BackgroundThis study evaluated the perioperative complications and the long-term pancreatic survival outcomes in patients treated with radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS) and distal pancreatectomy (DP).MethodWe performed a computer search on the PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases to retrieve the RCT or clinical trials comparing RAMPS and DP published before July of 2018. The quality of the included trials was assessed according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria by two researchers independently. The RevMan 5.3 software was used to extract and analyze the data.ResultA total of 5 retroprospective clinical trial articles comprising 285 patients were included in the study. The number of patients who underwent RAMPS were 135 and 150 for DP. There were significant differences (P < 0.05) in the operation time [WMD = − 63.93, 95% CI (− 68.86 ~ − 58.99), P<0.00001], and bleeding volume [WMD = − 184.62, 95% CI (− 211.88 ~ − 157.37), P<0.00001] between the two groups. However, no significant differences were observed between RAMPS and DP in terms of pancreatic fistula, postoperative complications, postoperative hospital stay, and mortality (P>0. 05). As for pathological examination, there were statistically significant differences between RAMPS and DP in the R0 resection rate [RR = 2.37, 95% CI (1.19 ~ 4.72), P = 0.01] and the number of lymph node excision [WMD = 7.08, 95% CI (4.59 ~ 9.58), P<0.000013]. The one-year overall survival rate was higher in RAMPS patients compared to DP patients [RR = 1.20, 95% CI (1.02 ~ 1.41), P = 0.02]. But there were no significant difference in postoperative recurrence [RR = 0.85, 95% CI (0.70 ~ 1.04), P = 0.13] between the two groups. Conclusion: RAMPS is an effective procedure for clinical application. Nevertheless, large, multicenter prospective randomized controlled trias are required to validate these findings.ConclusionThe RAMPS procedure was associated with good postoperative outcomes and overall survival, indicating that it is an effective procedure for clinical application. Large, multicenter prospective randomized controlled trials are needed to validate these findings.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12893-019-0476-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background: This meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of robot-assisted hepatectomy (RAH) versus open hepatectomy (OH) for liver tumors (LT). Methods: A computer-based literature search was conducted to identify all randomized or nonrandomized controlled trials of RAH and OH in the treatment of LT from January 2000 to July 2022. Study-specific effect sizes and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were combined to calculate the pooled values, using a fixed-effects or random-effects model. Results: Eight studies were included, with a combined total of 1079 patients. Compared with the OH group, the RAH group was found to involve less blood loss (standardized mean difference [SMD] = −152.52 mL; 95% confidence interval [CI] = −266.85 to 38.18; p = 0.009), shorter hospital stay (SMD = −2.79; 95% CI = −4.19 to −1.40; p < 0.001), a lower rate of postoperative complications (odds ratio [OR] =0.67; 95% CI = 0.47-0.95; p = 0.02), and a lower recurrence rate (OR = 0.42; 95% CI = 0.23-0.77; p = 0.005). However, operative time was longer in the RAH group than in the OH group (SMD = 70.55; 95% CI = 37.58-103.53; p < 0.001). Conclusion: This systematic review shows that RAH is safe and feasible in the treatment of LT.

Introduction: The evidence for the incidence and severity of liver injury in Chinese patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is still controversial. The purpose of this study was to summarize the incidence of liver injury and the differences between liver injury markers among different patients with COVID-19 in China. Methods: Computer searches of PubMed, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and medRxiv were used to obtain reports on the incidence and markers of liver injury in Chinese patients with COVID-19, from January 1, 2020 to April 10, 2020. (No. CRD42020181350) Results: A total of 57 reports from China were included, including 9889 confirmed cases of COVID-19 infection. The results of the meta-analysis showed that among the patients with early COVID-19 infection in China, the incidence of liver injury events was 24.7% (95% CI, 23.4%–26.4%). Liver injury in severe patients was more common than that in non-severe patients, with a risk ratio of 2.07 (95% CI, 1.77–2.43). Quantitative analysis showed that the severe the coronavirus infection, the higher the level of alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspertate aminotransferase (AST), total bilirubin (TB), alkaline phosphatase (ALP), γ-glutamyl transpeptidase (GGT), and the lower the level of albumin (ALB). Conclusion: There is a certain risk of liver injury in Chinese patients with COVID-19, and the risk and degree of liver injury are related to the severity of COVID-19.

made critical revisions to the manuscript. Conflict of Interest StatementNo conflicting relationship exists for any of the authors. AcknowledgmentsThanks for prof. Zehua Lei revising the manuscrip Abbreviations:Abstract Background: The evidence for the incidence and severity of liver injury in Chinese patients with COVID-19 is still

Background: To investigate the early prediction value of procalcitonin (PCT) in pancreatic fistula (POPF) after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD).Method: Retrospective analysis of clinical data of 67 patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) and 19 patients undergoing distalpancreatectomy (DP) were performed in the Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Leshan People's Hospital from January 2017 to December 2018. All patients were divided into POPF group and non-POPF group depending on the presence of pancreatic fistula. And fistulas were classified according to the ISGPF classification scheme. Plasma PCT levels, serum CRP concentration, and WBC counts were assessed preoperatively and on postoperative days (PODs) 1, 3, and 5. Statistical analyses were performed with statistical software. The ROC curve was used to analyze the efficacy of PCT and CRP in POPF prediction after surgery and determine their Cut-off value. Result: There were no statistically significant differences identified in age, gender, BMI, diabetes, abdominal surgery history, preoperative laboratory data, operation time, intraoperative bleeding volume, tumor nature and medical expenses of PD patients between the two groups (P > 0.05). While the incidence of postoperative hyperglycemia, postoperative ICU rate and postoperative hospital stay were statistically significant (P < 0.05). The AUC for PCT diagnosis of pancreatic fistula 1 day after surgery was 0.77 (95% CI: 0.675~0.860). Compared with CRP [0.53 (95% CI: 0.420~0.639)] and WBC [0.60 (95% CI: 0.490~0.705)], the optimal cut-off value (cut-off) was 0.67 μg/L. At this time, the sensitivity and specificity of detecting pancreatic fistula were 73.68 and 76.12%, respectively. The results at 3 days after surgery were similar to those at 5 days after surgery. And DP patients had similar results as PD patients. Conclusion:The PCT is valuable for early prediction of pancreatic fistula after Pancreaticoduodenectomy.