Dataset Information

Consistency of global recommendations regarding open versus laparoscopic surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been worldwide debate regarding whether open surgery should be performed in preference to laparoscopic surgery due to the theoretical higher risk of viral aerosolization by the release of pneumoperitoneum. We aimed to assess the consistency of national and international surgical society recommendations regarding the choice of surgical approach; assess the quality of evidence of viral emission in surgical aerosol; and assess the quality of evidence comparing aerosol generation by different surgical energy devices.

Methods

A systematic review of PubMed, Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases was performed. Three search strategies were employed. Twenty-eight studies were included in the final analysis and quality appraised. Confidence in review findings was assessed using the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) tool.

Results

Worldwide recommendations regarding open versus laparoscopic surgery are consistent, with a majority recommending that surgical approach is decided on a case-by-case, risk minimization approach. There is limited, low-quality evidence that viral particles can be emitted in surgical aerosol. There is a paucity of literature on the quantity of aerosol produced by different surgical energy devices, and no evidence to support the use of certain surgical instruments to minimize aerosol production.

Conclusions

There is considerable consistency among worldwide recommendations regarding the choice of surgical approach, although the evidence base is lacking. To inform clinical recommendations, further research examining viral emission, transmission, infectivity and amount of surgical aerosol produced is required.

SUBMITTER: Jacob S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8250243 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLaparoscopic surgery (LS) is hypothesized to result in milder proinflammatory reactions due to less severe operative trauma, which may contribute to the observed clinical benefits after LS. However, previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the impact of LS on immunocompetence are outdated, limited and heterogeneous. Therefore, the humoral response after laparoscopic and open colorectal cancer (CRC) resections was evaluated in a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis.MethodsIncluded were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) measuring parameters of humoral immunity after LS compared to open surgery (OS) in adult patients with CRC of any stage. MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science (SCI-EXPANDED), Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP (World Health Organization) were systematically searched. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane RoB2 tool. Weighted inverse variance meta-analysis of mean differences was performed for C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin (IL)-6, IL-8, tumour necrosis factor (TNF)α and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) using the random-effects method. Methods were prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021264324).ResultsTwenty RCTs with 1131 participants were included. Narrative synthesis and meta-analysis up to 8 days after surgery was performed. Quantitative synthesis found concentrations to be significantly lower after LS at 0-2 h after surgery (IL-8), at 3-9 h (CRP, IL-6, IL-8, TNFα) and at postoperative day 1 (CRP, IL-6, IL-8, VEGF). At 3-9 h, IL-6 was notably lower in the LS group by 86.71 pg/ml (mean difference [MD] - 86.71 pg/ml [- 125.05, - 48.37], p < 0.00001). Combined narratively, 13 studies reported significantly lower concentrations of considered parameters in LS patients, whereas only one study reported lower inflammatory markers (for CRP and IL-6) after OS.ConclusionThe increase in postoperative concentrations of several proinflammatory parameters was significantly less pronounced after LS than after OS in this meta-analysis. Overall, the summarized evidence reinforces the view of a lower induction of inflammation due to LS.

Project description:BackgroundLaparoscopic renal surgery has been widely used in the treatment of renal diseases. However, there is still little research about its application in addressing renal tuberculosis. The purpose of this study is to retrospectively investigate the surgical results of laparoscopic and open surgery for nonfunctional tuberculous kidneys.MethodsBetween May 2011 and June 2016, 120 nephrectomies were performed in patients with a nonfunctional tuberculous kidney. Of these, 69 patients underwent retroperitoneal laparoscopic nephrectomy, and 51 patients underwent open nephrectomy. Data about the patients' characteristics and surgical outcomes were collected from their electronic medical records. Outcomes were compared between these two groups.ResultsOur results showed that a number of renal tuberculosis patients presented no significant symptoms during their disease. Lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) were the most common at a rate of 73/120, followed by flank pain or accidently discovery (66/120), urine abnormality (30/120) and fever (27/120). Patients who underwent open surgery were similar to laparoscopic patients with regard to sex, BMI, location, previous tuberculous history, grade, anemia, adhesion, hypertension, diabetes and preoperative serum creatinine level, but were generally older than laparoscopic patients. There were no significant differences between open and laparoscopic surgery in estimated blood loss, transfusion, postoperative hospital days and perioperative complication rate. However, the median operation time of laparoscopic operation was much longer than open surgery (180 [150-225] vs 135 [120-165] minutes, P < 0.01). Seven of the 69 laparoscopic operations were converted to open surgery because of severe adhesions.ConclusionLaparoscopic nephrectomy is as an effective treatment as open surgery for a nonfunctional tuberculous kidney, although it requires more time during the surgical procedure. No significant differences in other surgical outcomes were observed.