Background: This systematic review aims to investigate whether percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder biliary drainage (PTGBD) is superior to emergency cholecystectomy (EC) as a definitive treatment in high-risk patients with acute cholecystitis (AC). Material and Methods: A systematic literature search was performed until December 2022 using the Scopus, Medline/PubMed and Web of Science databases. Results: Seventeen studies have been included with a total of 783,672 patients (32,634 treated with PTGBD vs. 4663 who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy, 343 who had open cholecystectomy and 746,032 who had some form of cholecystectomy, but without laparoscopic or open approach being specified). An analysis of the results shows that PTGBD, despite being less invasive, is not associated with lower morbidity with respect to EC (RR 0.77 95% CI [0.44 to 1.34]; I² = 99%; p = 0.36). A lower postoperative mortality was reported in patients who underwent EC (2.37%) with respect to the PTGBD group (13.78%) (RR 4.21; 95% CI [2.69 to 6.58]; p < 0.00001); furthermore, the risk of hospital readmission for biliary complications (RR 2.19 95% CI [1.72 to 2.79]; I² = 48%; p < 0.00001) and hospital stay (MD 4.29 95% CI [2.40 to 6.19]; p < 0.00001) were lower in the EC group. Conclusions: In our systematic review, the majority of studies have very low-quality evidence and more RCTs are needed; furthermore, PTGBD is inferior in the treatment of AC in high-risk patients. The definition of high-risk patients is important in interpreting the results, but the methods of assessment and definitions differ between studies. The results of our systematic review and meta-analysis failed to demonstrate any advantage of using PTGBD over ER as a definitive treatment of AC in critically ill patients, which suggests that EC should be considered as the treatment of choice even in very high-risk patients. Most likely, the inferiority of PTGBD versus early LC for high-risk patients is related to an association of various patient-side factor conditions and the severity of acute cholecystitis.

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.

Pneumatosis intestinalis (PI) is a rare radiological finding given by the presence of gas within the bowel wall, mainly caused by endoscopic procedures, infections and other gastrointestinal diseases. To date, cytotoxic chemotherapeutic agents, immunotherapy drugs and monoclonal antibodies used for molecular targeted therapy in oncological patients have been reported as a possible cause of PI, but their role remains unclear. We hereby report the case of a 61-year-old patient with stage IV lung adenocarcinoma in treatment with afatinib—a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), since the diagnosis, who presented to the emergency department with abdominal pain secondary to left-colonic PI. A conservative treatment with drug suspension was successfully attempted. To the best of our knowledge, even though many monoclonal antibodies are associated with this condition, this is the first case report of PI likely induced by afatinib. Although PI is extremely rare, clinicians should be aware of the risk of PI in patients undergoing afatinb therapy and the present case represents a significant warning to differentiate the associated conditions of PI and evaluate whether or not emergency surgery is actually necessary. Therefore, abdominal symptoms in patients receiving oncological treatments should not be overlooked, and clinicians should not hesitate to request targeted radiological investigations to facilitate early diagnosis and management of PI. Timely event detection is imperative to optimal management and to prevent further deterioration, recurrent PI, or even perforation, especially in oncological patients.

Background: This systematic review aims to investigate whether percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage (PTGDB), as definitive treatment, is superior to emergency cholecystectomy (EC) in high-risk patients with acute cholecystitis (AC). Material and methods: A systematic literature search was performed until December 2022 using Scopus, Medline/PubMed and Web of Science databases in order to compare PTGDB as definitive treatment vs EC in AC. Results: Seventeen studies (1 Randomized Control Trials and 16 observational studies) have been included with a total of 783,672 patients (32,634 treated with PTGDB vs 4,663 who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy, 343 who underwent open cholecystectomy and 746,032 who underwent cholecystectomy, but without laparoscopic or open approach being specified). The quality assessment (ROBINS-I) of the not randomized studies showed a serious risk, differently the evaluation of the randomized study (RoB 2) showed a low risk of bias. Analysis of the results shows that PTGDB, despite being minimally invasive, do not have different incidence of complications than EC (RR 0.77 95% CI [0.44 to 1.34]; I2 = 99%; P=0.36). A lower postoperative mortality was reported in patients who underwent EC (2.37%) than in PTGDB group (13.78 %) (RR 4.21; 95% CI [2.69 to 6.58]; P < 0.00001), furthermore the risk of hospital readmission for biliary complications (RR 2.19 95% CI [1.72 to 2.79]; I2 = 48 %; P<0.00001) and hospital stay (MD 4.29 95% CI [2.40 to 6.19]; P<0.00001) were lower in EC group. Conclusions: No advantage in using PTGDB as a definitive treatment over EC in the management of critically ill patients with AC has been demonstrated; the results of our systematic review and meta-analysis suggest using EC as the treatment of first choice, even for very high-surgical-risk patient in which PTGDB should be reserved. The major limitation of this systematic review and meta-analysis is associated to a low quality of evidence for the serious bias in the not randomized studies. For this reason, new high powered and well-designed clinical trials are needed to recommend PTGDB as definitive treatment in patients unfit for surgery or those who refuse to undergo surgery.

Article: Laparoscopic mechanical latero-lateral oesophagojejunostomy after total gastrectomy for cancer in the elderly: technical notes and results - Minerva Surgery 2021 Jun 23 - Minerva Medica - Journals