Explore the vast range of titles available.

BackgroundConventional three-access laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA) is currently the gold standard treatment, however, Single-Port Laparoscopic Appendectomy (SILA) has been proposed as an alternative. The aim of this systematic review/meta-analysis was to evaluate safety and efficacy of SILA compared with conventional approach.MethodsPer PRISMA guidelines, we systematically reviewed randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CLA vs SILA for acute appendicitis. The randomised Mantel–Haenszel method was used for the meta-analysis. Statistical data analysis was performed with the Review Manager software and the risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane \"Risk of Bias\" assessment tool.ResultsTwenty-one studies (RCTs) were selected (2646 patients). The operative time was significantly longer in the SILA group (MD = 7,32), confirmed in both paediatric (MD = 9,80), (Q = 1,47) and adult subgroups (MD = 5,92), (Q = 55,85). Overall postoperative morbidity was higher in patients who underwent SILA, but the result was not statistically significant. In SILA group were assessed shorter hospital stays, fewer wound infections and higher conversion rate, but the results were not statistically significant. Meta-analysis was not performed about cosmetics of skin scars and postoperative pain because different scales were used in each study.ConclusionsThis analysis show that SILA, although associated with fewer postoperative wound infection, has a significantly longer operative time. Furthermore, the risk of postoperative general complications is still present. Further studies will be required to analyse outcomes related to postoperative pain and the cosmetics of the surgical scar.

Due to their longer dwell time, midline catheters will reduce the number of peripheral venous insertions required (thus saving resources and reducing risks for the operator); they will allow high flow infusions and easy blood sampling; if indicated, they might be easily replaced over guidewire with a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC). Choose an exit site at mid-thigh, away from the groin, either by puncturing the common femoral vein and then tunneling to mid-thigh or by directly puncturing the superficial femoral vein at mid-thigh. * When inserting a CICC, prefer an infraclavicular approach (ultrasound-guided puncture and cannulation of the axillary vein) rather than a supraclavicular approach, so to provide greater protection and stability of the catheter at the exit site. * In the absence of contraindications, give low molecular weight heparin at prophylactic (100 units/kg/24 h) or even therapeutic (100 units/kg/12 h or 150 units/kg/24 h) dose in all COVID-19 patients with central lines, so to reduce the thrombotic risk. 3. 4) Recommendations on the appropriate precautions to avoid operator contamination: * For patient protection, adopt the standard barrier precautions (hand hygiene, skin antisepsis with 2% chlorhexidine in 70% isopropyl alcohol, non-sterile surgical mask, non-sterile cap, sterile gloves, waterproof sterile gown, wide sterile field on the patient, sterile probe cover of appropriate length). * For protection of the operator, adopt the standard personal protective equipment for contact protection (double glove, full suit, goggles or face shield, footwear); use both a surgical mask and a protective mask with N95 filter (equivalent to FFP2 of the European nomenclature), considering the high risk of aerosol in the environment, especially in the extubated and symptomatic COVID patient on NIV.

Background: This systematic review aims to investigate whether percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder biliary drainage (PTGBD) is superior to emergency cholecystectomy (EC) as a definitive treatment in high-risk patients with acute cholecystitis (AC). Material and Methods: A systematic literature search was performed until December 2022 using the Scopus, Medline/PubMed and Web of Science databases. Results: Seventeen studies have been included with a total of 783,672 patients (32,634 treated with PTGBD vs. 4663 who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy, 343 who had open cholecystectomy and 746,032 who had some form of cholecystectomy, but without laparoscopic or open approach being specified). An analysis of the results shows that PTGBD, despite being less invasive, is not associated with lower morbidity with respect to EC (RR 0.77 95% CI [0.44 to 1.34]; I2 = 99%; p = 0.36). A lower postoperative mortality was reported in patients who underwent EC (2.37%) with respect to the PTGBD group (13.78%) (RR 4.21; 95% CI [2.69 to 6.58]; p < 0.00001); furthermore, the risk of hospital readmission for biliary complications (RR 2.19 95% CI [1.72 to 2.79]; I2 = 48%; p < 0.00001) and hospital stay (MD 4.29 95% CI [2.40 to 6.19]; p < 0.00001) were lower in the EC group. Conclusions: In our systematic review, the majority of studies have very low-quality evidence and more RCTs are needed; furthermore, PTGBD is inferior in the treatment of AC in high-risk patients. The definition of high-risk patients is important in interpreting the results, but the methods of assessment and definitions differ between studies. The results of our systematic review and meta-analysis failed to demonstrate any advantage of using PTGBD over ER as a definitive treatment of AC in critically ill patients, which suggests that EC should be considered as the treatment of choice even in very high-risk patients. Most likely, the inferiority of PTGBD versus early LC for high-risk patients is related to an association of various patient-side factor conditions and the severity of acute cholecystitis.