Explore the vast range of titles available.

BackgroundPancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic head and periampullary cancers is still associated with high perioperative morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to compare the short-term outcomes of robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy (RAPD) and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) performed in a high-volume centre.MethodsA single-centre, prospective database was used to retrospectively compare the early outcomes of RAPD procedures to standard OPD procedures completed between January 2014 and December 2018. Of the 121 included patients, 78 underwent RAPD and 43 underwent OPD. After propensity score matching (PSM), 35 RAPD patients were matched with 35 OPD patients with similar preoperative characteristics.ResultsThere were no statistically significant differences in most of the baseline demographics and perioperative outcomes in the two groups after PSM optimization with the exception of the operative time (530 min (RAPD) versus 335 min (OPD) post-match, p < 0.000). No differences were found between the two groups in terms of complications (including pancreatic leaks, 11.4% in both OPD and RAPD), perioperative mortality, reoperations or readmissions. Earlier refeeding was obtained in the RAPD group vs. the OPD group (3 vs. 4 days, p = 0.002). Although the differences in the length of the hospital stay and blood transfusions were not statistically significant, both parameters showed a positive trend in favour of RAPD. The number of harvested lymph nodes was similar and oncologically adequate.ConclusionsRAPD is a safe and oncologically adequate technique to treat malignancies arising from the pancreatic head and periampullary region. Several perioperative parameters resulted in trends favouring RAPD over OPD, at the price of longer operating time. Data should be reinforced with a larger sample to guarantee statistical significance.

In the Abstract, in the Methods section the sentence “Of the 121 included patients, 78 underwent RAPD and 43 underwent OPD.” Should read: Of the 121 included patients, 77 underwent OPD and 44 underwent RAPD.”

BackgroundIn literature, most of the comparative studies of robotic (RRC) versus laparoscopic (LRC) right colectomy are biased by the type of the anastomotic technique adopted. With this study, we aim to understand whether there is a role for robotics in performing right colectomies, comparing RRC versus LRC, both performed with intracorporeal anastomosis.MethodsIn this retrospective cohort study, all consecutive patients who underwent minimally invasive right colectomy (robotic or laparoscopic) with intracorporeal anastomosis in three Italian high-volume centers between February 1, 2007 and December 31, 2017 were included. Patients were grouped according to the method of surgery: RRC or LRC.ResultsA total of 389 patients were included in the study (305 RRC vs. 84 LRC). Patients’ baseline characteristics were comparable between the groups. Operative time was significantly longer in RRC (250 min, IQR 209–305) group than LRC group (160 min, IQR 130–200) (p < 0.001). The median number of lymph nodes harvested was 22 (IQR 18–29) in RRC group while it was 19 (IQR 15–27) in LRC one (p = 0.028). No significant differences between the groups were seen in terms of time-to-first flatus, postoperative complications and length of hospital stay. Re-admission rate was significantly higher in LRC (n = 3, 3.6%) group than in RRC group (n = 1, 0.3%) (p = 0.033).ConclusionsIn conclusion, RRC and LRC are comparable in terms of functional postoperative outcomes and length of hospital stay. RRC requires longer operative time, but the number of lymph nodes harvested may be higher.

Purpose No evidences supporting or not the use of intra-abdominal drain (AD) in minimally invasive right colectomies have been published. This study aims to assess the outcomes on its use after robotic or laparoscopic right colectomies. Methods This is a multicenter propensity score matched study including patients who underwent minimally invasive right colectomy with (AD group) or without (no-AD group) the use of AD between February 1, 2007, and January 31, 2018. AD patients were matched to no-AD patients in a 1:1 ratio. Main outcomes were postoperative morbidity and mortality and anastomotic leak. Results A total of 653 patients were included. Of 149 (22.8%) no-AD patients, 124 could be matched. The rate of postoperative complications (AD n  = 26, 21% vs. no-AD n  = 26, 21%; p  = 1.000), mortality (AD n  = 2, 1.6% vs. no-AD n  = 1, 0.8%; p  = 1.000), anastomotic leak (AD n  = 2, 1.6% vs. no-AD n  = 5, 4.0%; p  = 0.453), and wound infection (AD n  = 9, 7.3% vs. no-AD n  = 6, 4.8%; p  = 0.581) did not significantly differ between the groups. Time to oral feeding was significantly shorter in the no-AD group [2 (1–3) vs. 3 (2–3), p  = 0.0001]. The median length of hospital stay was 8 (IQR 7–9) in the AD group while it was 6 (IQR 5–9) in the no-AD group ( p  = 0.010). Conclusions In conclusion, the use of AD after minimally invasive right colectomies has no influence on postoperative morbidity and mortality rates.

Spritztube® is a new supraglottic airway device that allows either extraglottic ventilation or orotracheal intubation with the same device. The aim of the present report is to provide the first radiologic images of the Spritztube in situ in a living human and to assess the depth of insertion and its anatomical relationships in vivo. We present the case of a 55-year-old man who was admitted to our centre to perform an interventional neuroradiological procedure. We obtained and analysed radiologic images of the head and neck of an adult patient to ascertain the position of the cuffs of the Spritztube relative to different anatomic structures. The insertion and depth of the device, correct tip positioning, effects of the distal and proximal cuffs on adjacent soft tissues, and the position of the pharyngeal cuff from the cranial to the hyoid bone were evaluated. Our report shows that Spritztube could be helpful in maintaining an adequate airway during radiologic procedures.