The esophagus traverses three body compartments (neck, thorax, and abdomen) and is surrounded at each level by vital organs. Injuries to the esophagus may be classified as foreign body ingestion, caustic ingestion, esophageal perforation, and esophageal trauma. These lesions can be life-threatening either by digestive contamination of surrounding structures in case of esophageal wall breach or concomitant damage of surrounding organs. Early diagnosis and timely therapeutic intervention are the keys of successful management.

Aortic occlusion is a potentially valuable tool for early resuscitation in patients nearing extremis or in arrest from severe hemorrhage. The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma's Aortic Occlusion in Resuscitation for Trauma and Acute Care Surgery registry identified trauma patients without penetrating thoracic injury undergoing aortic occlusion at the level of the descending thoracic aorta (resuscitative thoracotomy [RT] or zone 1 resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta [REBOA]) in the emergency department (ED). Survival outcomes relative to the timing of CPR need and admission hemodynamic status were examined. Two hundred and eighty-five patients were included: 81.8% were males, with injury due to penetrating mechanisms in 41.4%; median age was 35.0 years (interquartile range 29 years) and median Injury Severity Score was 34.0 (interquartile range 18). Resuscitative thoracotomy was used in 71%, and zone 1 REBOA in 29%. Overall survival beyond the ED was 50% (RT 44%, REBOA 63%; p = 0.004) and survival to discharge was 5% (RT 2.5%, REBOA 9.6%; p = 0.023). Discharge Glasgow Coma Scale score was 15 in 85% of survivors. Prehospital CPR was required in 60% of patients with a survival beyond the ED of 37% and survival to discharge of 3% (all p > 0.05). Patients who did not require any CPR before had a survival beyond the ED of 70% (RT 48%, REBOA 93%; p < 0.001) and survival to discharge of 13% (RT 3.4%, REBOA 22.2%, p = 0.048). If aortic occlusion patients did not require CPR but presented with hypotension (systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg; 9% [65% RT; 35% REBOA]), they achieved survival beyond the ED in 65% (p = 0.009) and survival to discharge of 15% (RT 0%, REBOA 44%; p = 0.008). Overall, REBOA can confer a survival benefit over RT, particularly in patients not requiring CPR. Considerable additional study is required to definitively recommend REBOA for specific subsets of injured patients.

Background: Despite the advent of innovative surgical platforms and operative techniques, a definitive indication of the best surgical option for the treatment of unilateral primary inguinal hernia remains unsettled. Purpose was to perform an updated and comprehensive evaluation within the major approaches to inguinal hernia. Methods: Systematic review and network meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) compare Lichtenstein tension-free repair, laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) repair, and totally extraperitoneal repair (TEP). Risk ratio (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) were used as pooled effect size measures, whereas 95% credible intervals (CrI) were used to assess relative inference. Results: Thirty-five RCTs (7777 patients) were included. Overall, 3496 (44.9%) underwent Lichtenstein, 1269 (16.3%) TAPP, and 3012 (38.8%) TEP repair. The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) was significantly lower for minimally invasive repair at <12 hours, 24 hours, and 48 hours. Postoperative chronic pain [TAPP vs Lichtenstein (RR = 0.36; 95% CrI 0.15–0.81) and TEP vs Lichtenstein (RR = 0.36; 95% CrI 0.21–0.54)] and return to work/activities [TAPP vs Lichtenstein (WMD = −3.3; 95% CrI −4.9 to −1.8) and TEP vs Lichtenstein (WMD = −3.6; 95% CrI −4.9 to −2.4)] were significantly reduced for minimally invasive approaches. Wound hematoma and infection were significantly reduced for minimally invasive approaches, whereas no differences were found for seroma, hernia recurrence, and hospital length of stay. Conclusions: Minimally invasive TAPP and TEP repair seem associated with significantly reduced early postoperative pain, return to work/activities, chronic pain, hematoma, and wound infection compared to the Lichtenstein tension-free repair. Hernia recurrence, seroma, and hospital length of stay seem similar across treatments.

Esophageal leaks remain a life-threatening postoperative complication of esophagectomy. Currently, self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) represent the endoscopic mainstay of treatment. Recently, endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT) has emerged and shown promising results in these patients. We conducted an electronic systematic search using MEDLINE databases (PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science) looking for studies comparing EVT and SEMS for the treatment of esophageal leak and/or perforation. Four studies including 163 patients matched the inclusion criteria. Esophageal leak closure rate is significantly higher with EVT than SEMS [pooled odds ratio 5.51 (95% CI 2.11–14.88; P < 0.001)]. Additionally, EVT has a shorter treatment duration [pooled mean difference −9.0 days (95% CI 16.6–1.4; P = 0.021)], lower major complication (P = 0.011), and in-hospital mortality (P = 0.002) rate compared to SEMS. EVT for esophageal leak is feasible and safe. It has the potential to become the new gold standard in the endoscopic treatment of esophageal leaks and perforations. However, further comparative studies with SEMS are needed to strengthen the current evidence.

Purpose: To examine the updated evidence on safety, effectiveness, and outcomes of the totally extraperitoneal (TEP) versus the laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) repair and to explore the timely tendency variations favoring one treatment over another. Methods: Systematic review and trial sequential analysis (TSA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were consulted. Risk Ratio (RR), weighted mean difference (WMD), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used as pooled effect size measures. Results: Fifteen RCTs were included (1359 patients). Of these, 702 (51.6%) underwent TAPP and 657 (48.4%) TEP repair. The age of the patients ranged from 18 to 92 years and 87.9% were males. The estimated pooled RR for hernia recurrence (RR = 0.83; 95% CI 0.35–1.96) and chronic pain (RR = 1.51; 95% CI 0.54–4.22) were similar for TEP vs. TAPP. The TSA shows a cumulative z-curve without crossing the monitoring boundaries line (Z = 1.96), thus supporting true negative results while the information size was calculated as adequate for both outcomes. No significant differences were found in term of early postoperative pain, operative time, wound-related complications, hospital length of stay, return to work/daily activities, and costs. Conclusions: TEP and TAPP repair seems comparable in terms of postoperative hernia recurrence and chronic pain. The cumulative evidence and information size are sufficient to provide a conclusive evidence on recurrence and chronic pain. Similar trials or meta-analyses seem unlikely to show diverse results and should be discouraged.