No abstract

BackgroundSurgical site infections complicate elective laparoscopic cholecystectomies in 2,4-3,2% of cases. During the operation the gallbladder is commonly extracted with a retrieval bag. We conducted a meta-analysis to clarify whether its use plays a role in preventing infections.MethodsInclusion criteria: elective cholecystectomy, details about the gallbladder extraction and data about local or systemic infection rate. Exclusion criteria: cholecystitis, jaundice, concurrent antibiotic therapy, immunosuppression, cancer. A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Cochrane Library and MEDLINE databases was carried out independently by two researchers, according to the PRISMA guidelines and applying the GRADE approach. Terms used were (“gallbladder”AND(“speciment”OR“extraction”OR“extract”))OR(“gallbladder”OR“cholecystectomy”)AND(“bag”OR“retrieval|”OR|“endobag”OR“endocatch”).ResultsThe comprehensive literature revealed 279 articles. The eligible studies were 2 randomized trials and a multicentre prospective study. Wound infections were documented in 14 on 334 (4,2%) patients operated using a retrieval bag versus 16 on 271 (5,9%) patients operated without the use of a retrieval bag. The statistical analysis revealed a risk ratio (RR) of 0.82 (0.41–1.63 95% CI). Concerning sensitivity analysis the estimated pooled RR ranged from 0.72 to 0.96, both not statistically significant. Harbord test did not reveal the occurrence of small-study effect (p = 0.892) and the funnel-plot showed no noteworthy pattern.ConclusionsThe results of this review highlight the paucity of well-designed large studies and despite limitations related to the low level of evidence, our meta-analysis showed no significant benefit of retrieval bags in reducing the infection rate after elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. In absence of acute cholecystitis, accidental intraoperative gallbladder perforation or suspected carcinoma their use, to date, may not be mandatory, so that, further studies focusing on complex cases are needed.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12893-018-0442-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

Background: Post-polypectomy coagulation syndrome (PECS) is a well-known adverse event after endoscopic polypectomy for colorectal lesions. To date, there are no standardized guidelines for the antimicrobial prophylaxis. The aim of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the usefulness of antibiotics in patients undergoing endoscopic mucosal or submucosal resections. Methods: A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases was carried out according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Studies investigating the role of prophylactic antibiotic administration in reducing the PECS after endoscopic polypectomy were considered. The terms used to search were (“antimicrobial”OR”antibiotics”OR”prophylaxis”OR”prophylactic”) AND (“resection”OR”polypectomy”OR”dissection”) AND (“endoscopic”OR”mucosal”OR”submucosal”) AND (“colon”OR”colorectal”OR”colonic”OR”rectum”). Data of included studies were collected and analysed. Results: The literature search revealed 262 articles, 3 of whom were randomized trials and one was a retrospective study. Patients included were 850 (548 treated with antibiotics and 302 received no treatment). The overall incidence rate was 2.4 and 19.9% in treatment and control groups, respectively. The pooled analysis showed a reduction of 83% of postoperative events in the antibiotics group (relative risk 0.181; 95% CI 0.100–0.326, p < 0.001). Conclusions: In our meta-analysis, the antibiotic prophylaxis showed a positive effect in reducing the incidence of postoperative adverse events other than perforation and bleeding in patients treated with endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal lesions. Despite the low-level of evidence of this meta-analysis, the antibiotic prophylaxis should be taken into account. Further multicenter, large-sample, randomized controlled studies are needed to confirm our results and to evaluate whether specific subgroups of patients could actually benefit from an antibiotic prophylaxis.

Background Artificial intelligence (AI) is gaining traction in medicine and surgery. AI-based applications can offer tools to examine high-volume data to inform predictive analytics that supports complex decision-making processes. Time-sensitive trauma and emergency contexts are often challenging. The study aims to investigate trauma and emergency surgeons’ knowledge and perception of using AI-based tools in clinical decision-making processes. Methods An online survey grounded on literature regarding AI-enabled surgical decision-making aids was created by a multidisciplinary committee and endorsed by the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES). The survey was advertised to 917 WSES members through the society’s website and Twitter profile. Results 650 surgeons from 71 countries in five continents participated in the survey. Results depict the presence of technology enthusiasts and skeptics and surgeons' preference toward more classical decision-making aids like clinical guidelines, traditional training, and the support of their multidisciplinary colleagues. A lack of knowledge about several AI-related aspects emerges and is associated with mistrust. Discussion The trauma and emergency surgical community is divided into those who firmly believe in the potential of AI and those who do not understand or trust AI-enabled surgical decision-making aids. Academic societies and surgical training programs should promote a foundational, working knowledge of clinical AI.