A systematic review of robot-assisted anti-reflux surgery to examine reporting standards

Evidence mapping on how to perform an optimal surgical repair of large hiatal hernias

BACKGROUND

Symptomatic and large hiatal hernia (HH) is a common disorder requiring surgical management. However, there is a lack of systematic, evidence-based recommendations summarizing recent reviews on surgical treatment of symptomatic HH. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to create evidence mapping on the key technical issues of HH repair based on the highest available evidence.

METHODS

A systematic review identified studies on eight key issues of large symptomatic HH repair. The literature was screened for the highest level of evidence (LE from level 1 to 5) according to the Oxford Center for evidence-based medicine's scale. For each topic, only studies of the highest available level of evidence were considered.

RESULTS

Out of the 28.783 studies matching the keyword algorithm, 47 were considered. The following recommendations could be deduced: minimally invasive surgery is the recommended approach (LE 1a); a complete hernia sac dissection should be considered (LE 3b); extensive division of short gastric vessels cannot be recommended; however, limited dissection of the most upper vessels may be helpful for a floppy fundoplication (LE 1a); vagus nerve should be preserved (LE 3b); a dorso-ventral cruroplasty is recommended (LE 1b); routine fundoplication should be considered to prevent postoperative gastroesophageal reflux (LE 2b); posterior partial fundoplication should be favored over other forms of fundoplication (LE 1a); mesh augmentation is indicated in large HH with paraesophageal involvement (LE 1a).

CONCLUSION

The current evidence mapping is a reasonable instrument based on the best evidence available to guide surgeons in determining optimal symptomatic and large HH repair.

Systematic review: robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic multiport cholecystectomy

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy has become the standard of care for the treatment of symptomatic gallstone disease. In the context of the increasing uptake of robotic surgery, robotic cholecystectomy has seen a substantial growth over the past decades. Despite this, a formal assessment of the evidence for this practice remains elusive and a randomised controlled trial is yet to be performed. This paper reviews the evidence to date for robotic multiport cholecystectomy compared to conventional multiport cholecystectomy. This systematic review was performed conducted using the Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases; in line with the PRISMA guideline. All articles that compared robotic and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy were included. The studies were assessed with regards to operative outcomes, postoperative recovery and complications. Fourteen studies were included, describing a total of 3002 patients. There was no difference in operative blood loss, complication rates, incidence of bile duct injury or length of hospital stay between the robotic and laparoscopic groups. The operative time for robotic cholecystectomy was longer, whereas the risk of conversion to open surgery was lower. There was marked variation in definitions of measured outcomes, and most studies lacked data on training and quality assessment, leading to substantial heterogeneity of the data. Available evidence on multiport robotic cholecystectomy compared to conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy is scarce and the quality of the available studies is generally poor. Results suggest longer operating time for robotic cholecystectomy, although many studies included the learning curve period. Postoperative recovery and complications were similar in both groups.

Rebalancing commercial and public interests in prioritizing biomedical, social and environmental aspects of health through defining and managing conflicts of interest

Biomedical research is intended to benefit human beings and their health. Toward that end, scientific norms involve examining and criticizing the work of others and prioritizing questions that should be studied. Yet, in areas of health research where industry is active, it has often utilized well-honed strategies aimed at evading scientific standards and at dominating the research agenda, largely through its financial support and lack of transparency of its research practices. These tactics have now been documented to uniformly support industry products. Commercial entities are aided in this pursuit by public policy that has significantly embedded commercial interests and agendas into federal research funding and infrastructure. Therefore, to understand the resulting landscape and its effect on priority in health research agendas, traditional definitions of individual conflicts of interest (COI) and the less well developed institutional COI must be supplemented by a new construct of structural COI, largely operating as intellectual monopolies, in support of industry. These arrangements often result in financial and reputational resources that assure dominance of commercial priorities in research agendas, crowding out any other interests and ignoring justified returns to the public from investment of its tax dollars. There is no sustained attention to mechanisms by which public interests can be heard, normative issues raised, and then balanced with commercial interests which are transparently reported. Focus on research supporting approval of commercial products ignores social and environmental determinants of health. Commercial bias can invalidate regulatory research protections through obscuring valid risk-benefit ratios considered by IRBs.