Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) remains one of the most challenging abdominal procedures, and its application is poorly reported in the literature so far. To date, few data are available comparing a minimally invasive approach to open PD. The aim of the present study is to compare the robotic and open approaches for PD at a single institution. Methods Data from 83 consecutive PD procedures performed between January 2002 and May 2010 at a single institution were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were stratified into two groups: the open group ( n  = 39; 47%) and the robotic group ( n  = 44; 53%). Results Patients in the robotic group were statistically older (63 years of age versus 56 years; p  = 0.04) and heavier (body mass index: 27.7 vs. 24.8; p  = 0.01); and had a higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score (2.5 vs. 2.15; p  = 0.01) when compared to the open group. Indications for surgery were the same in both groups. The robotic group had a significantly shorter operative time (444 vs. 559 min; p  = 0.0001), reduced blood loss (387 vs. 827 ml; p  = 0.0001), and a higher number of lymph nodes harvested (16.8 vs. 11; p  = 0.02) compared to the open group. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of complication rates, mortality rates, and hospital stay. Conclusions The authors present one of the first studies comparing open and robotic PD. While it is too early to draw definitive conclusions concerning the long-term outcomes, short-term results show a positive trend in favor of the robotic approach without compromising the oncological principles associated with the open approach.

BackgroundColorectal liver metastases (CRLM) occur in roughly half of patients with colorectal cancer. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has become an increasingly acceptable and utilized technique for resection in these patients, but there is a lack of specific guidelines on the use of MIS hepatectomy in this setting. A multidisciplinary expert panel was convened to develop evidence-based recommendations regarding the decision between MIS and open techniques for the resection of CRLM. MethodsSystematic review was conducted for two key questions (KQ) regarding the use of MIS versus open surgery for the resection of isolated liver metastases from colon and rectal cancer. Evidence-based recommendations were formulated using the GRADE methodology by subject experts. Additionally, the panel developed recommendations for future research. ResultsThe panel addressed two KQs, which pertained to staged or simultaneous resection of resectable colon or rectal metastases. The panel made conditional recommendations for the use of MIS hepatectomy for both staged and simultaneous resection when deemed safe, feasible, and oncologically effective by the surgeon based on the individual patient characteristics. These recommendations were based on low and very low certainty of evidence. ConclusionsThese evidence-based recommendations should provide guidance regarding surgical decision-making in the treatment of CRLM and highlight the importance of individual considerations of each case. Pursuing the identified research needs may help further refine the evidence and improve future versions of guidelines for the use of MIS techniques in the treatment of CRLM.

Background Application of the robot for Roux-en-Y gastric bypass has been slow to evolve, despite its rapid acceptance in other fields. This is largely due to associated costs of technology, reports of increased operative time, and inadequate data available to correlate the benefits of robotics to a clinical outcome. The authors present a comparative study between laparoscopic and robot-assisted Roux-en-Y gastric bypass performed at a specialized institution for robotic surgery. Materials and method A total of 135 consecutive Roux-en-Y gastric bypass procedures were performed from January 2006 to December 2009 by a single surgeon. The first 45 were performed laparoscopically and the remaining 90 were robot-assisted. Patient demographics, operative time, complication rate, length of stay, long-term weight loss, and follow-up for the two groups were gathered from a prospectively maintained database and statistically analyzed. Results The overall operative time was significantly shorter for the robot-assisted procedures than for the laparoscopic procedures (207 ± 31 vs. 227 ± 31 min) ( P  = 0.0006). The robotic set-up time remained constant at 13 ± 4 min. 30 robotic cases were necessary in order to perform the procedure in less time than with the laparoscopic approach ( P  = 0.047). Mortality was 0% in both groups, with no conversions to open surgery and no transfusions. Early morbidities and percentage of excess weight loss at 1 year were comparable for the two groups. Conclusions The use of the robot for performing the gastrojejunostomy during laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass does not increase the operative time or the rate of specific complications. The short-term outcomes of the robot-assisted procedure are comparable to those found with the conventional laparoscopic method.

Background Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) remains one of the most challenging abdominal procedures and its application in the elderly population is poorly reported in the literature so far. The goal of this study was to demonstrate that robot-assisted PD can be safely performed in patients aged 70 years and older. Methods Forty-one consecutive robot-assisted PD performed between April 2007 and January 2010 were prospectively entered in a dedicated database. Patients were stratified into two groups: group 1, aged ≥70 years ( n  = 15, 36.6%); and group 2, aged <70 years ( n  = 26, 63.4%). The data were reviewed retrospectively. Results Indications for surgery and patient characteristics were the same in both groups, with the exception of age. There was no statistical difference in terms of operative time ( P  = 0.376), blood loss ( P  = 0.989), conversion rate ( P  = 0.52), mortality ( P  = 0.36), or overall morbidity rate ( P  = 0.74). The mean hospital stay was 14.3 days in group 1 and 11.2 days in group 2. This was not statistically significant ( P  = 0.136). Conclusions Robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy can be performed safely in elderly patients with comparable mortality, morbidity, and outcomes compared with a younger population. Age alone should not be a contraindication for robotic pancreatic resection.

In bariatric surgery, laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) has proven effective in reducing weight and improving obesity-associated comorbidities. Recently, however, laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) surgery has been proposed to minimize the invasiveness of laparoscopic surgery. The aim of this study is to compare the operative cost and peri-operative outcomes of these two approaches. We undertook a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database of patients undergoing either LAGB or LESS between March 2006 and October 2009. The outcomes and cost of 25 LESS gastric bandings were compared to 121 standard LAGB. Costs included operative time, consumables, and laparoscopic tower depreciation. Both groups had similar patient demographics, body mass index, and comorbidities; with the exception of age (37 year for single site vs. 44 years for standard; P  = 0.002). There were no statistical differences for operative time (78 vs. 76 min, P  = 0.69), blood loss (8.4 vs. 9 ml, P  = 0.76), pain score (0.81 vs. 0.84 at 1 week, P  = 0.95) or complication rates (12% vs. 14%, P  = 1). Length of stay was shorter for the LESS group (0.5 day vs. 1.5 days, P  = 0.02). The mean operative cost for the LESS banding was $20,502/case vs. $20,346/case for the standard LAGB, with no statistically significant difference between the approaches ( P  = 0.73). Operative costs and peri-operative outcomes of LESS gastric banding are comparable with those of the standard LAGB procedure. As a result, single-site surgery can be proposed as a valid alternative to the standard procedure with cosmetic advantage and comparable complication rate.

Background While laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is one of the most commonly performed procedures for morbid obesity in the USA, robotic application has been viewed as a valid option. However, the technique is not firmly established with single robotic docking. The objective of this video is to demonstrate the technical details of performing a standardized monoquadrant robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RRYGB). Methods Between April 2008 and May 2009, 15 patients meeting the NIH consensus criteria for bariatric surgery underwent a monoquadrant RRYGB. The data were prospectively collected in a dedicated bariatric database and reviewed retrospectively. The patient was positioned supine. Subsequent to creating a 30-ml gastric pouch using a series of endostaplers, the da Vinci robotic system (Intuitive, Sunnyvale, CA) was docked cranially. The robotic arms were attached in the double cannulation fashion. The gastrojejunostomy (GJ) was performed by a robot-assisted hand-sewn double-layered technique, followed by the creation of a jejunojejunostomy (JJ) with an endostapler. The common enterotomy of the JJ was closed with robot-assisted hand-sewn double-layered fashion. The bridge of jejunum between the GJ and JJ was transected separating both anastomoses. The mesenteric defect was not routinely closed at the end of the procedure. Results There were 13 women and 2 men with a median age of 36 years included in this study. The procedure was successfully accomplished by a monoquadrant robotic technique in 14 cases (93.3%). One case was converted to open procedure because of an intra-operative enterotomy by an endostapler. The mean operative time was 202 min (range 158–353 min). There was no postoperative complication, notably no GI leak or anastomotic bleeding. The median hospital stay was 2.4 days (range 1.7–4 days). The mean weight loss after 1 year was 38.5 kg. Conclusions This video highlights the feasibility of performing a standardized monoquadrant RRYGB in its entirety with single docking of the da Vinci robotic system.

Background The robotic platform might offer superior ergonomics over other minimally invasive approaches. However, the increased time required for instrument set-up, operations, and surgical training are perceived as major drawbacks. There is limited literature on this topic, therefore we report our experience at an academic tertiary medical center in the USA. The primary aim of this study was to analyze the learning curve and the times for necessary steps for singly docked totally robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RREYGB). Materials and methods From November 2010 to April 2013, all consecutive patients who underwent RREYGB were retrospectively analyzed from a prospectively maintained database. Variables of interest for this study were patient demographics, preoperative body mass index, previous surgical history, clinically relevant perioperative events, and operative times for various steps in the procedure. Results During the study period, a total of 32 patients were enrolled. The mean age was 39.9 ± 9.7 years (range 25–60), preoperative weight was 120.9 ± 21.5 kg (range 76.7–184.6), and body mass index (BMI) was 44.7 ± 5.3 kg/m 2 (range 36.1–61). The mean total operative time was 187.3 ± 36.4 min (range 130–261). The time necessary for trocar placement was 11.9 ± 4.5 min (range 4–23), robot set-up was 8.5 ± 3.6 min (range 3–20), pouch creation was 32 ± 10.11 min (range 16–56), gastrojejunal anastomosis was 59.5 ± 12.3 min (range 39–90), jejunojejunal anastomosis was 33.5 ± 9.6 min (range 18–65), and endoscopy/hemostasis was 12.9 ± 7.2 min (range 2–34). Operative time significantly improved after eight cases. Conclusion In a high-volume established robotic bariatric center, robot set-up, operative times, and learning curve are shorter than previously reported.

BackgroundPrimary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) represent the liver’s two most common malignant neoplasms. Liver-directed therapies such as ablation have become part of multidisciplinary therapies despite a paucity of data. Therefore, an expert panel was convened to develop evidence-based recommendations regarding the use of microwave ablation (MWA) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for HCC or CRLM less than 5 cm in diameter in patients ineligible for other therapies.MethodsA systematic review was conducted for six key questions (KQ) regarding MWA or RFA for solitary liver tumors in patients deemed poor candidates for first-line therapy. Subject experts used the GRADE methodology to formulate evidence-based recommendations and future research recommendations.ResultsThe panel addressed six KQs pertaining to MWA vs. RFA outcomes and laparoscopic vs. percutaneous MWA. The available evidence was poor quality and individual studies included both HCC and CRLM. Therefore, the six KQs were condensed into two, recognizing that these were two disparate tumor groups and this grouping was somewhat arbitrary. With this significant limitation, the panel suggested that in appropriately selected patients, either MWA or RFA can be safe and feasible. However, this recommendation must be implemented cautiously when simultaneously considering patients with two disparate tumor biologies. The limited data suggested that laparoscopic MWA of anatomically more difficult tumors has a compensatory higher morbidity profile compared to percutaneous MWA, while achieving similar overall 1-year survival. Thus, either approach can be appropriate depending on patient-specific factors (very low certainty of evidence).ConclusionGiven the weak evidence, these guidelines provide modest guidance regarding liver ablative therapies for HCC and CRLM. Liver ablation is just one component of a multimodal approach and its use is currently limited to a highly selected population. The quality of the existing data is very low and therefore limits the strength of the guidelines.Executive summaryBackgroundThe multidisciplinary management of both primary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) may include liver-directed therapies as part of treatment algorithms; these algorithms focus heavily on control of liver-specific disease as in many cases this serves as a proxy for long-term survival. Hepatectomy is the primary treatment option in patients who can tolerate resection for both HCC and CRLM. Liver-directed therapies include arterial embolization, stereotactic body radiation therapy, and liver ablation. Over the last several decades, microwave ablation (MWA) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of liver tumors have been used in high-risk patients unfit for surgical intervention or tumors not amenable to local control with other therapies. As ablation is an evolving technology, outcomes data are primarily reported in liver tumors less than 3 cm in diameter, while data for liver tumors greater than 3 cm are limited for both HCC and CRLM. The authors sought to perform a systematic review of the existing data to assess for meaningful conclusions. Therefore, a multidisciplinary expert panel was convened to develop evidence-based recommendations to support clinicians, patients, and others regarding the role of liver ablation in the treatment of HCC and CRLM up to 5 cm in diameter.MethodsA systematic review was conducted for six key questions (KQ) regarding the use of either MWA or RFA for solitary HCC or CRLM. Due to the paucity of evidence available, HCC and CRLM less than 5 cm in diameter were combined into two final KQs which were used to develop recommendations. Evidence-based recommendations were formulated using the GRADE methodology by subject matter experts. Additionally, the panel developed recommendations for future research.Interpretation of strong and conditional recommendationsAll guideline recommendations were assigned “conditional” recommendations. These were based on the GRADE approach. The words “the guideline panel suggests” were used for conditional recommendations.Key questions addressed by these guidelinesShould MWA (laparoscopic or open) vs. RFA (laparoscopic or open) be used for HCC or CRLM less than 5 cm ineligible for other therapies?Should laparoscopic MWA vs. percutaneous MWA be used for HCC and/or CRLM less than 5 cm ineligible for other therapies?RecommendationsShould MWA (laparoscopic or open) vs. RFA (laparoscopic or open) be used for HCC or CRLM less than 5 cm ineligible for other therapies?The panel suggests MWA and RFA are both safe and feasible. There was insufficient evidence to recommend one modality over another in terms of oncologic outcomes (conditional recommendation, very low certainty of evidence).Should laparoscopic MWA vs. percutaneous MWA be used for HCC and/or CRLM less than 5 cm ineligible for other therapies?The panel suggests that either ablative approach achieves similar overall outcomes, albeit through distinct patterns. The laparoscopic approach obtained better local control and the percutaneous approach had fewer morbidities while obtaining similar overall 1-year survival (conditional recommendation, very low certainty of evidence).How to use these guidelinesThe aim of these guidelines is to assist surgeons and physicians in making management decisions for patients with HCC or CRLM. Given that the evidence for this guideline was based on very low certainty evidence, these guidelines should be applied with caution. They are also intended to provide education, inform advocacy, and describe future areas for research. The guidelines are not meant to mandate a particular approach or strategy given the lack of evidence and intricacies of the healthcare environment, individual patient needs, comorbidities, and surgeon experience. Specific situations require adjustment of treatment plans to suit the needs and priorities of the individual patient. Finally, since the guidelines take a patient-centered approach, patients can use these guidelines as a source of information and for discussion with their physicians.

BackgroundPrimary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) represent the two most common malignant neoplasms of the liver. The objective of this study was to assess outcomes of surgical approaches to liver ablation comparing laparoscopic versus percutaneous microwave ablation (MWA), and MWA versus radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in patients with HCC or CRLM lesions smaller than 5 cm.MethodsA systematic review was conducted across seven databases, including PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane, to identify all comparative studies between 1937 and 2021. Two independent reviewers screened for eligibility, extracted data for selected studies, and assessed study bias using the modified Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Random effects meta-analyses were subsequently performed on all available comparative data.ResultsFrom 1066 records screened, 11 studies were deemed relevant to the study and warranted inclusion. Eight of the 11 studies were at high or uncertain risk for bias. Our meta-analyses of two studies revealed that laparoscopic MW ablation had significantly higher complication rates compared to a percutaneous approach (risk ratio = 4.66; 95% confidence interval = [1.23, 17.22]), but otherwise similar incomplete ablation rates, local recurrence, and oncologic outcomes. The remaining nine studies demonstrated similar efficacy of MWA and RFA, as measured by incomplete ablation, complication rates, local/regional recurrence, and oncologic outcomes, for both HCC and CRLM lesions less than 5 cm (p > 0.05 for all outcomes). There was no statistical subgroup interaction in the analysis of tumors < 3 cm.ConclusionThe available comparative evidence regarding both laparoscopic versus percutaneous MWA and MWA versus RFA is limited, evident by the few studies that suffer from high/uncertain risk of bias. Additional high-quality randomized trials or statistically matched cohort studies with sufficient granularity of patient variables, institutional experience, and physician specialty/training will be useful in informing clinical decision making for the ablative treatment of HCC or CRLM.

BackgroundWhile surgical resection has a demonstrated utility for patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), it is unclear whether minimally invasive surgery (MIS) or an open approach should be used. This review sought to assess the efficacy and safety of MIS versus open hepatectomy for isolated, resectable CRLM when performed separately from (Key Question (KQ) 1) or simultaneously with (KQ2) the resection of the primary tumor.MethodsPubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, Cochrane CENTRAL, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched to identify both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized comparative studies published during January 2000—September 2020. Two independent reviewers screened literature for eligibility, extracted data from included studies, and assessed internal validity using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 Tool and the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed using risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD).ResultsFrom 2304 publications, 35 studies were included for meta-analysis. For staged resections, three RCTs and 20 observational studies were included. Data from RCTs indicated MIS having similar disease-free survival (DFS) at 1-year (RR 1.03, 95%CI 0.70–1.50), overall survival (OS) at 5-years (RR 1.04, 95%CI 0.84–1.28), fewer complications of Clavien-Dindo Grade III (RR 0.62, 95%CI 0.38–1.00), and shorter hospital length of stay (LOS) (MD -6.6 days, 95%CI -10.2, -3.0). For simultaneous resections, 12 observational studies were included. There was no evidence of a difference between MIS and the open group for DFS-1-year, OS-5-year, complications, R0 resections, blood transfusions, along with lower blood loss (MD -177.35 mL, 95%CI -273.17, -81.53) and shorter LOS (MD -3.0 days, 95%CI -3.82, -2.17).ConclusionsCurrent evidence regarding the optimal approach for CRLM resection demonstrates similar oncologic outcomes between MIS and open techniques, however MIS hepatectomy had a shorter LOS, lower blood loss and complication rate, for both staged and simultaneous resections.