This analysis aims to evaluate the comparative outcomes of gallbladder extraction with a bag versus direct extraction in laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). A systematic online search was conducted using the following databases: PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane database, The Virtual Health Library, Clinical trials.gov, and Science Direct. Comparative studies comparing bag versus direct extraction of the gallbladder in LC were included. Outcomes were surgical site infection (SSI), the extension of fascial defect to extract the gallbladder, intra-abdominal collection, bile spillage, and port-site hernia. Revman 5.4 (Cochrane, London, United Kingdom) was used for the data analysis. The results show eight studies were eligible to be included in this review with a total number of 1805 patients divided between endo-bag (n=835) and direct extraction (n=970). Four of the included studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) while the rest were observational studies. The rate of SSI and bile spillage were significantly higher in the direct extraction group: odds ratio (OR)=2.50, p=0.006 and OR=2.83, p=0.01, respectively. Comparable results were observed regarding intra-abdominal collection between the two groups(OR=0.01, p=0.51). However, the extension of a fascial defect was higher in the endo-bag group (OR=0.22, p=0.00001), and no difference was observed regarding the port-site hernia rate (OR-0.70, p=0.55). In conclusion, extraction of the gallbladder with an endo-bag provides a lower rate of SSI and bile spillage with similar results regarding post-operative intraabdominal collection. Although with the endo-bag, the fascial defect will more likely need to be increased to extract the gallbladder. However, the port-site hernia rate remains similar between the two groups.

Objective Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer and the second largest cause of cancer-related death worldwide. Current CRC screening in various countries involves stool-based faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) and/or colonoscopy, yet public uptake remains sub-optimal. This review assessed the literature regarding acceptability of alternative CRC screening modalities compared to standard care in average-risk adults. Method Systematic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane and Web of Science were conducted up to February 3rd, 2022. The alternative interventions examined were computed tomography colonography, flexible sigmoidoscopy, colon capsule endoscopy and blood-based biomarkers. Outcomes for acceptability were uptake, discomfort associated with bowel preparation, discomfort associated with screening procedure, screening preferences and willingness to repeat screening method. A narrative data synthesis was conducted. Results Twenty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. Differences between intervention and comparison modalities in uptake did not reach statistical significance in most of the included studies. The findings do suggest FIT as being more acceptable as a screening modality than flexible sigmoidoscopy. There were no consistent significant differences in bowel preparation discomfort, screening procedure discomfort, screening preference and willingness to repeat screening between the standard care and alternative modalities. Conclusion Current evidence comparing standard colonoscopy and stool-based CRC screening with novel modalities does not demonstrate any clear difference in acceptability. Due to the small number of studies available and included in each screening comparison and lack of observed differences, further research is needed to explore factors influencing acceptability of alternative CRC modalities that might result in improvement in population uptake within different contexts.