Dimitrios I. Athanasiadis

Low back pain (LBP) is a common clinical problem imposing a prominent socio-economic burden. The purpose of this systematic review was to investigate the biopsychosocial effects of the Mulligan Concept (MC) of manual therapy (MT) when applied to patient's with LBP. Three researchers independently evaluated the literature quality, and completed a review on five online databases (Medline, Cochrane Library, Science Direct, ProQuest and Google Scholar) for articles published from January 1st 2010 to November 20th 2021, using a combination of free words, Wildcards and Medical Subject Headings (MESH) terms: " Mulligan mobilization " AND " back pain " OR " SNAGs." In total, 62 studies were selected for full-text reading, from which finally 6 studies were included in the present review. The results revealed that the studies where the MC of MT was applied to treat LBP mainly lacked concern regarding the effect that the intervention has on the cognitive and behavioural parameters. The ones that introduced measure outcomes for at least some parts of the cognitive behavioural components, showed that the MC has a positive effect, even though without a long-term follow-up assessment. This review summarized that the evidence of the MC on cognitive behavioural (CB) aspects of patients with LBP is controversial and scarce.

Background Standards for preoperative bariatric patient selection include a thorough psychological evaluation. Using patients “red-flagged” during preoperative evaluations, this study aims to identify trends in long-term follow-up and complications to further optimize bariatric patient selection. Methods A multidisciplinary team held a case review conference (CRC) to discuss red-flagged patients. A retrospective chart review compared CRC patients to control patients who underwent bariatric surgery in the same interval. Patients under 18 years old, undergoing revisional bariatric surgery, or getting band placement were excluded. High-risk characteristics causing CRC inclusion, preoperative demographics, percent follow-up and other postoperative outcomes were collected up to 5 years postoperatively. If univariate analysis revealed a significant difference between cohorts, multivariable analysis was performed. Results Two hundred and fifty three patients were red-flagged from 2012 to 2013, of which 79 underwent surgery. After excluding 21 revisions, 3 non-adult patients, and 6 band patients, 55 red-flagged patients were analyzed in addition to 273 control patients. Patient age, sex, initial BMI, ASA, and co-morbidities were similar between groups, though flagged patients underwent RYGB more frequently than control patients. Notably, percent excess BMI loss and percent follow-up (6 months–5 years) were similar. In multivariable analysis, minor complications were more common in flagged patients; and marginal ulcers, endoscopy, and dilation for stenosis were more common in flagged versus control patients who underwent RYGB. Perforation, reoperation, revision, incisional hernia, and internal hernia were statistically similar in both groups, though reoperation was significantly more common in patients with multiple reasons to be flagged compared to controls. Conclusion Bariatric patients deemed high risk for various psychosocial issues have similar follow-up, BMI loss, and major complications compared to controls. High-risk RYGB patients have greater minor complications, warranting additional counseling of high-risk patients.

Background Following the publication of reports from landmark international consensuses (Louisville 2008 and Morioka 2014), minimally invasive hepatectomy became widely accepted as a legitimate alternative to open surgery. We aimed to compare the operative, hospitalization, and total economic costs of open (OLR) vs. laparoscopic (LLR) vs. robotic liver resection (RLR). Methods We performed a systematic literature review (end-of-search date: July 3, 2020) according to the PRISMA statement. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted. Quality assessment was performed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized controlled trials, and the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale for non-randomized studies. Results Thirty-eight studies reporting on 3847 patients (1783 OLR; 1674 LLR; 390 RLR) were included. The operative costs of LLR were significantly higher than those of OLR, while subgroup analysis also showed higher operative costs in the LLR group for major hepatectomy, but no statistically significant difference for minor hepatectomy. Hospitalization costs were significantly lower in the LLR group, with subgroup analyses indicating lower costs for LLR in both major and minor hepatectomy series. No statistically significant difference was observed regarding total costs between LLR and OLR both overall and on subgroup analyses in either major or minor hepatectomy series. Meta-analyses showed higher operative, hospitalization, and total costs for RLR vs. LLR, but no statistically significant difference regarding total costs for RLR vs. OLR. Conclusion LLR’s higher operative costs are offset by lower hospitalization costs compared to OLR leading to no statistically significant difference in total costs, while RLR appears to be a more expensive alternative approach.