Surgical endoscopy
-
We report mortality and post-operative complications from esophageal resection in the treatment of gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma or stricture, comparing a minimally invasive abdomen-only esophagectomy (MIAE) approach with a minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (MIILE) approach. ⋯ A minimally invasive abdomen-only approach in a specific patient population is comparable in safety to a minimally invasive Ivor Lewis approach, with associated shorter median operative duration. MIAE patients had significantly greater pre-operative comorbidities and higher calculated peri-operative risk of complication but demonstrated similar post-operative outcomes. This suggests that MIAE may be a suitable surgical approach for treating gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma or stricture in patients deemed unsuitable for MIILE.
-
Robotic surgery is a novel approach that scores over conventional minimally invasive approaches, even in pancreatic surgery. We investigated clinical outcomes of robot-assisted minimally invasive (hybrid laparoscopic and robotic) pancreatoduodenectomy (RA-MIPD). ⋯ Compared with open PD, RA-MIPD is associated with better or at least similar early perioperative and equivalent midterm survival outcomes. RA-MIPD is safe and feasible and enables early postoperative recovery. RA-MIPD is expected to play a key role in near future.
-
There is no consensus regarding the gold standard technique for rectal cancer as Total Mesorectal Excision (TME) may be safely performed either by open or minimally invasive surgery. The laparoscopic approach, however, may carry technical difficulties. For this reason, a novel technique has emerged in the last decade combining a dual laparoscopic dissection (abdominal and transanal) to perform the TME technique (TaTME). When focusing on oncological outcomes, there is a lack of literature regarding mid-long term results. The aim of this study is to evaluate the mid-term oncological impact of TaTME for treating rectal cancer. ⋯ There is currently a lack of evidence in the literature regarding TaTME and oncological outcomes with no data available from randomized clinical trials. In the meantime, the reported results from different multicentre series are controversial. This study showed positive mid-term outcomes at 2 years of follow-up and supported notable oncological outcomes with TaTME. However, it must be emphasized that previous experience in minimally invasive and transanal surgeries is essential for surgeons before intending to perform TaTME.
-
Compared to other common outpatient operations, laparoscopic cholecystectomy has higher rates of unanticipated hospital admission with reports ranging from 1.0 to 39.5%. Identification of simple preoperative risk factors for admission can aid appropriate patient selection. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association of obesity with need for hospital admission and day of surgery postoperative complications. ⋯ Patients with super obesity have a 10% increased odds of hospital admission following laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Obesity is not associated with increased odds of same-day postoperative complications. Ambulatory laparoscopic cholecystectomy for the morbidly obese is safe; however, those with BMI > 50 kg/m2 should be considered on a case-by-case basis.
-
Ventral hernia repair (VHR) is a commonly performed procedure and is especially prevalent in patients who have undergone previous open abdominal surgery: up to 28% of patients who have undergone laparotomy will develop a ventral hernia. There is increasing interest in robotic-assisted VHR (RVHR) as a minimally invasive approach to VHR not requiring myofascial release and in RVHR outcomes relative to outcomes associated with laparoscopic VHR (LVHR). We hypothesized real-world evidence from the Americas Hernia Society Quality Collaborative (AHSQC) database will indicate comparable clinical outcomes from RVHR and LVHR approaches not employing myofascial release. ⋯ Both RVHR and LVHR perioperative results compare favorably with each other in most measures. Differences favored RVHR in terms of shorter LOS, fewer conversions to laparotomy, and fewer postoperative clinic visits; differences favored LVHR in terms of shorter operative times.