among obese individuals could be partially explained by several factors: high prevalence of GERD; linear association between central adiposity and Barrett´s esophagus development; low levels of adiponectin and high levels of leptin that alter cell proliferation processes; insulin-resistant state that creates a tumorigenesis environment; and changes in the esophageal microbiota due to unhealthy dietary habits that promote carcinogenesis. In addition, a large proportion of obese patients are undergoing sleeve gastrectomy which can worsen GERD or cause de novo reflux, esophagitis, and Barrett´s metaplasia.

Complicated appendicitis (CA) may be a risk factor for postoperative intra-abdominal abscess formation (IAA). In addition, several publications have shown an increased risk of postoperative collection after laparoscopic appendectomy. Most surgeons prefer to place a drain to collect contaminated abdominal fluid to prevent consequent abscess formation. We aimed to evaluate the utility of placing an intra-abdominal drain in laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated acute appendicitis. From January 2005 to June 2015 all charts of consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy for CA were revised. CA was defined as a perforated appendix with associated peritonitis. The sample was divided into two groups, G1: intra-abdominal drain and G2: no drain. Demographics, operative factors and 30-day postoperative complications were analyzed. In the study period 1300 laparoscopic appendectomies were performed. Laparoscopic findings showed that 17.3% of the surgeries were for complicated acute appendicitis (225 patients). Fifty-six patients (25%) were in G1 and 169 patients (75%) in G2. No significant differences in clinical presentation and demographics were found (p: NS). G1 had an increased conversion rate (G1: 19.6% vs. G2: 7.1%; p: 0.007). No differences were found in the overall morbidity (G1: 32.1% vs. G2: 21.3%, p: NS). The rate of postoperative IAA was 14.2% in G1 and 8.9% in G2 (p: NS). Length of stay was higher in G1 (G1: 5.2 days vs. G2 2.9 days, p: 0.001). There was no mortality in either group. The placement of intra-abdominal drain in complicated acute appendicitis may not present benefits and may even lengthen hospital stay. These observations suggest that there is no need of using a drain in laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated acute appendicitis.