Background and Objectives: Perioperative probiotic administration in patients who undergo gastrointestinal surgery can reduce postoperative infectious complications. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effect of probiotics on postoperative outcomes in patients who underwent colorectal cancer surgery. Materials and Methods: For this study, we followed the protocol published by PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42021247277). We included studies on patients undergoing open, laparoscopic, or robotic colorectal cancer surgery for curative intent. We conducted a comprehensive search with online databases (trial registries and ClinicalTrials.gov), other literature sources, and conference proceedings, with no language restriction, up until 12 August 2022. We assessed risk of bias, extracted data, and conducted statistical analyses by using a random-effects model and interpreted the results based on the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We rated the certainty of evidence (CoR) according to the GRADE approach. Results: We identified 20 published full-text studies. The use of probiotics probably results in little to no difference in perioperative mortality (risk ratio (RR): 0.17, 95% CI: 0.02 to 1.38; I² = 0%; moderate CoE) and may result in reducing the overall postoperative infectious complications (RR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.27 to 0.76; I² = 38%; low CoE) after colorectal cancer surgery. Probiotics may result in little to no difference in probiotics-related adverse events (RR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.45 to 1.19; I² = 0%; low CoE). While probiotics may result in reducing the overall postoperative complications (RR: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.30 to 0.74; I² = 8%; low CoE), it may result in little to no difference in hospital length of stay (LOS) (MD: −1.06, 95% CI: −1.64 to −0.47; I² = 8%; low CoE) and postoperative quality of life (QOL) (MD: +5.64, 95% CI: 0.98 to 10.3; low CoE). Conclusions: Perioperative probiotic administration may reduce complications, including overall infectious complications, in patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery without any additional adverse effects. In addition, probiotics may have similar effects on perioperative mortality; procedure-related complications such as anastomotic leakage, and hospital LOS; or improve the QOL. Thus, probiotics may be considered a beneficial supplement to routine perioperative care for colorectal cancer surgery.

Sedation can resolve anxiety and fear in patients undergoing endoscopy. The use of sedatives has increased in Korea. Appropriate sedation is a state in which the patient feels subjectively comfortable while maintaining the airway reflex for stable spontaneous breathing. The patient should maintain a state of consciousness to the extent that he or she can cooperate with the needs of the medical staff. Despite its benefits, endoscopic sedation has been associated with cardiopulmonary complications. Cardiopulmonary complications are usually temporary. Most patients recover without sequelae. However, they may progress to serious complications, such as cardiovascular collapse. Therefore, it is essential to screen high-risk patients before sedation and reduce complications by meticulous monitoring. Additionally, physicians should be familiar with the management of emergencies. The first Korean clinical practice guideline for endoscopic sedation was developed based on previous worldwide guidelines for endoscopic sedation using an adaptation process. The guideline consists of nine recommendations based on a critical review of currently available data and expert consensus when the guideline was drafted. These guidelines should provide clinicians, nurses, medical school students, and policy makers with information on how to perform endoscopic sedation with minimal risk.

Beta-3 adrenoceptor (B3AR) agonist which mediate detrusor relaxation has been tried as a new treatment modality for men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). However, it remains unclear whether the B3AR agonist has more clinical benefits and fewer adverse effects in men with BPH than in women. We performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases, trials registries, other sources of grey literature, and conference proceedings regardless of language or publication status and included randomized controlled trials. Two review authors independently screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and interpreted them according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Primary outcomes were urologic symptom scores, quality of life (QoL), and overall adverse events. We found 4 randomized controlled trials with 1,105 participants in 3 comparisons. All studies reported short-term outcomes (ranged from 8 weeks to 12 weeks). Mirabegron, tamsulosin, silodosin, fesoterodine, and tadalafil were administrated as intervention. While B3AR agonist can improve the patient-important outcomes within group (before and after treatment), B3AR agonist combination therapy with current standard BPH treatment such as alpha blocker or anticholinergic may not have additional effects on urological symptom scores and QoL compared to alpha blocker or anticholinergic monotherapy. B3AR agonist therapy with phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitor (PDE5I) showed statistical improvement on urological symptom scores or QoL compared to PDE5I monotherapy. For safety profile, B3AR agonist in all 3 comparisons may not increase adverse event rate. While B3AR agonists may be used for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in men with BPH if storage symptoms with standard BPH treatment are insufficient, B3AR agonists appear to have trivial or similar effects compared to current standard BPH treatment.

Background and Objectives: This study aimed to compare the effects of high ligation (HL) versus low ligation (LL) in colorectal cancer surgery. Materials and Methods: We performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases (trial registries and ClinicalTrials.gov), other sources of grey literature, and conference proceedings, with no restrictions on the language or publication status, up until 10 March 2021. We included all parallel-group randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and considered cluster RCTs for inclusion. The risk of bias domains were “low risk,” “high risk,” or “unclear risk.” We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and interpreted the results according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We used the GRADE guidelines to rate the certainty of evidence (CoE) of the randomized controlled trials. Results: We found 12 studies (24 articles) from our search. We were very uncertain about the effects of HL on overall mortality, disease recurrence, cancer-specific mortality, postoperative mortality, and anastomotic leakage (very low CoE). There may be little to no difference between HL and LL in postoperative complications (low CoE). For short-term follow-up (within 6 months), HL may reduce defecatory function (constipation; low CoE). While HL and LL may have similar effects on sexual function in men, HL may reduce female sexual function compared with LL (low CoE). For long-term follow-up (beyond 6 months), HL may reduce defecatory function (constipation; low CoE). There were discrepancies in the effects regarding urinary dysfunction according to which questionnaire was used in the studies. HL may reduce male and female sexual function (low CoE). Conclusions: We are very uncertain about the effects of HL on survival outcomes, and there is no difference in the incidence of postoperative complications between HL and LL. More rigorous RCTs are necessary to evaluate the effect of HL and LL on functional outcomes.

Background and Objectives: To assess the effects of fosfomycin compared with other antibiotics as a prophylaxis for urinary tract infections (UTIs) in men undergoing transrectal prostate biopsies. Materials and Methods: We searched multiple databases and trial registries without publication language or status restrictions until 4 January 2022. Parallel-group randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies (NRS) were included. The primary outcomes were febrile UTI, afebrile UTI, and overall UTI. We used GRADE guidance to rate the certainty of evidence of RCTs and NRSs. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022302743). Results: We found data on five comparisons; however, this abstract focuses on the primary outcomes of the two most clinically relevant comparisons. Regarding fosfomycin versus fluoroquinolone, five RCTs and four NRSs with a one-month follow-up were included. Based on the RCT evidence, fosfomycin likely resulted in little to no difference in febrile UTIs compared with fluoroquinolone. This difference corresponded to four fewer febrile UTIs per 1000 patients. Fosfomycin likely resulted in little to no difference in afebrile UTIs compared with fluoroquinolone. This difference corresponded to 29 fewer afebrile UTIs per 1000 patients. Fosfomycin likely resulted in little to no difference in overall UTIs compared with fluoroquinolone. This difference corresponded to 35 fewer overall UTIs per 1000 patients. Regarding fosfomycin and fluoroquinolone combined versus fluoroquinolone, two NRSs with a one- to three-month follow-up were included. Based on the NRS evidence, fosfomycin and fluoroquinolone combined may result in little to no difference in febrile UTIs compared with fluoroquinolone. This difference corresponded to 16 fewer febrile UTIs per 1000 patients. Conclusions: Compared with fluoroquinolone, fosfomycin or fosfomycin and fluoroquinolone combined may have a similar prophylactic effect on UTIs after a transrectal prostate biopsy. Given the increasing fluoroquinolone resistance and its ease to use, fosfomycin may be a good option for antibiotic prophylaxis.