Bones are the third most common location for solid tumor metastasis affecting up to 10% of patients with solid tumors. When the spine is involved, thoracic and lumbar vertebrae are frequently affected. Access to spinal lesions can be through minimally invasive surgery (MIS) or traditional open surgery (OS). This study aims to determine which method provides an advantage. Following the PRIS-MA (Preferred Inventory for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) guidelines, a systematic review was conducted to identify studies that compare MIS with OS in patients with spinal metastatic disease. Data were analyzed using Review Manager ver. 5.3 (RevMan; Cochrane, London, UK). Ten studies were included. Operative time was similar among groups at -35.23 minutes (95% confidence interval [CI], -73.36 to 2.91 minutes; p=0.07). Intraoperative bleeding was lower in MIS at -562.59 mL (95% CI, -776.97 to -348.20 mL; p<0.00001). OS procedures had higher odds of requiring blood transfusions at 0.26 (95% CI, 0.15 to 0.45; p<0.00001). Both approaches instrumented similar numbers of levels at -0.05 levels (95% CI, -0.75 to 0.66 levels; p=0.89). We observed a decreased need for postoperative bed rest at -1.60 days (95% CI, -2.46 to -0.74 days; p=0.0003), a shorter length of stay at -3.08 days (95% CI, -4.50 to -1.66 days; p=0.001), and decreased odds of complications at 0.60 (95% CI, 0.37 to 0.96; p=0.03) in the MIS group. Both approaches revealed similar reintervention rates at 0.65 (95% CI, 0.15 to 2.84; p=0.57), effective rates of reducing metastasis-related pain at -0.74 (95% CI, -2.41 to 0.94; p=0.39), and comparable scores of the Tokuhashi scale at -0.52 (95% CI, -2.08 to 1.05; p=0.41), Frankel scale at 1.00 (95% CI, 0.60 to 1.68; p=1.0), and American Spinal Injury Association Scale at 0.53 (95% CI, 0.21 to 1.37; p=0.19). MIS appears to provide advantages over OS. Larger and prospective studies should fully detail the role of MIS as a treatment for spine metastasis.

No abstract

Context Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men; robotic prostatectomy has cemented itself as part of the standard of care. Since its approval by the Food and Drug Administration in 2018, the SP console's application has been increasingly studied and compared with the multiport (MP) robotic approach. Methods Following PRISMA guidelines and PROSPERO registration CRD42021228744, a systematic review was performed in April 2021 on single‐port robotic‐assisted radical prostatectomies (SP‐RARPs) compared to MP. Outcomes of interest were operative time, bleeding, complications, analgesic use, and postoperative continence, and erectile function. Data were analyzed with Review Manager 5.3. Results Seven studies were included, of which six studies met the inclusion criteria for quantitative synthesis, totalling 1068 patients, out of which 324 underwent SP‐RARP and 744 underwent MP‐RARP. No differences were found in baseline characteristics such as age, body mass index, prostatic‐specific antigen, or stage. No differences in blood loss—15.77 mL [−42.44, 10.89], p = 0.25, operative time 3.93 min [−4.12, 11.98], p = 0.34, or positive surgical margins, with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.78 [0.55, 1.10], p = 0.15—were found. Length of stay was significantly shorter in SP −0.94 days [−1.56, −0.33], p = 0.003, with no differences in complication rates, with an OR of 1.29 [0.78, 2.14], p = 0.32, continence rates, with an OR of 1.29 [0.90, 1.83], p = 0.16, erectile function, with an OR of 0.86 [0.52, 1.40], p = 0.54, or biochemical recurrence. Qualitative evidence suggests decreased opioid consumption. Conclusion SP‐RARPs are feasible alternatives to the traditional MP with possible benefits in pain management and length of stay. Future high‐quality studies are needed to confirm these findings.

No abstract

No abstract

ARM designed the study, conducted statistical analyses, wrote and edited this article. ETG gathered data, conducted data analysis, and interpreted and edited this article. LCBG participated in the study design and contributed extensively to the editing and writing of this article. BVE and JRRB gathered data. CAGG participated in study conceptualization, design, analysis, and editing. EFV and JAFS participated in study conceptualization, design, gathering of data, and editing. DEHG designed the study, conducted statistical analyses, and wrote this article.

Introduction Renal transplantation remains the definitive treatment for end-stage renal disease. Currently employed minimally invasive techniques include robotic-assisted laparoscopy and laparoscopy. This study aims to determine whether either method provides an advantage. Methods Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review was conducted. Data were analysed using Review Manager 5.3. Results A total of 12 studies were included. Operative time and operative bleeding were similar between both approaches, with a mean difference (MD) of 16min (95% confidence interval (CI) −4.06, 37.38; p = 0.11) and 10.44ml (95% CI −43.89, 64.78; p = 0.71), respectively. Robotics had longer warm ischemia time (MD 1.14min; 95% CI 0.65, 1.63; p = 0.00001) but reduced length of stay (LOS) (MD −0.23days; 95% CI −0.45, −0.01; p = 0.04) and pain (MD −1.26 VAS; 95% CI −1.77, 0.75). Similar complication and conversion rates were seen among groups. Conclusions Robotic approaches provide a viable alternative to laparoscopic surgery. Operative time, bleeding volumes, complications and conversion rates are similar between both techniques; apparent robotic advantages on LOS and Pain need to be better analysed by future studies.

Objective: Orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) remains the definitive treatment for patients afflicted with end-stage liver disease (ESLD). Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts (TIPS) have been adapted as a bridge to transplantation, allowing partial normalization of portal pressure and associated symptom improvement. Conflicting evidence exists on TIPS’ impact on operative procedures. This study aimed to analyze available evidence on patients who underwent OLT with prior TIPS compared to OLT alone with the intent to determine TIPS’ impact on surgical outcomes. Material and Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review was conducted, identifying studies comparing TIPS + OLT versus OLT alone in patients with ESLD. Data were analyzed using Review Manager 5.3. Results: Thirteen studies were included. Operative time, packed red blood cells transfusions, intensive care unit admission, length of stay, dialysis, serum creatinine levels, ascites, vascular complications, bleeding revisions, reintervention, and other complications rates were similar between both groups. Fresh frozen plasma transfusion -2.88 units (-5.42, -0.35; p= 0.03), was lower in the TIPS + OLT group. Conclusion: Our study found TIPS can be safely employed without having detrimental impacts on OLT outcomes, furthermore, these findings also suggest TIPS does not increase bleeding or complications.