BACKGROUND: Minimal access surgery is not available to most people in rural areas of low-to middle-income countries. This leads to an increase in morbidity and economic loss to the poor and marginalized. Gasless laparoscopic (GAL) procedures are possible in rural areas because they can be performed under spinal anesthesia. In most cases, it does not require the logistics of providing gases for pneumoperitoneum and general anesthesia. The current study compares GAL with conventional laparoscopic (COL) operations for general surgical procedures. METHODS: A single-center, nonblinded randomized controlled trial was conducted to evaluate noninferiority of GAL vs COL at a teaching hospital in New Delhi, India. Patients were allocated into 3 groups and underwent minimal access surgery (cholecystectomies and appendectomies). The procedures were performed by 2 surgeons choosing randomly between GAL and COL. The data were collected by postgraduates and analyzed by a biostatistician. RESULTS: One hundred patients who met the inclusion criteria were allocated into 2 groups. No significant difference was observed in the mean operating time between the GAL group (52.9 minutes) and the COL group (55 minutes) (p ¼ 0.3). Intraoperative vital signs were better in the GAL group (p < 0.05). The postoperative pain score was slightly higher in the GAL group (p ¼ 0.01); however, it did not require additional analgesics. CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences were found between the 2 groups. GAL can be considered as noninferior compared with COL and has the potential to be adopted in low-resource settings.

Background Effective dissemination of technology in global surgery is vital to realize universal health coverage by 2030. Challenges include a lack of human resource, infrastructure and finance. Understanding these challenges, and exploring opportunities and solutions to overcome them, are essential to improve global surgical care. Methods This review focuses on technologies and medical devices aimed at improving surgical care and training in low‐ and middle‐income countries. The key considerations in the development of new technologies are described, along with strategies for evaluation and wider dissemination. Notable examples of where the dissemination of a new surgical technology has achieved impact are included. Results Employing the principles of frugal and responsible innovation, and aligning evaluation and development to high scientific standards help overcome some of the challenges in disseminating technology in global surgery. Exemplars of effective dissemination include low‐cost laparoscopes, gasless laparoscopic techniques and innovative training programmes for laparoscopic surgery; low‐cost and versatile external fixation devices for fractures; the LifeBox pulse oximeter project; and the use of immersive technologies in simulation, training and surgical care delivery. Conclusion Core strategies to facilitate technology dissemination in global surgery include leveraging international funding, interdisciplinary collaboration involving all key stakeholders, and frugal scientific design, development and evaluation.

Evidence before this study: Acute appendicitis is the most common general surgical emergency in children. Its diagnosis remains challenging and children presenting with acute right iliac fossa (RIF) pain may be admitted for clinical observation or undergo normal appendicectomy (removal of a histologically normal appendix). A search for external validation studies of risk prediction models for acute appendicitis in children was performed on MEDLINE and Web of Science on 12 January 2017 using the search terms ["appendicitis" OR "appendectomy" OR "appendicectomy"] AND ["score" OR "model" OR "nomogram" OR "scoring"]. Studies validating prediction models aimed at differentiating acute appendicitis from all other causes of RIF pain were included. No date restrictions were applied. Validation studies were most commonly performed for the Alvarado, Appendicitis Inflammatory Response Score (AIRS), and Paediatric Appendicitis Score (PAS) models. Most validation studies were based on retrospective, single centre, or small cohorts, and findings regarding model performance were inconsistent. There was no high quality evidence to guide selection of the optimum model and threshold cutoff for identification of low-risk children in the UK and Ireland. Added value of this study: Most children admitted to hospital with RIF pain do not undergo surgery. When children do undergo appendicectomy, removal of a normal appendix (normal appendicectomy) is common, occurring in around 1 in 6 children. The Shera score is able to identify a large low-risk group of children who present with acute RIF pain but do not have acute appendicitis (specificity 44%). This low-risk group has an overall 1 in 30 risk of acute appendicitis and a 1 in 270 risk of perforated appendicitis. The Shera score is unable to achieve a sufficiently high positive predictive value to select a high-risk group who should proceed directly to surgery. Current diagnostic performance of ultrasound is also too poor to select children for surgery. Implications of all the available evidence: Routine pre-operative risk scoring could inform shared decision making by doctors, children, and parents by supporting safe selection of lowrisk patients for ambulatory management, reducing unnecessary admissions and normal appendicectomy. Hospitals should ensure seven-day-a-week availability of ultrasound for medium and high-risk patients. Ultrasound should be performed by operators trained to assess for acute appendicitis in children. For children in whom diagnostic uncertainty remains following ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or low-dose computed tomography (CT) are second-line investigations.

Background In high-income countries, laparoscopic surgery is the preferred approach for many abdominal conditions. Conventional laparoscopy is a complex intervention that is challenging to adopt and implement in low resource settings. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluate the clinical effectiveness of gasless laparoscopy compared to conventional laparoscopy with CO2 pneumoperitoneum and open surgery for general surgery and gynaecological procedures. Methods A search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Global Health, AJOL databases and Cochrane Library was performed from inception to January 2021. All randomised (RCTs) and comparative cohort (non-RCTs) studies comparing gasless laparoscopy with open surgery or conventional laparoscopy were included. The primary outcomes were mortality, conversion rates and intraoperative complications. Secondary outcomes: operative times and length of stay. The inverse variance random-effects model was used to synthesise data. Results 63 studies were included: 41 RCTs and 22 non-RCTs (3,620 patients). No procedure-related deaths were reported in the studies. For gasless vs conventional laparoscopy there was no difference in intraoperative complications for general RR 1.04 [CI 0.45–2.40] or gynaecological surgery RR 0.66 [0.14–3.13]. In the gasless laparoscopy group, the conversion rates for gynaecological surgery were high RR 11.72 [CI 2.26–60.87] when compared to conventional laparoscopy. For gasless vs open surgery, the operative times were longer for gasless surgery in general surgery RCT group MD (mean difference) 10 [CI 0.64, 19.36], but significantly shorter in the gynaecology RCT group MD − 18.74 [CI − 29.23, − 8.26]. For gasless laparoscopy vs open surgery non-RCT, the length of stay was shorter for gasless laparoscopy in general surgery MD − 3.94 [CI − 5.93, − 1.95] and gynaecology MD − 1.75 [CI − 2.64, − 0.86]. Overall GRADE assessment for RCTs and Non-RCTs was very low. Conclusion Gasless laparoscopy has advantages for selective general and gynaecological procedures and may have a vital role to play in low resource settings.