Background: The relationship between Metabolic Syndrome and cancer remains controversial. The authors aimed to assess the association between Metabolic Syndrome and cancer risk at different locations using a Mendelian randomization approach. Methods: The authors extracted single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of MetS and its components from public databases for populations of European ancestry. Causal effects were estimated using inverse variance weighting, MR-Egger, weighted median, and MR-PRESSO. Sensitivity analyses were performed using Cochran’s Q test, MR-Egger intercept test, MR-PRESSO, leave-one-out analysis, and funnel plots. In addition, the authors calculated the Statistical power. Finally, the authors applied the False Discovery Rate (FDR) to correct our results. Results: IVW methods showed that Genetically predicted Metabolic Syndrome may be a potential risk factor for hepatocellular carcinoma ( P =0.031, P-FDR=0.093). Metabolic Syndrome was not causally associated with cancers at other sites (lung, thyroid, breast, prostate, kidney, bladder, colorectal, esophagus, and stomach). In further analyses, WC may increase the risk of lung ( P =0.003, P-FDR=0.018), and esophageal ( P =0.011, P-FDR=0.066) cancers and decrease the risk of prostate cancer ( P =0.006, P-FDR=0.001). Furthermore, hypertension may reduce the risk of Hepatic cancer ( P =0.014, P-FDR=0.084). Conclusion: Our study suggests that genetically predicted Metabolic Syndrome may increase the risk of some cancers. Prevention and treatment of Metabolic Syndrome may help to prevent the development of related cancers.

Background: This study employs a meta-analytic approach to investigate the impact of robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy, with and without near-infrared fluorescence imaging (NIRF-RAPN vs S-RAPN), on patients’ perioperative outcomes and postoperative changes in renal function. Materials and methods: The authors conducted a comprehensive and rigorous systematic review and cumulative meta-analysis of primary outcomes following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses), AMSTAR (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews) Guidelines, and Risk-of-Bias Tool (RoB2). To ensure a thorough search, the authors systematically searched five major databases, including Medline, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science, from databases’ inception to April 2023. Results: No significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of age (P=0.19), right side (P=0.54), BMI (P=0.39), complexity score (P=0.89), tumor size (P=0.88), operating time (P=0.39), estimated blood loss (P=0.47), length of stay (P=0.87), complications (P=0.20), transfusion (P=0.36), and positive margins (P=0.38). However, it is noteworthy that the NIRF-RAPN group exhibited significant reductions in warm ischemia time (P=0.001), the percentage change in estimated glomerular filtration rate at discharge (P=0.01) compared to the S-RAPN group. Conclusion: This meta-analysis provides evidence that the group undergoing NIRF-RAPN showed a statistically significant protective effect on the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR).

Background: This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated whether peritoneal interposition flap (PIF) prevent lymphocele formation after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with extended pelvic lymph node dissection. Materials and Methods: We performed a systematic review and cumulative meta-analysis of the primary outcomes according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews guidelines and risk-of-bias tool. Five databases, including Medline, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science, were systematically searched. The time frame of the search was set from the creation of the database to February 2023. Results: Meta-analysis of symptomatic lymphoceles (sLCs) rates revealed significant difference between PIF and no PIF group (eight studies pooled; p = 0.005), The sLCs rates account for 2.6% (28/1074) and 7.1% (85/1186) in the PIF and no PIF group, respectively. The resulting odds ratio was 0.34 (95% confidence interval: 0.16–0.73), taking into account the heterogeneity of these studies ( Q = 14.32, p = 0.05; I ² = 51%). Conclusion: PIF is an effective intraoperative modification on the prevention or reduction of sLC, which is worthy of further clinical promotion. Systematic Review Registration: National Institute for Health and Care Research, identifier CRD42022364461