Purpose The purpose of this systematic review was to compare minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) versus open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) by using meta-analytical techniques. Methodology Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched for eligible studies. Data from included studies were extracted for the following outcomes: operative time, overall morbidity, pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, blood loss, postoperative hemorrhage, yield of harvested lymph nodes, R1 rate, length of hospital stay, and readmissions. Random and fix effect meta-analyses were undertaken. Results Initial reference search yielded 747 articles. Thorough evaluation resulted in 12 papers, which were analyzed. The total number of patients was 2186 (705 in MIPD group and 1481 in OPD). Although there were no differences in overall morbidity between groups, we noticed reduced blood loss, delayed gastric emptying, and length of hospital stay in favor of MIPD. In contrary, meta-analysis of operative time revealed significant differences in favor of open procedures. Remaining parameters did not differ among groups. Conclusion Our review suggests that although MIPD takes longer, it may be associated with reduced blood loss, shortened LOS, and comparable rate of perioperative complications. Due to heterogeneity of included studies and differences in baseline characteristics between analyzed groups, the analysis of short-term oncological outcomes does not allow drawing unequivocal conclusions.

Tissue fillers injections remain to be one of the most commonly performed cosmetic procedures. The aim of this meta-analysis was to systematize and present available data on the aesthetic outcomes and safety of treating the nasolabial fold area with tissue fillers. We conducted a systematic review of randomized clinical trials that report outcomes concerning treatment of nasolabial fold area with tissue fillers. We searched the MEDLINE/PubMed, ScienceDirect, EMBASE, BIOSIS, SciELO, Scopus, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, CNKI and Web of Science databases. Primary outcomes included aesthetic improvement measured using the Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale score and Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale. Secondary outcomes were incidence rates of complications occurring after the procedure. At baseline, the pooled mean WSRS score was 3.23 (95% CI: 3.20–3.26). One month after the procedure, the pooled WSRS score had reached 1.79 (95% CI: 1.74–1.83). After six months it was 2.02 (95% CI: 1.99–2.05) and after 12 months it was 2.46 (95% CI: 2.4–2.52). One month after the procedure, the pooled GAIS score had reached 2.21 (95% CI: 2.14–2.28). After six months, it was 2.32 (95% CI: 2.26–2.37), and after 12 months, it was 1.27 (95% CI: 1.12–1.42). Overall, the pooled incidence of all complications was 0.58 (95% CI: 0.46–0.7). Most common included lumpiness (43%), tenderness (41%), swelling (34%) and bruising (29%). Tissue fillers used for nasolabial fold area treatment allow achieving a satisfying and sustainable improvement. Most common complications include tenderness, lumpiness, swelling, and bruising. Level of Evidence II: "This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266."

Purpose: Improvement of the quality of life after bariatric surgery is an important outcome of the treatment. Assessing the long-term QoL results provides better insights into the effectiveness of bariatric surgery.Materials and Methods: This is a cohort study including patients who underwent bariatric surgery between June 2009 and May 2010 in one academic center. Patients underwent either laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) or laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB). Overall, 34 patients underwent LSG (52.3%) and 31 patients underwent LRYGB (47.7%). Preoperatively, and after 1 and 10 years, QoL was assessed using two standardized questionnaires: SF-36 and MA-QoLII. After 10 years, 72% of patients filled out these questionnaires.Results: The global QoL score before surgery was 48.3 ± 20.6. At the 1-year follow-up, the global total QoL score was 79.7 ± 9.8. At the 10-year follow-up, the global total QoL score was 65.1 ± 21.4. There was a significant increase in total QoL between measurements before the operation and 10 years after surgery in the whole study group (p = 0.001) and for patients who underwent LSG (p = 0.001). There was no significant difference between total QoL prior to surgery and 10 years after for patients who underwent LRYGB (p = 0.450).Conclusion: LSG led to significant improvement in QoL.

Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) for treatment of acute appendicitis has gained acceptance with its considerable benefits over open appendectomy. LA, however, can involve some adverse outcomes: morbidity, prolonged length of hospital stay (LOS) and hospital readmission. Identification of predictive factors may help to identify and tailor treatment for patients with higher risk of these adverse events. Our aim was to identify risk factors for serious morbidity, prolonged LOS and hospital readmission after LA. A database compiled information of patients admitted for acute appendicitis from eighteen Polish and German surgical centers. It included factors related to the patient characteristics, peri- and postoperative period. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used to identify risk factors for serious perioperative complications, prolonged LOS, and hospital readmissions in acute appendicitis cases. 4618 laparoscopic appendectomy patients were included. First, although several risk factors for serious perioperative complications (C-D III-V) were found in the univariate analysis, in the multivariate model only the presence of intraoperative adverse events (OR 4.09, 95% CI 1.32–12.65, p = 0.014) and complicated appendicitis (OR 3.63, 95% CI 1.74–7.61, p = 0.001) was statistically significant. Second, prolonged LOS was associated with the presence of complicated appendicitis (OR 2.8, 95% CI: 1.53–5.12, p = 0.001), postoperative morbidity (OR 5.01, 95% CI: 2.33–10.75, p < 0.001), conversions (OR 6.48, 95% CI: 3.48–12.08, p < 0.001) and reinterventions after primary procedure (OR 8.79, 95% CI: 3.2–24.14, p < 0.001) in the multivariate model. Third, although several risk factors for hospital readmissions were found in univariate analysis, in the multivariate model only the presence of postoperative complications (OR 10.33, 95% CI: 4.27–25.00), reintervention after primary procedure (OR 5.62, 95% CI: 2.17–14.54), and LA performed by resident (OR 1.96, 95% CI: 1.03–3.70) remained significant. Laparoscopic appendectomy is a safe procedure associated with low rates of complications, prolonged LOS, and readmissions. Risk factors for these adverse events include complicated appendicitis, postoperative morbidity, conversion, and re-intervention after the primary procedure. Any occurrence of these factors during treatment should alert the healthcare team to identify the patients that require more customized treatment to minimize the risk for adverse outcomes.