Background: The advent of endovascular techniques has revolutionized the care of patients with uncomplicated abdominal aortic aneurysms. This analysis compares the overall survival and the freedom from reintervention rate between open surgical repair (OSR) and endovascular repair (EVAR) in patients undergoing elective abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. Methods: PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were searched for studies including patients who underwent either OSR or EVAR for uncomplicated AAA. All randomized controlled trials and propensity-score-matched cohort studies reporting on the outcomes of interest were considered eligible for inclusion. The systematic search of the literature was performed by 2 independent investigators in accordance with the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. We conducted 1-stage and 2-stage meta-analyses with Kaplan-Meier-derived time-to-event data and meta-analysis with a random-effects model. Results: Thirteen studies met our eligibility criteria, incorporating 13 409 and 13 450 patients in the OSR and EVAR arms, respectively. Patients who underwent open repair had improved overall survival rates compared with those who underwent EVAR (hazard ratio [HR]=0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.88-0.98, p=0.004) during a mean follow-up of 53.8 (SD=29.8) months and this was validated by the 2-stage meta-analysis (HR=0.89, 95% CI=0.8-0.99, p=0.03, I ² =62.25%). Splitting timepoint analysis suggested that EVAR offers better survival outcome compared with OSR in the first 11 months following elective intervention (HR=1.37, 95% CI=1.22-1.54, p<0.0001), while OSR offers a significant survival advantage after the 11-month timepoint and up to 180 months (HR=0.84, 95% CI=0.8-0.89, p<0.0001). Similarly, freedom from reintervention was found to be significantly better in EVAR patients (HR=1.28, 95% CI=1.14-1.44, p<0.0001) within the first 30 days. After the first month postrepair, however, OSR demonstrated higher freedom-from-reintervention rates compared with EVAR that remained significant for up to 168 months during follow-up (HR=0.73, 95% CI=0.66-0.79, p<0.0001). Conclusions: Despite the first-year survival advantage of EVAR in patients undergoing elective AAA repair, OSR was associated with a late survival benefit and decreased risk for reintervention in long-term follow-up. Clinical Impact: Open surgical repair for uncomplicated abdominal aortic aneurysm offers better long-term outcomes in terms of survival and freedom from reintervention rate compared to the endovascular approach but in the first year it carries a higher risk of mortality. The novelty of our study lies that instead of comparing study-level effect estimates, we analyzed reconstructed individual patient-level data. This offered us the opportunity to perform our analyses with mathematically robust and flexible survival models, which was proved to be crucial since there was evidence of different hazard over time. Our findings underline the need for additional investigation to clarify the significance of open surgical repair when compared to the latest endovascular devices and techniques within the evolving era of minimally invasive procedures.

Background and Objectives: The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic influenced the healthcare system tremendously, as well as the number of elective surgical procedures worldwide. The aim of this study is to investigate the COVID-19 pandemic’s impact on esophagectomies. Materials and Methods: The MEDLINE (via PubMed), Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar bibliographical databases were systematically searched. Original clinical studies investigating the outcomes of esophageal cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic were deemed eligible. After exclusion criteria were applied, eight studies were considered eligible for inclusion. Results: Eight studies with non-overlapping populations, reporting on patients undergoing esophagectomy for resectable esophageal cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic, were included in our analysis, with a total of 18548 patients. Background characteristics for age, lung disease, smoking history as well as Body Mass Index and age were equal among the groups. The background of diabetes presented a statistically significant difference among the groups. Perioperative outcomes like reoperation rates, the length of intensive care unit stay, or readmission rates were not significantly increased during the pandemic. The 30-day readmission, and 30- and 90-day mortality were not affected either. The length of hospital stay was significantly lower in the non-pandemic period. Conclusions: The results of our study support the evidence that in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, esophageal cancer operations took place safely and effectively, similarly to the standards of the non-COVID-19 era.

Pneumomediastinum (PNM) is a rare clinical finding, usually with a benign course, which is managed conservatively in the majority of cases. However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, an increased incidence of PNM has been observed. Several reports of PNM cases in COVID-19 have been reported in the literature and were managed either conservatively or surgically. In this study, we present our institutional experience of COVID-19 associated PNM, propose a management algorithm, and review the current literature. In total, 43 Case Series were identified, including a total of 747 patients, of whom 374/747 (50.1%) were intubated at the time of diagnosis, 168/747 (22.5%) underwent surgical drain insertion at admission, 562/747 (75.2%) received conservative treatment (observation or mechanical ventilation. Inpatient mortality was 51.8% (387/747), while 45.1% of the population recovered and/or was discharged (337/747). In conclusion, with increased incidence of PNM in COVID-19 patients reported in the literature, it is still difficult to assign a true causal relationship between PNM and mortality. We can, however, see that PMN plays an important role in disease prognosis. Due to increased complexity, high mortality, and associated complications, conservative management may not be sufficient, and a surgical approach is needed.

Cerebral vasospasm and delayed cerebral ischemia represent a very challenging aspect of cerebrovascular pathophysiology, most commonly subarachnoid hemorrhage, with significantly high mortality if left untreated. Considerable advances have been made in medical treatment and prompt diagnosis, while newer endovascular modalities have recently been proposed for cases of resistant cerebral vasospasm. However, there is still paucity of data regarding which and whether a single endovascular technique is non inferior to the pharmacological standard of care. In this review, we aim to summarize the current funds of knowledge concerning cerebral vasospasm and the emerging role of the endovascular techniques for its treatment.