Surgical endoscopy
-
Comparative Study
Conversion to open surgery during minimally invasive esophagectomy portends worse short-term outcomes: an analysis of the National Cancer Database.
The objectives were to determine factors associated with conversion to open surgery in patients with esophageal cancer who underwent minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE, including laparo-thoracoscopic and robotic) and the impact of conversion to open surgery on patient outcomes. ⋯ Patients undergoing attempted MIE requiring conversion to open surgery had significantly worse short-term outcomes including postoperative mortality. Patient factors and hospital experience contribute to conversion rates. These findings should inform surgeons and patients considering esophagectomy for cancer.
-
The withdrawal of antithrombotic therapy from patients at high risk of thromboembolism is controversial. Previously, treatment with anticoagulants, such as warfarin and dabigatran, was recommended for heparin bridge therapy (HBT) during endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). However, HBT is associated with a high risk of bleeding during and after ESD. This study aimed to investigate the clinical outcomes of colorectal ESD in patients treated with warfarin and direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC). ⋯ The bleeding rate with anticoagulants was relatively high. However, all bleeding events with anticoagulants were minor and clinically controllable. Colorectal ESD with DOAC and warfarin may be feasible and acceptable.
-
Review Comparative Study
The risk of COVID-19 transmission by laparoscopic smoke may be lower than for laparotomy: a narrative review.
Surgical smoke is a well-recognized hazard in the operating room. At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, surgical societies quickly published guidelines recommending avoiding laparoscopy or to consider open surgery because of the fear of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 through surgical smoke or aerosol. This narrative review of the literature aimed to determine whether there are any differences in the creation of surgical smoke/aerosol between laparoscopy and laparotomy and if laparoscopy may be safer than laparotomy. ⋯ If laparoscopy is performed in a closed cavity enabling containment of surgical smoke/aerosol, and proper evacuation of smoke with simple measures is respected, and as long as laparoscopy is not contraindicated, we believe that this surgical approach may be safer for the operating team while the patient has the benefits of minimally invasive surgery. Evidence-based research in this field is needed for definitive determination of safety.
-
Practice Guideline
ELSA recommendations for minimally invasive surgery during a community spread pandemic: a centered approach in Asia from widespread to recovery phases.
The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in significant changes to surgical practice across the worlds. Some countries are seeing a tailing down of cases, while others are still having persistent and sustained community spread. These evolving disease patterns call for a customized and dynamic approach to the selection, screening, planning, and for the conduct of surgery for these patients. ⋯ The COVID-19 pandemic requires every surgical unit to have clear guidelines to ensure both patient and staff safety. These guidelines may assist in providing guidance to units developing their own protocols. A judicious approach must be adopted as surgical units look to re-open services as the pandemic evolves.
-
Comparative Study
Perioperative outcomes and cost of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair.
Utilization of robotic-assisted inguinal hernia repair (IHR) has increased in recent years, but randomized or prospective studies comparing outcomes and cost of laparoscopic and Robotic-IHR are still lacking. With conflicting results from only five retrospective series available in the literature comparing the two approaches, the question remains whether current robotic technology provides any added benefits to treat inguinal hernias. We aimed to compare perioperative outcomes and costs of Robotic-IHR versus laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal IHR (Laparoscopic-IHR). ⋯ In the setting in which it was studied, the outcomes of Laparoscopic-IHR were significantly superior to the Robotic-IHR, at lower hospital costs. Laparoscopic-IHR remains the preferred minimally invasive surgical approach to treat inguinal hernias.