Background: Conventional three-access laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA) is currently the gold standard treatment, however, Single-Port Laparoscopic Appendectomy (SILA) has been proposed as an alternative. The aim of this systematic review/meta-analysis was to evaluate safety and efficacy of SILA compared with conventional approach. Methods: Per PRISMA guidelines, we systematically reviewed randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CLA vs SILA for acute appendicitis. The randomised Mantel–Haenszel method was used for the meta-analysis. Statistical data analysis was performed with the Review Manager software and the risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane "Risk of Bias" assessment tool. Results: Twenty-one studies (RCTs) were selected (2646 patients). The operative time was significantly longer in the SILA group (MD = 7,32), confirmed in both paediatric (MD = 9,80), (Q = 1,47) and adult subgroups (MD = 5,92), (Q = 55,85). Overall postoperative morbidity was higher in patients who underwent SILA, but the result was not statistically significant. In SILA group were assessed shorter hospital stays, fewer wound infections and higher conversion rate, but the results were not statistically significant. Meta-analysis was not performed about cosmetics of skin scars and postoperative pain because different scales were used in each study. Conclusions: This analysis show that SILA, although associated with fewer postoperative wound infection, has a significantly longer operative time. Furthermore, the risk of postoperative general complications is still present. Further studies will be required to analyse outcomes related to postoperative pain and the cosmetics of the surgical scar.

Background and Objectives: Trauma, particularly uncontrolled bleeding, is a major cause of death. Recent evidence-based guidelines recommend the use of a tourniquet when life-threating limb bleeding cannot be controlled with direct pressure. Prehospital hemorrhage management, according to the XABCDE protocol, emphasizes the critical role of tourniquets in controlling massive bleeding. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to summarize data from the available scientific literature on the effectiveness of prehospital tourniquet use for extremity bleeding. Materials and Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed between March 2022 and March 2024, adhering to PRISMA guidelines, to determine whether prehospital tourniquets are clinically effective. The protocol was published on PROSPERO (ID number: CRD42023450373). Results: A comprehensive literature search yielded 925 articles and 11 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. The analysis showed a non-statistically significant reduction in mortality risk with tourniquet application (4.02% vs. 6.43%, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.46–1.07). Analysis of outcomes of amputation of the traumatized limb indicated a statistically higher incidence of initial amputation in the tourniquet group (19.32% vs. 6.4%, RR 2.07, 95% CI 1.21–3.52), while delayed amputation showed no difference (9.39% vs. 3.66%, RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.42–2.07). Tourniquet use demonstrated a non-significant reduction in the number of blood components transfused (MD = −0.65; 95% CI −5.23 to 3.93 for pRBC, MD = −0.55; 95% CI −4.06 to 2.97 for plasma). Conclusions: Despite increasing use in civilian settings, this systematic review and meta-analysis showed no significant reduction in mortality or blood product use associated with prehospital tourniquet use. Further research, including high-quality randomized controlled trials, is required, as well as awareness and education campaigns relating to proper tourniquet use in the prehospital setting.

Matteo Matteucci, Maria Chiara Ranucci, Salvatore Guarino, Bruno Cirillo, Luca Properzi, Justin Davies, Pietro Ursi, Vito D’Andrea, Roberto Cirocchi. Ann Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg -0001;0:. https://doi.org/10.14701/ahbps.25-068

Background: Right hemicolectomy remains the standard surgical treatment for right colon diseases. This study evaluates robotic versus laparoscopic approaches to determine optimal, minimally invasive strategies, balancing technical efficacy with healthcare economics. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study evaluates robotic versus laparoscopic approaches using data from 46 studies (2003–2025) involving 36,868 patients (6,312 robotic, 30,547 laparoscopic). Primary outcomes assessed were lymph node yield, operative time, and hospital stay; secondary outcomes included blood loss, conversion rates, infections, readmissions, and costs. Results: Concerning robotic surgery, lymph node harvest was higher (MD 1.34 for CME; MD 1.27 for non-CME). Laparoscopy showed shorter operative times (MD 25.73 for CME; MD 42.45 for non-CME). Hospital stays showed no significant difference. Robotics demonstrated lower blood loss in non-CME cases (MD -0.38). Conversion rates favored robotics (1% vs. 10% for CME; 4% vs. 8% for non-CME). No significant differences were found in wound infections or non-CME readmissions, though robotics showed lower CME readmission costs (MD 5.34). There were several study-acknowledged limitations, including surgeon preference bias, protocol variability, learning curves, and evolving techniques over the 22-year period. Cost analyses considered both direct surgical expenses and postoperative care. Conclusions: While robotics offers advantages in oncological resection and procedural stability, laparoscopy maintains efficiency benefits. These findings contribute to ongoing discussions about optimal, minimally invasive approaches for right colon pathologies, balancing technical efficacy with healthcare economics. By comparing surgical techniques, surgeon expertise, patient characteristics, and healthcare costs across multiple institutions, this study seeks to provide meaningful insights for surgical decision-making and further standardization.

Background: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the gold standard in the treatment of symptomatic gallstones. The large number of gallbladders removed every year is not fully consistent with the excessively high incidence of iatrogenic bile duct injury (IBDI). Several strategies have been suggested to reduce this risk. Among them, the use of extra biliary anatomic structures, such as the Rouvière’s sulcus, as a landmark to guide the surgeon during dissection has been proposed as a means to prevent IBDI. The main aim of the present paper is the evaluation of the prevalence of Rouvière’s sulcus (RS) and its anatomic variants in a given population. Materials and Methods: This observational, cross-sectional, and multicenter study has been conducted at the Department of Digestive and Emergency Surgery of the “Azienda Ospedaliera Santa Maria,” Terni (Italy), at the Department of Surgical Sciences of the “Azienda Ospedaliera Perugia,” Perugia (Italy) and at the Department of Emergency and Trauma Surgery of the “Policlinico Umberto I,” Rome (Italy). Intraoperative images of 111 patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy were analyzed to identify the presence and type of RS, according to the Singh-Prasad classification and the Dahmane classification. Results: RS was present in 93 (83.8%) patients. Singh-Prasad type 1A is present in 48.4% of patients, type 1B in 25.8%, type 2 in 12.9% and type 3 in 12.9%. Dahmane’s open type is present in 48.4% of patients and fused type in 51.6%. Conclusion: Due to its high prevalence, RS can be used as an anatomic landmark and probably reduces the incidence of IBDI during laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Article: Prevalence of Rouvière’s sulcus and its anatomical variations: our experience and systematic review/meta-analysis - Minerva Surgery 2024 December;79(6):622-8 - Minerva Medica - Journals