BackgroundFrailty, a “syndrome of loss of reserves,” is a decade old concept. Initially it was used mainly in geriatrics but lately its use has been extended into other specialties including surgery. Our main objective was to examine the association between frailty and mortality, between frailty and length of hospital stay (LOS) and frailty and readmission within 30 days in the emergency surgical population.MethodsStudies reporting on frailty in the emergency surgical population were eligible. MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, Scopus, CENTRAL, and Web of Science were searched with terms related to acute surgery and frail*. We searched for eligible articles without any restrictions on the 2nd of November 2020. Odds ratios (OR) and weighted mean differences (WMD) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI), using a random effect model. Risk of bias assessment was performed according to the recommendations of the Cochrane Collaboration. As the finally selected studies were either prospective or retrospective cohorts, the “Quality In Prognosis Studies” (QUIPS) tool was used.ResultsAt the end of the selection process 21 eligible studies with total 562.070 participants from 8 countries were included in the qualitative and the quantitative synthesis. Patients living with frailty have higher chance of dying within 30 days after an emergency surgical admission (OR: 1.99; CI: 1.76–2.21; p < 0.001). We found a tendency of increased LOS with frailty in acute surgical patients (WMD: 4.75 days; CI: 1.79–7.71; p = 0.002). Patients living with frailty have increased chance of 30-day readmission after discharge (OR: 1.36; CI: 1.06–1.75; p = 0.015).ConclusionsAlthough there is good evidence that living with frailty increases the chance of unfavorable outcomes, further research needs to be done to assess the benefits and costs of frailty screening for emergency surgical patients.Systematic Review RegistrationThe review protocol was registered on the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42021224689).

Background Pathology of the long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) is a common disorder affecting muscle function and causing considerable pain for the patient. The literature on the two surgical treatment methods (tenotomy and tenodesis) is controversial; therefore, our aim was to compare the results of these interventions. Methods We performed a meta-analysis using the following strategy: (P) patients with LHBT pathology, (I) tenodesis, (C) tenotomy, (O) elbow flexion and forearm supination strength, pain assessed on the ten-point Visual Analog Scale (VAS), bicipital cramping pain, Constant, ASES, and SST score, Popeye deformity, and operative time. We included only randomized clinical trials. We searched five databases. During statistical analysis, odds ratios (OR) and weighted mean differences (WMD) were calculated for dichotomous and continuous outcomes, respectively, using the Bayesian method with random effect model. Results We included 11 studies in the systematic review, nine of these were eligible for the meta-analysis, containing data about 572 patients (279 in the tenodesis, 293 in the tenotomy group). Our analysis concluded that tenodesis is more beneficial considering 12-month elbow flexion strength (WMD: 3.67 kg; p = 0.006), 12-month forearm supination strength (WMD: 0.36 kg; p = 0.012), and 24-month Popeye deformity (OR: 0.19; p < 0.001), whereas tenotomy was associated with decreased 3-month pain scores on VAS (WMD: 0.99; p < 0.001). We did not find significant difference among the other outcomes. Conclusion Tenodesis yields better results in terms of biceps function and is non-inferior regarding long-term pain, while tenotomy is associated with earlier pain relief.