MyMedR

Displaying all 4 publications

Abstract:

Sort:

Meta-analysis of histopathological outcomes of laparoscopic assisted rectal resection (LARR) vs open rectal resection (ORR) for carcinoma

Memon MA, Awaiz A, Yunus RM, Memon B, Khan S

Am J Surg, 2018 11;216(5):1004-1015.
PMID: 29958656 DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2018.06.012

BACKGROUND: We conducted a meta-analysis of the randomized evidence to determine the relative merits of histopathological outcomes of laparoscopic assisted (LARR) versus open rectal resection (ORR) for rectal cancer.
DATA SOURCES: A search of PubMed and other electronic databases comparing LARR and ORR between Jan 2000 and June 2016 was performed. Histopathological variables analyzed included; location of rectal tumors; complete and incomplete TME; positive and negative circumferential resection margins (+/-CRM); positive distal resected margins (+DRM); distance of tumor from DRM; number of lymph nodes harvested; resected specimen length; tumor size and perforated rectum.
RESULTS: Fourteen RCTs totaling 3843 patients (LARR = 2096, ORR = 1747) were analyzed. Comparable effects were noted for all these histopathological variables except for the variable perforated rectum which favored ORR.
CONCLUSIONS: LARR compares favorably to ORR for rectal cancer treatment. However, there is significantly higher risk of rectal perforation during LARR compared to ORR.
Systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes of peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) and laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM) for achalasia

Awaiz A, Yunus RM, Khan S, Memon B, Memon MA

Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech, 2017 Jun;27(3):123-131.
PMID: 28472017 DOI: 10.1097/SLE.0000000000000402

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM) is the preferred surgical method for treating achalasia. However, peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is providing good short-term results. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the safety and efficacy of LHM and POEM.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: A search of PubMed, Cochrane database, Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index, and current contents for English-language articles comparing LHM and POEM between 2007 and 2016 was performed. Variables analyzed included prior endoscopic treatment, prior medical treatment, prior Heller myotomy, operative time, overall complications rate, postoperative gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), length of hospital stay, postoperative pain score, and long-term GERD.

RESULTS: Seven trials consisting of 483 (LHM=250, POEM=233) patients were analyzed. Preoperative variables, for example, prior endoscopic treatment [odds ratio (OR), 1.32; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.23-4.61; P=0.96], prior medical treatment [weighted mean difference (WMD), 1.22; 95% CI, 0.52-2.88; P=0.65], and prior Heller myotomy (WMD, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.13-1.67; P=0.25) were comparable. Operative time was 26.28 minutes, nonsignificantly longer for LHM (WMD, 26.28; 95% CI, -11.20 to 63.70; P=0.17). There was a comparable overall complication rate (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.56-2.77; P=0.59), postoperative GERD rate (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.70-2.30; P=0.44), length of hospital stay (WMD, 0.30; 95% CI, -0.24 to 0.85; P=0.28), postoperative pain score (WMD, -0.26; 95% CI, -1.58 to 1.06; P=0.70), and long-term GERD (WMD, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.27-4.1; P=0.08) for both procedures. There was a significantly higher short-term clinical treatment failure rate for LHM (OR, 9.82; 95% CI, 2.06-46.80; P<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS: POEM compares favorably to LHM for achalasia treatment in short-term perioperative outcomes. However, there was a significantly higher clinical treatment failure rate for LHM on short-term postoperative follow-up. Presently long-term postoperative follow-up data for POEM beyond 1 year are unavailable and eagerly awaited.
A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of Perioperative Outcomes of Laparoscopic-assisted Rectal Resection (LARR) Versus Open Rectal Resection (ORR) for Carcinoma

Memon MA, Yunus RM, Memon B, Awaiz A, Khan S

Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech, 2018 Dec;28(6):337-348.
PMID: 30358650 DOI: 10.1097/SLE.0000000000000589

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The aim was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the randomized evidence to determine the relative merits of perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic-assisted (LARR) versus open rectal resection (ORR) for proven rectal cancer.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A search of the Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index, Current Contents and PubMed databases identified English-language randomized clinical trials comparing LARR and ORR. The meta-analysis was prepared in accordance with the PRISMA statement. Thirteen outcome variables were analyzed. Random effects meta-analyses were performed due to heterogeneity.
RESULTS: A total of 14 randomized clinical trials that included 3843 rectal resections (LARR 2096, ORR 1747) were analyzed. The summary point estimates favored LARR for the intraoperative blood loss, commencement of oral intake, first bowel movement, and length of hospital stay. There was significantly longer duration of operating time of 38.29 minutes for the LARR group. Other outcome variables such as total complications, postoperative pain, postoperative ileus, abdominal abscesses, postoperative anastomotic leak, reintervention and postoperative mortality rates were found to have comparable outcomes for both cohorts.
CONCLUSIONS: LARR was associated with significantly reduced blood loss, quicker resumption of oral intake, earlier return of gastrointestinal function, and shorter length of hospital stay at the expense of significantly longer operating time. Postoperative morbidity and mortality and analgesia requirement for both these groups were comparable. LARR seems to be a safe and effective alternative to ORR; however, it needs to be performed in established colorectal units with experienced laparoscopic surgeons.
Reply to comment to Meta-analysis and systematic review of laparoscopic versus open mesh repair for elective incisional hernia. Jensen K, Jorgensen LN

Awaiz A, Rahman F, Hossain MB, Yunus RM, Khan S, Memon B, et al.

Hernia, 2015 Dec;19(6):1027-9.
PMID: 26496998 DOI: 10.1007/s10029-015-1432-z