Anastomosis leakage (AL) after colorectal surgery is an embarrassing problem. It is associated with poor consequence. This review aims to summarize published evidence on prevention of AL after colorectal surgery and provide recommendations according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. We conducted bibliographic research on January 15, 2020, of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar. We retained meta-analysis, reviews, and randomized clinical trials. We concluded that mechanical bowel preparation did not reduce AL. It seems that oral antibiotic or oral antibiotic with mechanical bowel preparation could reduce the risk of AL. The surgical approach did not affect the AL rate. The low ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery could reduce the AL rate. The mechanical anastomosis is superior to handsewn anastomosis only in case of right colectomies, with similar results in rectal surgery between the 2 anastomosis techniques. In the case of right colectomies, this anastomosis could be performed intracorporeally or extracorporeally with similar outcomes. The air leak test did not reduce AL. There is no interest of external drainage in colonic surgery but drains reduced the rate of AL and rate of reoperation after low anterior resection. The transanal tube reduced the rate of AL.

Background: In case of situs inversus (SI), laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is challenging. This systematic review aimed to assess the appropriate technique for LC in SI. Methods: An electronic search was carried out using the following keywords: “Situs inversus” and “Laparoscopic cholecystectomy”. The main endpoints were surgical procedures, intra-operative cholangiography (IOC) use, common bile detection, operative time, bile duct injury, conversion, mortality, and morbidity. Results: We retained 93 cases. Essentially two types of laparoscopy port placement reported were reported: the “American mirror technique” and the “French mirror technique”. One report of a left-handed surgeon was retained. Fourteen cases operated by a right-handed surgeon: “American mirror technique” used in 33 cases and “French mirror technique” used in 7 cases. The operative time was mentioned in 52 cases with a mean of 74 min without any statistical difference between the two techniques. No cases of postoperative death, major complications or bile duct injury were reported. IOC was performed in 16 cases (17.2%). An associated common bile duct stone was found in eight cases (8.6%). ERCP with endoscopic sphincterotomy was used to treat the associated CBD stones in 7 cases and a choledecoscopy was conducted in one case to extract stones. The conversion rate in this systematic review was 1.07%. Conclusions: LC in SI is easier for left-handed surgeons. The fastest technique for right-handed surgeons seems to be the “American mirror technique” and some modifications of the port placement can facilitate it.

Background and Objective: The discrepancy between donor organ availability and demand leads to a significant waiting‐list dropout rate and mortality. Although quantitative tools such as the Donor Risk Index (DRI) help assess organ suitability, many potentially viable organs are still discarded due to the lack of universally accepted markers to predict post‐transplant outcomes. Normothermic machine perfusion (NMP) offers a platform to assess viability before transplantation. Thus, livers considered unsuitable for transplantation based on the DRI can be evaluated and potentially transplanted. During NMP, various viability criteria have been proposed. These criteria are neither homogeneous nor consensual. In this review, we aimed to describe the viability criteria during NMP and evaluate their ability to predict hepatic graft function following transplantation. We conducted a PubMed search using the terms ‘liver transplantation’, ‘normothermic machine perfusion’ and ‘assessment’, including only English publications up to February 2024. Viability assessment during NMP includes multiple hepatocellular and cholangiocellular criteria. Lactate clearance and bile production are commonly used indicators, but their ability to predict post‐transplant outcomes varies significantly. The predictive value of cholangiocellular criteria such as bile pH, bicarbonate and glucose levels remains under investigation. Novel markers, such as microRNAs and proteomic profiles, offer the potential to enhance graft evaluation accuracy and provide insights into the molecular mechanisms underlying liver viability. Combining perfusion parameters with biomarkers may improve the prediction of long‐term graft survival. Future research should focus on standardising viability assessment protocols and exploring real‐time biomarker evaluations, which could enhance transplantation outcomes and expand the donor pool.

Introduction: This systematic review aimed to compare liver venous deprivation (LVD) with portal vein embolization (PVE) in terms of future liver volume, postoperative outcomes, and oncological safety before major hepatectomy.Methods: We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis following the PRISMA guidelines 2020 and AMSTAR 2 guidelines. Comparative articles published before November 2022 were retained.Results: The literature search identified nine eligible comparative studies. They included 557 patients, 207 in the LVD group and 350 in the PVE group. This systematic review and meta-analysis concluded that LVD was associated with higher future liver remnant (FLR) volume after embolization, percentage of FLR hypertrophy, lower failure of resection due to low FLR, faster kinetic growth, higher day 5 prothrombin time, and higher 3 years’ disease-free survival. This study did not find any difference between the LVD and PVE groups in terms of complications related to embolization, FLR percentage of hypertrophy after embolization, failure of resection, 3-month mortality, overall morbidity, major complications, operative time, blood loss, bile leak, ascites, post hepatectomy liver failure, day 5 bilirubin level, hospital stay, and three years’ overall survival.Conclusion: LVD is as feasible and safe as PVE with encouraging results making some selected patients more suitable for surgery, even with a small FLR.Systematic review registration: The review protocol was registered in PROSPERO before conducting the study (CRD42021287628).