Probiotics/Synbiotics to Reduce Infectious Complications after Colorectal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

Aim: The aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to assess to what extent probiotics/synbiotics reduce infectious complications after colorectal surgery and whether probiotics or synbiotics should be considered as perioperative measures preventing or reducing infectious complications after CRS and should be included in enhanced recovery programmes (ERP). Secondary aims were to answer practical questions precisely on the best formulation and the type and timing of probiotics or synbiotics in CRS. Method: This systematic review and quantitative meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Inclusion criteria were randomised trials comparing perioperative probiotics/synbiotics with a placebo or standard care in elective colorectal surgery. Exclusion criteria were non-randomised trials. Overall infectious complications and surgical site infections (SSIs including both deep abdominal infections and wound (skin or under the skin) infections) were the primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes were pulmonary and urinary infections, wound infections, and anastomotic leaks. The databases consulted were Medline, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Scopus, and Clinical Trials Register. Risk of bias was assessed according to the GRADE approach. The analysis calculated the random effects estimates risk ratio (RR) for each outcome. Results: 21 trials were included; 15 evaluated probiotics, and 6 evaluated synbiotics. There were significantly fewer infectious complications (risk ratio (RR) 0.59 [0.47–0.75], I² = 15%) and fewer SSI (RR 0.70 [0.52–0.95], I² = 0%) in the probiotic or synbiotic group. There were also significantly fewer pulmonary infections (RR 0.35 [0.20–0.63]) and urinary infections RR 0.41 [0.19–0.87]) as opposed to anastomotic leaks (RR 0.83 [0.47–1.48]) and wound infections (RR 0.74 [0.53–1.03]). Sensitivity analyses showed no significant difference between probiotics and synbiotics in reducing postoperative infections (RR 0.55 [0.42–0.73] versus RR 0.69 [0.42–1.13], p = 0.46). Conclusions: Based on the finding of this study, probiotics/synbiotics reduce infectious complications after colorectal surgery. The effect size was more pronounced for pulmonary and urinary infections. From a practical aspect, some of the questions related to formulations and duration of probiotics or synbiotics need to be answered before including them definitively in enhanced recovery after colorectal surgery programmes.

Meta-analysis and Systematic Review of the Use of a Prosthetic Mesh for Prevention of Parastomal Hernia

OBJECTIVE

The primary endpoint of this meta-analysis was the PSH rate at 1 year of follow-up with or without the use of a mesh.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

European guidelines currently recommend the use of a mesh at the time of a stoma formation for the prevention of PSH. These recommendations are based on the RCT and meta-analyses published before 2017. More recently 2 large RCT found no benefit in the mesh group. We investigated whether these latest results could change the conclusion of a meta-analysis.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive literature search and analyzed RCT investigating the use of a mesh to prevent PSH formation. All studies including end colostomies were included in the qualitative analysis no matter the surgical technique or the type of mesh. All studies with a limited risk of bias and presenting with usable data were used in the quantitative analysis.

RESULTS

There is a large heterogeneity among the studies, in terms of position of the mesh, surgical technique, and diagnostic method for the PSH.No statistically significant difference was found on the PSH rate at 1 or 2 years between the mesh and non-mesh groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on this meta-analysis including the latest RCT on the prevention of PSH, the use of a mesh should not be recommended.

Systematic review and meta-analysis on the impact of lung cancer screening by low-dose computed tomography

INTRODUCTION

Lung cancer (LC) has the highest cancer mortality worldwide with poor prognosis. Screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) in populations highly exposed to tobacco has been proposed to improve LC prognosis. Our objective was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of screening by LDCT compared with any other intervention in populations who reported tobacco consumption for more than 15 years on LC and overall mortality.

METHODS

We searched randomised controlled trials (RCTs) studying screening by LDCT compared with any other intervention in a population who reported an average smoking history greater than 15 pack-years from inception until the 19th February 2018 using Medline and Cochrane Library databases. Publication selection and data extraction were made independently by two double-blind reviewers.

RESULTS

Seven RCTs were included in the meta-analysis which corresponds to 84,558 participants. A significant relative reduction of LC-specific mortality of 17% (risk ratio [RR] = 0.83, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.76-0.91) and a relative reduction of overall mortality of 4% (RR = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.92-1.00) was observed in the screening group compared with the control group.

CONCLUSION

In populations highly exposed to tobacco, screening by LDCT reduces lung cancer mortality.