Background: The role of perioperative or neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced colon cancer is unclear. Emerging evidence such as the FOXTROT trial is challenging the conventional norm of upfront operation for these patients. However, these trials have yet to reach statistical significance. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, China Knowledge Resource Integrated Database (CNKI) and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies of patients with locally advanced colon cancer were included. The intervention arm was neoadjuvant chemotherapies while the comparator arm was adjuvant chemotherapies. Studies which reported outcomes of interests included overall survival, disease-free survival, R0 resection rate, perioperative complications and adverse effects of chemotherapy were chosen. Results: We identified five eligible randomized trials and two observational studies, including 29,504 patients. Neoadjuvant therapies exhibited statistically significant improvement in overall survival [hazard ratio (HR) =0.76, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.65-0.89, P=0.0005], and disease-free survival (HR =0.74, 95% CI: 0.58-0.95, P=0.02). R0 resection rate fell slightly short of significance [odds ratio (OR) =1.86, 95% CI: 0.95-3.62, P=0.07]. Risk of peri-operative complications did not differ between groups when examining abdominal infection [risk ratio (RR) =1.14, 95% CI: 0.59-2.18, P=0.70] and anastomotic leakage (RR =0.83, 95% CI: 0.53-1.31, P=0.42). No statistical differences in complications from chemotherapy were reported.Conclusions: This meta-analysis highlights the potential survival benefit of neoadjuvant chemotherapy compared to adjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced colon cancer, without an increase in surgical morbidity. Neoadjuvant or perioperative approaches may be considered an alternative to upfront surgery followed by chemotherapy for locally advanced colon cancer.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

BACKGROUND Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has shown to be effective in management of colorectal neoplasm in the Asian countries, while its implementation in Western countries where endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is preferred is still debatable. AIM To compare the surgical, histological, and oncological outcomes between ESD and EMR in the treatment of colorectal polyps, with subgroup analysis comparing the efficacy of ESD and EMR between Japan and the rest of the world. METHODS Embase and Medline databases were searched from inception to October 2020 in accordance with PRISMA guidelines for studies comparing en bloc , complete resection, margin involvement, resection time, need for additional surgery, complications, and recurrence rate of ESD with EMR. RESULTS Of 281344 colorectal polyps from 21 studies were included. When compared to EMR, the pooled analysis revealed ESD was associated with higher en bloc and complete resection rate, and lower lateral margin involvement and recurrence. ESD led to increased procedural time, need for additional surgery, and perforation risk. No significant difference in bleeding risk was found between the two groups. Meta-regression analysis suggested only right colonic polyps correlated with an increased perforation risk in ESD. Confounders including polyp size and invasion depth did not significantly influence the en bloc and complete resection rate, bleeding risk and recurrence. In subgroup analysis, Japan performed better than the rest of the world in both ESD and EMR with perforation risk of 4% and 0.0002%, respectively, as compared to perforation risk of 8% and 1%, respectively, in reports coming from rest of the world. CONCLUSION ESD resulted in better resection outcomes and lower recurrence compared to EMR. With appropriate training, ESD is preferred over EMR as the first-line therapy for resection of colorectal polyps, without restricting to lesions greater than 20 mm and those with high suspicion of submucosal invasion.

No abstract

Objective As there has been so far no consensus on the best endoscopic resection technique, a meta‐analysis was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for treating rectal carcinoid tumors. Methods MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched for articles on the treatment of rectal carcinoid tumors using ESD vs EMR published up to October 2020 for outcomes including en bloc and complete resection, margin involvement, procedure time, requirement for additional surgery, bleeding, perforation and recurrence. Risk ratio and weighted mean differences were used for a DerSimonian and Laird random effects pairwise meta‐analysis. Single‐arm meta‐analyses of proportions and random effects meta‐regression analysis were also conducted. Results Twenty‐two studies involving 1360 rectal carcinoid tumors were included, in which 655 and 705 rectal carcinoid tumors were resected with ESD and EMR, respectively. The resection efficacy of ESD was comparable to that of EMR for tumors <10 mm. However, there were a significantly higher complete resection rate, and lower rates of vertical margin involvement and requirement for additional surgery using ESD than using EMR for tumors ≤20 mm. ESD had a longer procedure time and an increased likelihood of bleeding than EMR. Conclusions ESD is more effective in providing a curative treatment for rectal carcinoid tumors ≤20 mm in size as ESD can achieve a higher complete resection rate with lower vertical margin involvement than EMR. While they are suitable for treating rectal carcinoid tumors <10 mm as both techniques provide similar efficacy.

Purpose Fractures of the femoral shaft in children are common. The rates of bone growth and remodeling in children vary according to their ages, which affect their respective management. Methods This paper evaluates the incidence and patterns of pediatric femoral shaft fracture and the current concepts of treatments available. ResultsThe type of fracture-closed or open; stable or unstable-needs to be taken into account. Child abuse should be suspected in fractures sustained by infants. For younger children, non-surgical management is preferred, which include Pavlik harness (< 6 months old) and early spica casting (6 months to 6 years old). Older children (> 6 years old) usually benefit from surgical treatments as outcomes of non-surgical alternatives are worse and are associated with prolonged recovery times. These operative measures for older children that are 6-12 years old include elastic stable intramedullary nailing and submuscular plating. Factors to be considered when devising an appropriate intervention include body mass, location of injury, and nature of fracture. For adolescent and skeletally mature teenagers (> 12 years old), rigid antegrade entry intramedullary fixation is indicated. In the event of open fractures or polytrauma, external fixation should be considered as a temporary treatment method for initial fracture stabilization. Conclusion An age-based and evidence-based algorithm has been proposed to guide surgeons in the process of evaluating an appropriate treatment.