No abstract

Adults can accidentally swallow foreign bodies (FBs) with food. In rare occasions, these can lodge in the appendix lumen causing inflammation. This is known as foreign body appendicitis. We conducted this study to review different types and management of appendiceal FBs. A comprehensive search on PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar was performed to detect appropriate case reports for this review. Case reports eligible for this review included patients above 18 years of age with all types of FB ingestion causing appendicitis. A total of 64 case reports were deemed to be eligible for inclusion in this systematic review. The patient mean age was 44.3 ± 16.7 years (range, 18-77). Twenty-four foreign bodies were identified in the adult appendix. They were mainly lead shot pellet, fishbone, dental crown or filling, toothpick, and others. Forty-two percent of the included patients presented with classic appendicitis pain, while 17% were asymptomatic. Moreover, the appendix was perforated in 11 patients. Regarding modalities used for diagnosis, computed tomography (CT) scans confirmed the presence of FBs in 59% of cases while X-ray only managed to detect 30%. Almost all of the cases (91%) were treated surgically with appendicectomy and only six were managed conservatively. Overall, lead shot pellets were the most common foreign body found. Fishbone and toothpick accounted for most of the perforated appendix cases. This study concludes that prophylactic appendicectomy is recommended for the management of foreign bodies detected in the appendix, even if the patient is asymptomatic.

Background: The aim of this article is to explore the risk of incisional hernia (IH) occurrence at the site of specimen extraction following laparoscopic colorectal resection (LCR), highlighting the comparison between transverse incision versus midline vertical abdominal incision.Methods: Analysis was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Systematic search of medical databases, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed and Cochrane Library were performed to find all types of comparative studies reporting the incidence of IH at the specimen extraction site of transverse or vertical midline incision following LCR. The analysis of the pooled data was done using the RevMan statistical software.Results: Twenty-five comparative studies (including 2 randomised controlled trials) on 10,362 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. There were 4,944 patients in the transverse incision group and 5,418 patients in the vertical midline incision group. In the random effects model analysis, the use of transverse incision for specimen extraction following LCR reduced the risk of IH development (odds ratio =0.30, 95% CI: 0.19-0.49, Z=4.88, P=0.00001). However, there was significant heterogeneity (Tau 2 =0.97; Chi 2 =109.98, df=24, P=0.00004; I 2 =78%) among included studies. The limitation of the study is due to lack of RCTs, this study includes both prospective and retrospective studies along with 2 RCTs which makes the meta-analysis potentially biased in source of evidence.Conclusions: Transverse incision used for specimen extraction following LCR seems to reduce the risk of postoperative IH incidence compared to vertical midline abdominal incisions.

Objective Perioperative nutritional interventions have been reported to improve colorectal rectal cancer surgery outcomes. The objective of this article is to assess the influences of immunonutrition intervention during perioperative period in patients undergoing colorectal cancer resections. Method Meta-analysis was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. Systematic search of medical databases like MEBASE, MEDLINE and pubmed was performed to find studies exclusively reporting the perioperative use of immunonutrition in patients undergoing colorectal cancer resections and relevant published randomized, controlled trials (RCT) were shortlisted according to the inclusion criteria. The analysis of the pooled data was done using the RevMan statistical software. Result Ten RCTs on 1218 patients with colorectal cancer fulfilled the inclusion criteria. In the random effects model analysis, the use of perioperative immunonutrition in patients undergoing colorectal cancer resections statistically reduced the risk [odds ratio 0.59, 95% CI (0.35–1.0), z= 1.96, p=0.05] of infectious complications. However, there was significant heterogeneity [Tau2 = 0.35; Chi2= 19.11, df = 9 (P < 0.02; I2 = 53%)] among included studies. The variables of postoperative mortality [odds ratio 2.1, 95% CI (0.33–12.36), z= 0.75, p=0.45] and length of hospitalization [standardized mean difference 0.16, 95% CI (-0.08–0.39), z= 1.31, p=0.19] were statistically similar in patients using immunonutrition or standard conventional perioperative nutrition. Conclusion Perioperative immunonutrition in patients undergoing colorectal resections seems to reduce infectious complications but this study failed to demonstrate its role in reducing the postoperative mortality and length of hospitalization.

No abstract