Qiannan Sun

Backgrounds A growing number of studies have shown that bariatric surgery can cause changes in the body composition of patients. This meta-analysis aims to reveal changes in skeletal muscle mass 1 year after bariatric surgery and analyze the causes of changes in skeletal muscle in postoperative patients, to provide a more comprehensive clinical basis for preserving muscle mass in patients. Methods We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases, and included six studies. The search time limit was from establishing the databases to October 10, 2024. Data on weight, BMI, and skeletal muscle mass at 1-year follow-up after bariatric surgery were collected. Meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.2 statistical software. Results After analysis, the skeletal muscle mass decreased significantly from preoperative to postoperative 3 months, and the difference was statistically significant ([WMD = 3.30 kg, 95%CI (2.18, 4.41)], P < 0.00001). Skeletal muscle mass was not statistically significant from 3 to 6 months after surgery and 6 to 12 months after surgery. Conclusion The skeletal muscle mass of patients after bariatric surgery showed a downward trend within 1 year after surgery, especially in the first 3 months.

Background The detection rates of early gastric cancer (GC) in China are approximately 20%; upon diagnosis, the majority of patients with GC are identified as having advanced stage disease, and in some cases, even metastatic advanced GC. Currently, the optimal treatment strategy for peritoneal metastasis (PM) in GC remains uncertain, and pathological complete response (pCR) is rare following conversion therapy. Case presentation This case report details the management of a 66-year-old patient diagnosed with advanced stage IVB (T4N2M1c) adenocarcinomas of the gastric cardia with PM who received multimodal therapy comprised of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), XELOX chemotherapy, and anti-programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) therapy followed by radical gastrectomy. Through the multimodal management, the patient attained PCR and experienced long-term survival. Conclusion The conversion therapy protocol combined with HIPEC, XELOX chemotherapy, and anti-PD-1 therapy and our scientific, accurate, full-course management strategy may be propagable for potentially curing patients with advanced GC with PM.

Intersphincteric resection (ISR) is a viable option for sphincter preservation in early ultra-low rectal cancer, but postoperative anal dysfunction remains a concern. This study evaluates the outcomes of robotic ISR with coloanal anastomosis in early ultra-low rectal cancer, comparing its efficacy and safety with laparoscopic ISR. Retrospective analysis was conducted on data from 74 consecutive patients undergoing robotic intersphincteric resection (R-ISR) for early ultra-low rectal cancer between January 2017 and December 2018 (R-ISR group), matched with 110 patients undergoing laparoscopic intersphincteric resection (L-ISR). After 1:1 propensity score matching, each group comprised 68 patients. Comparative analyses covered surgical outcomes, complications, long-term results, and anal function. The R-ISR group showed longer total operative time than the L-ISR group (211.7 ± 25.3 min vs. 191.2 ± 23.0 min, p = 0.001), but less intraoperative bleeding (55.2 ± 20.7 ml vs. 69.2 ± 22.9 ml, p = 0.01). R-ISR group had fewer conversions to APR surgery (6/8.8% vs. 14/20.6%). Other perioperative indicators were similar. R-ISR exhibited a smaller tumor margin, superior mesorectal integrity, and comparable histopathological outcomes. Postoperative complications, 3-year and 5-year DFS, and OS were similar. At the 1-year follow-up, the Wexner Incontinence Score favored R-ISR (9.24 ± 4.03 vs. 11.06 ± 3.77, p = 0.048). Although R-ISR prolongs the operative time, its surgical safety and oncological outcomes are similar to conventional ISR procedures. Furthermore, it further shortens the margin of anal preservation, reduces the rate of conversion to APR surgery, and improves postoperative anal function.

Purpose Scarce research has reported the comparison between robotic and laparoscopic surgery in mid–low rectal cancer. Therefore, this meta-analysis is aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of the two surgical approaches. Methods A comprehensive search of the databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Web of Science) was performed for studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic surgery. The outcomes of interest acquired from eight articles included three aspects: intraoperative conditions, postoperative status of patients, and complications. All data (robotic = 1350 patients, laparoscopic = 1330 patients) enrolled were analyzed using Rev Man 5.4. Results Compared to the laparoscopic group, the robotic group indicated a noticeable superiority in estimated blood loss (P < 0.0001), number of lymph nodes dissected (P = 0.004), time to first flatus (P = 0.001), time to first fluid diet (P = 0.001), hospital stay (P < 0.0001), conversion (P = 0.009), and urinary retention (P = 0.0006), but devoted much more operation time (P = 0.0004). Conclusion Robotic surgery was associated with superiority over laparoscopic surgery in increasing surgical safety, accelerating postoperative recovery, and reducing complications, which suggested that robotic surgery could be a safe and effective method for treating mid–low rectal cancer.

Background The feasibility and effectiveness of selecting an intracorporeal or extracorporeal technique in left hemicolectomy remain poorly understood. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the difference between the two approaches regarding intraoperative and postoperative outcomes. Methods A thorough exploration of online databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science) was executed to identify randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case control studies. The outcomes contained four aspects: intraoperative outcomes, postoperative complications, postoperative patient conditions, and postoperative outcomes. All of these data were analyzed using RevMan 5.4. Seven retrospective control trials (intracorporeal, 396 patients; extracorporeal, 426 patients) were evaluated. Results Compared to the extracorporeal group, the intracorporeal group demonstrated superiority in incision length (P = 0.005), overall complications (P = 0.01), time to first flatus (P < 0.001), time to first stool (P = 0.005), time to first diet (P < 0.001) and hospital stay duration (P = 0.001). Conclusions The intracorporeal technique is associated with superiority over the extracorporeal technique in reducing postoperative complications, promoting postoperative recovery of gastrointestinal function, and reducing hospital stay duration.

Scarce research has been performed to assess the safety and efficacy of anastomosis technique on robotic-assisted sigmoidectomy. This study was designed to evaluate the difference between intracorporeal and extracorporeal techniques during robotic-assisted sigmoidectomy. Clinical data of 193 cases who received robotic-assisted sigmoidectomy were retrospectively collected and analyzed. Only 116 cases were available for analysis (intracorporeal group = 58 and extracorporeal group = 58) after propensity score matching. Independent sample t test was conducted to evaluate the continuous variables. Moreover, the statistical significance of categorical variables was tested using Chi-square or Fisher’s exact tests. Statistical analysis showed that the intracorporeal group demonstrated greater superiorities in pain scale on the first and second postoperative day (P < 0.05), time of catheter indwelling (P = 0.009), and length of hospital stay (P = 0.019). Additionally, the intracorporeal technique contributed to fewer complications including urinary retention (P = 0.027) and hernia (P = 0.037) than the extracorporeal group. Our analysis revealed that intracorporeal technique was safe and feasible due to the shorter time of catheter indwelling and length of hospital stay and fewer post-operation complications.

Objective: This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of inflammatory markers (NLR, PLR) combined with tumor markers (CA50, CA199, CEA) in the diagnosis of colorectal cancer metastasis by a single-center retrospective study. Methods: A total of 1163 CRC patients who received treatments in our hospital from January 2017 to December 2021 were enrolled retrospectively. Patients were grouped according to the absence of metastasis. The separate efficacy of tumor markers, NLR and PLR, was evaluated in the diagnosis of metastasis of colorectal cancer using ROC curve analysis, and their optimal cut-off values for distant metastases from colorectal cancer were determined. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) of the tumor markers combined with NLR and PLR was calculated by binary logistic regression analysis to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of metastasis of colorectal cancer. In addition, patients were divided into two groups of high and low levels according to the optimal cut-off values, and the effects of NLR, PLR, and tumor markers on distant metastasis of colorectal cancer were evaluated using multiple logistic regression analysis. Result: The abnormal rate of CA50, CA199, CEA, NLR, and PLR in two subgroupsIt was statistically significant (P < 0.05). After AUC testifying, the diagnostic efficacy of NLR and PLR was equivalent to that of tumor marker (P > 0.05). In assessment of liver metastasis, peritoneal metastasis, and multiple metastasis, AUC of NLR and PLR with CRC-specific tumor markers showed higher predictive efficacy than AUC without combined NLR nor PLR. The CA50, CA199, CEA, PLR, and NLR were proved independently associated with metastasis using multiple logistic regression analysis (P < 0.05). Conclusion: NLR and PLR are noted tumor markers of colorectal cancer, which are characterized by noninvasive, high diagnostic efficacy, easy availability, and low cost. They can be combined with traditional tumor markers to evaluate and diagnose colorectal cancer metastasis by clinicians.

Background Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the four most common cancers in the world. At present, human beings have stepped into an aging society, and the number of over eighties colorectal cancer patients has increased year by year. However, few high-quality studies focused on the post-operation complications and long-term outcomes of octogenarian patients with colorectal cancer. This meta-analysis, based on published studies, aims to assess the safety of treating octogenarian CRC patients with surgery. Methods Databases, including PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched until July 2022. The incidence of preoperative comorbidities, postoperative complications, and mortality was assessed using odds ratios (ORs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Furthermore, the hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs were applied for survival outcomes. Results A total of 13,790 patients with CRC in 21 studies were included. Our results demonstrated that octogenarian patients were associated with a higher burden of comorbidities (OR = 3.03; 95% CI: 2.03, 4.53; P = .000), high incidences of overall postoperative complications (OR = 1.63; 95% CI: 1.29, 2.06; P = .000), high internal medicine postoperative complications (OR = 2.38; 95% CI: 1.76, 3.21; P = .000), high in-hospital mortality (OR = 4.01; 95% CI: 3.06, 5.27; P = .000) and poor overall survival (OR = 2.13; 95% CI: 1.78, 2.55; P = .000). But there is no statistical difference in surgery-related postoperative complications(OR = 1.16; 95% CI: 0.94, 1.43; P = .16) and DFS (OR = 1.03; 95% CI: 0.83, 1.29; P = .775). Conclusions Extremely elderly patients with colorectal cancer have the high burden of comorbidities, high postoperative complications and mortality. However, survival outcomes (DFS) in patients 80 years and older are similar to younger patients. Clinicians should administer individualized treatment for such patients. Physiologic age rather than chronological age should determine cancer management for each individual.