MATERIALS AND METHODS: Randomized controlled comparing MIE versus OE were searched from PubMed and other electronic databases between January 1991 and March 2019. Thirteen outcome variables were analyzed. Random effects model was used to calculate the effect size. The meta-analysis was prepared in accordance with PRISMA guidelines.
RESULTS: Four randomized controlled trials totaling 569 patients were analyzed. For MIE, there was a significantly reduction of 67% in the odds of pulmonary complications. For operating time, MIE was nonsignificantly 29 minutes longer. MIE was associated with nonsignificantly less blood loss of 443.98 mL. There was nonsignificant 60% reduction in the odds of total complications and 51% reduction in the odds of medical complications favoring MIE group. For delayed gastric emptying, there was a nonsignificant reduction of 75% in the odds ratio favoring the MIE group. For postoperative anastomotic leak, there was a nonsignificant increase of 48% in the odds ratio for MIE group. For gastric necrosis, chylothorax, reintervention and 30-day mortality, no difference was observed for both groups. There was a nonsignificant reduction in the length of hospital stay of 7.98 days and intensive care unit stay of 2.7 days favoring MIE.
CONCLUSIONS: MIE seems to be superior to OE for only pulmonary complications. All the other perioperative variables were comparable however, the trend is favoring the MIE. Therefore, the routine use of MIE presently may only be justifiable in high volume esophagogastric units.
METHODS: This study used available under-five nutritional secondary data from the Demographic and Health Surveys performed in sub-Saharan African countries. The research used bagging, boosting, and voting algorithms, such as random forest, decision tree, eXtreme Gradient Boosting, and k-nearest neighbors machine learning methods, to generate the MVBHE model.
RESULTS: We evaluated the model performances in contrast to each other using different measures, including accuracy, precision, recall, and the F1 score. The results of the experiment showed that the MVBHE model (96%) was better at predicting malnutrition than the random forest (81%), decision tree (60%), eXtreme Gradient Boosting (79%), and k-nearest neighbors (74%).
CONCLUSIONS: The random forest algorithm demonstrated the highest prediction accuracy (81%) compared with the decision tree, eXtreme Gradient Boosting, and k-nearest neighbors algorithms. The accuracy was then enhanced to 96% using the MVBHE model. The MVBHE model is recommended by the present study as the best way to predict malnutrition in under-five children.
METHODS: A meta-analysis and systematic review of MEDLINE, PubMed Central (via PubMed), Embase (via Ovid), SCOPUS, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, SCI and Cochrane Library databases were undertaken. Seven randomized controlled trials assessing the outcomes of PSR and POMR were analyzed in accordance with the PRISMA statement. The risk of bias was assessed using the Rob2 tool.
RESULTS: According to the pooled analysis, POMR significantly reduced the incidence of IH compared to the PSR (OR 5.82 [95% CI 2.69, 12.58] P
DATA SOURCES: A search of PubMed and other electronic databases comparing LARR and ORR between Jan 2000 and June 2016 was performed. Histopathological variables analyzed included; location of rectal tumors; complete and incomplete TME; positive and negative circumferential resection margins (+/-CRM); positive distal resected margins (+DRM); distance of tumor from DRM; number of lymph nodes harvested; resected specimen length; tumor size and perforated rectum.
RESULTS: Fourteen RCTs totaling 3843 patients (LARR = 2096, ORR = 1747) were analyzed. Comparable effects were noted for all these histopathological variables except for the variable perforated rectum which favored ORR.
CONCLUSIONS: LARR compares favorably to ORR for rectal cancer treatment. However, there is significantly higher risk of rectal perforation during LARR compared to ORR.
METHODS: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was undertaken using the PRISMA guidelines to investigate the postoperative impact on diabetes resolution following LVSG versus LRYGB.
RESULTS: Seven RCTs involving a total of 732 patients (LVSG n = 365, LRYGB n = 367) met inclusion criteria. Significant diabetes resolution or improvement was reported with both procedures across all time points. Similarly, measures of glycemic control (HbA1C and fasting blood glucose levels) improved with both procedures, with earlier improvements noted in LRYGB that stabilized and did not differ from LVSG at 12 months postoperatively. Early improvements in measures of insulin resistance in both procedures were also noted in the studies that investigated this.
CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review of RCTs suggests that both LVSG and LRYGB are effective in resolving or improving preoperative type 2 diabetes in obese patients during the reported 3- to 5-year follow-up periods. However, further studies are required before longer-term outcomes can be elucidated. Areas identified that need to be addressed for future studies on this topic include longer follow-up periods, standardized definitions and time point for reporting, and financial analysis of outcomes obtained between surgical procedures to better inform procedure selection.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: RCTs comparing postoperative comorbid disease resolution such as hypertension, dyslipidemia, obstructive sleep apnea, joint and musculoskeletal conditions, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and menstrual irregularities following LVSG and LRYGB were included for analysis. The studies were selected from PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, Current Contents, and the Cochrane database and reported on at least one comorbidity resolution or improvement. The present work was undertaken according to the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The Jadad method for assessment of methodological quality was applied to the included studies.
RESULTS: Six RCTs performed between 2005 and 2015 involving a total of 695 patients (LVSG n = 347, LRYGB n = 348) reported on the resolution or improvement of comorbid disease following LVSG and LRYGB procedures. Both bariatric procedures provide effective and almost comparable results in improving or resolving these comorbidities.
CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review of RCTs suggests that both LVSG and LRYGB are effective in resolving or improving preoperative nondiabetic comorbid diseases in obese patients. While results are not conclusive at this time, LRYGB may provide superior results compared to LVSG in mediating the remission and/or improvement in some conditions such as dyslipidemia and arthritis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A search of the Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index, Current Contents and PubMed databases identified English-language randomized clinical trials comparing LARR and ORR. The meta-analysis was prepared in accordance with the PRISMA statement. Thirteen outcome variables were analyzed. Random effects meta-analyses were performed due to heterogeneity.
RESULTS: A total of 14 randomized clinical trials that included 3843 rectal resections (LARR 2096, ORR 1747) were analyzed. The summary point estimates favored LARR for the intraoperative blood loss, commencement of oral intake, first bowel movement, and length of hospital stay. There was significantly longer duration of operating time of 38.29 minutes for the LARR group. Other outcome variables such as total complications, postoperative pain, postoperative ileus, abdominal abscesses, postoperative anastomotic leak, reintervention and postoperative mortality rates were found to have comparable outcomes for both cohorts.
CONCLUSIONS: LARR was associated with significantly reduced blood loss, quicker resumption of oral intake, earlier return of gastrointestinal function, and shorter length of hospital stay at the expense of significantly longer operating time. Postoperative morbidity and mortality and analgesia requirement for both these groups were comparable. LARR seems to be a safe and effective alternative to ORR; however, it needs to be performed in established colorectal units with experienced laparoscopic surgeons.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Searches of electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane) were undertaken for randomized controlled trials describing weight loss outcomes in adults at 5 years postoperatively. Where sufficient data was available to undertake meta-analysis, the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman estimation method for random effects model was utilized. The review was registered with PROSPERO and reported following in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.
RESULTS: Five studies met the inclusion criteria totaling 1028 patients (LVSG=520, LRYGB=508). Moderate but comparable levels of bias were observed within studies. Statistically significant body mass index loss ranged from -11.37 kg/m (range: -6.3 to -15.7 kg/m) in the LVSG group and -12.6 kg/m (range: -9.5 to -15.4 kg/m) for LRYGB at 5 years (P<0.001). Systematic review suggested that LRYGB produced a greater weight loss expressed as percent excess weight and percent excess body mass index loss than LVSG: this was not corroborated in the meta-analysis.
CONCLUSIONS: Five year weight loss outcomes suggest both LRYGB and LVSG are effective in achieving significant weight loss at 5 years postoperatively, however, differences in reporting parameters limit the ability to reliably compare the outcomes using statistical methods. Furthermore, results may be impacted by large dropout rates and per protocol analysis of the 2 largest included studies. Further long-term studies are required to contradict or validate the results of this meta-analysis.