Background: We aimed to compare mediastinoscopy-assisted transhiatal esophagectomy (MATHE) with thoraco-laparoscopic esophagectomy (TLE) for patients with esophageal cancer in terms of the clinical effectiveness and perioperative complications. Methods: In total, 98 patients who underwent esophagectomy consecutively for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in our center from Jan. 2018 to Dec. 2019 were included in this study. Thirty patients underwent mediastinoscopy-assisted and laparoscopic transhiatal esophagectomy with cervical anastomosis (the MATHE group). The other sixty-eight patients received TLE (the TLE group). Each patient's general conditions and perioperative complications were recorded. Results: Patients in the MATHE group were observed to have a higher incidence of postoperative hoarseness than those in the TLE group. There were no significant differences between the MATHE group and the TLE group in regards to the operation time, intraoperative blood loss, number of lymph nodes dissected or postoperative hospital stay. Similarly, no statistically significant differences were observed in the incidence of anastomotic fistula, respiratory complications, or chylothorax or in the conversion rate or inhospital mortality rate between the two groups. Conclusions: The short-term efficacy in the MATHE group was similar to that in the TLE group, although patients in the MATHE group may have had a higher incidence of postoperative hoarseness. Therefore, MATHE may be a feasible and safe surgical procedure for appropriate patients with esophageal cancer.

BackgroundThis meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy of artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) and slings for the treatment of moderate male stress urinary incontinence (SUI) based on existing data.MethodsThe study was in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis. We searched the widely acknowledged database including PubMed, Embase (Ovid version), Medline (Ovid version), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (till February 2021). Male patients with moderate SUI who underwent AUS or slings procedure over 18 years old and had been monitored with a mean follow-up time of at least 12 months were included. The primary outcome was success rate defined as daily pad use with 0–1 pad/d postoperatively. Articles with congruent outcomes were suitable for inclusion. The secondary outcome included complication rate of infection, erosion, acute urinary retention, and surgical revision.ResultsFive studies with a total of 509 patients (295 for slings and 214 for AUS) were recruited. The success rate was higher in AUS with an odds ratio (OR) = 0.57 (95% CI: 0.36–0.90). As for the overall complication rate, no significant difference was discovered between slings and AUS groups (OR = 1.06, 95% CI: 0.58–1.92, P = 0.86).ConclusionTo conclude, AUS was better than slings for moderate male SUI treatment according to daily pad use with an acceptable complication rate. The slings also had clinical value and were options when aging male patients were AUS naive and refused inserted mechanical devices. High-quality pieces of evidence are needed to confirm the efficacy of AUS and slings in moderate male SUI.Systematic Review Registration:https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=271203, identifier: CRD42021271203.

(1) Background: Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare but aggressive tumor arising from the pleural surface. For relapsed MPM, there is no accepted standard of- are for subsequent treatment. Thus, we aimed to compare the efficacy of chemotherapy, targeting drugs, and immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) as subsequent therapy for relapsed MPM. (2) Methods: The study was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). We searched several acknowledged databases. Primary outcomes were defined as overall median progressive survival (mPFS) and median overall survival (mOS) in different treatment groups. Secondary outcomes were defined as objective response rate (ORR), the proportion of stable disease (SD), and progressive disease (PD). (3) Results: Ultimately, 43 articles were selected for the meta-analysis. According to the results of a pooled analysis of single-arm studies, ICIs showed a slight advantage in mOS, while chemotherapy showed a slight advantage in mPFS (mOS: 11.2 m vs. 10.39 m and mPFS: 4.42 m vs. 5.08 m for ICIs group and chemotherapy group, respectively). We identified only a few studies that directly compared the efficacy of ICIs with that of chemotherapy, and ICIs did not show significant benefits over chemotherapy based on mOS. (4) Conclusions: Based on current evidence, we considered that immunotherapy might not be superior to chemotherapy as a subsequent therapy for relapsed MPM. Although several studies investigated the efficacy of ICIs, targeting drugs, and chemotherapy in relapsed MPM, there was still no standard of care. Further randomized control trials with consistent criteria and outcomes are recommended to guide subsequent therapy in relapsed MPM and identify patients with certain characteristics that might benefit from such subsequent therapy.