Bariatric surgery in prospective obese living kidney donors: scoping review and management decision algorithm.

INTRODUCTION: Global chronic kidney disease is now epidemic, with substantial health and economic consequences. While scientific support for living donor renal transplants (LDRT) is strong, donor shortages necessitate consideration of expanded criteria, including obese individuals. Bariatric surgery (BS) may mitigate obesity-related risks, but research on living donor candidates is scarce. Our scoping review aims to compile evidence, identify gaps, and formulate an algorithm to guide healthcare professionals in evaluating BS for obese living donors. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We did a systematic search of studies on living kidney donors and obesity. We searched the MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, CENTRAL and Web of Science databases for studies from database inception to March 30, 2023. All English-language articles available in full text have been considered. Excluded are commentaries, editorials, letters, and abstracts. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Obesity in LDRT raises long-term ESRD risk. Current high BMI donor admission raises ethical and clinical concerns. Encouraging timely weight loss can make obese candidates suitable donors, reducing risks. Sleeve gastrectomy is the most reported and preferable approach, since it minimizes hyperoxaluria risk. Re-evaluation for donation is possible 6-12 months post-BS, with BMI<35 for three months. Cost-benefit analysis favors BS over nephrectomy in obese donors (cost-benefit ratio: 3.64) when graft survival is equal. CONCLUSIONS: BS shows promise with short-term effectiveness and potential long-term outcomes. However, it should not be perceived as a means to expand the donor pool but rather as a personalized approach to address obesity and improve individuals' health.

Weight Loss and Sleep, Current Evidence in Animal Models and Humans.

Sleep is a vital process essential for survival. The trend of reduction in the time dedicated to sleep has increased in industrialized countries, together with the dramatic increase in the prevalence of obesity and diabetes. Short sleep may increase the risk of obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular disease, and on the other hand, obesity is associated with sleep disorders, such as obstructive apnea disease, insomnia and excessive daytime sleepiness. Sleep and metabolic disorders are linked; therefore, identifying the physiological and molecular pathways involved in sleep regulation and metabolic homeostasis can play a major role in ameliorating the metabolic health of the individual. Approaches aimed at reducing body weight could provide benefits for both cardiometabolic risk and sleep quality, which indirectly, in turn, may determine an amelioration of the cardiometabolic phenotype of individuals. We revised the literature on weight loss and sleep, focusing on the mechanisms and the molecules that may subtend this relationship in humans as in animal models.

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and diabetes.

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is the most prevalent chronic liver disease in the world and represents a clinical-histopathologic entity where the steatosis component may vary in degree and may or may not have fibrotic progression. The key concept of NAFLD pathogenesis is excessive triglyceride hepatic accumulation because of an imbalance between free fatty acid influx and efflux. Strong epidemiological, biochemical, and therapeutic evidence supports the premise that the primary pathophysiological derangement in most patients with NAFLD is insulin resistance; thus the association between diabetes and NAFLD is widely recognized in the literature. Since NAFLD is the hepatic manifestation of a metabolic disease, it is also associated with a higher cardio-vascular risk. Conventional B-mode ultrasound is widely adopted as a first-line imaging modality for hepatic steatosis, although magnetic resonance imaging represents the gold standard noninvasive modality for quantifying the amount of fat in these patients. Treatment of NAFLD patients depends on the disease severity, ranging from a more benign condition of nonalcoholic fatty liver to nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. Abstinence from alcohol, a Mediterranean diet, and modification of risk factors are recommended for patients suffering from NAFLD to avoid major cardiovascular events, as per all diabetic patients. In addition, weight loss induced by bariatric surgery seems to also be effective in improving liver features, together with the benefits for diabetes control or resolution, dyslipidemia, and hypertension. Finally, liver transplantation represents the ultimate treatment for severe nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and is growing rapidly as a main indication in Western countries. This review offers a comprehensive multidisciplinary approach to NAFLD, highlighting its connection with diabetes.

Intracholecystic versus Intravenous Indocyanine Green (ICG) Injection for Biliary Anatomy Evaluation by Fluorescent Cholangiography during Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Case-Control Study.

(1) Background: Fluorescence cholangiography has been proposed as a method for improving the visualization and identification of extrahepatic biliary anatomy in order to possibly reduce injuries and related complications. The most common method of indocyanine green (ICG) administration is the intravenous route, whereas evidence on direct ICG injection into the gallbladder is still quite limited. We aimed to compare the two different methods of ICG administration in terms of the visualization of extrahepatic biliary anatomy during laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), analyzing differences in the time of visualization, as well as the efficacy, advantages, and disadvantages of both modalities. (2) Methods: A total of 35 consecutive adult patients affected by acute or chronic gallbladder disease were enrolled in this prospective case−control study. Seventeen patients underwent LC with direct gallbladder ICG injection (IC-ICG) and eighteen subjects received intravenous ICG administration (IV-ICG). (3) Results: The groups were comparable with regard to their demographic and perioperative characteristics. The IV-ICG group had a significantly shorter overall operative time compared to the IC-ICG group (p = 0.017). IV-ICG was better at delineating the duodenum and the common hepatic duct compared to the IC-ICG method (p = 0.009 and p = 0.041, respectively). The cystic duct could be delineated pre-dissection in 76.5% and 66.7% of cases in the IC-ICG and IV-ICG group, respectively, and this increased to 88.2% and 83.3% after dissection. The common bile duct could be highlighted in 76.5% and 77.8% of cases in the IC-ICG and IV-ICG group, respectively. Liver fluorescence was present in one case in the IC-ICG group and in all cases after IV-ICG administration (5.8% versus 100%; p < 0.0001). (4) Conclusions: The present study demonstrates how ICG-fluorescence cholangiography can be helpful in identifying the extrahepatic biliary anatomy during dissection of Calot's triangle in both administration methods. In comparison with intravenous ICG injection, the intracholecystic ICG route could provide a better signal-to-background ratio by avoiding hepatic fluorescence, thus increasing the bile duct-to-liver contrast.

Robotic pancreatic surgery: minimally invasive approach to challenging operations.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic surgery is still associated with high perioperative morbidity and mortality. The purpose of this study was to present the short-term outcomes of robot-assisted pancreatic surgery, including pancreaticoduodenectomy (RAPD), distal pancreatectomy (RDP) with or without splenectomy, enucleation (REN), and atypical resection (RAR), for benign, borderline, and malignant lesions at a high-volume center. METHODS: A single-center, prospective database was used to retrospectively analyze the early outcomes of robotic pancreatic procedures completed between 2014 and 2020. Out of 124 attempted operations, 3 patients received palliative robotic surgery (2.4%). Of the remaining 121, 14 (11.6%) were converted to open surgery. The robotic procedures included 107 patients: 56 underwent RAPD, 31 underwent RDP (28 with and 3 without splenectomy), 16 underwent REN, and 4 underwent RAR (2 central and 2 total pancreatectomies). RESULTS: The preoperative baseline characteristics and comorbidities were consistent with those of a Western population. The overall incidence of complications was 43.9%, with the more severe (Clavien-Dindo III-IV) occurring after RAPD (19.6%). We collected 7 (13.1%) postoperative pancreatic fistulae after RAPD, 5 (16.1%) after RADP, and 2 (12.5%) after REN. The two central pancreatectomies developed a biochemical leak without sequelae. Three patients (2.8%) died within 90 days after surgery. Early refeeding was achieved in those who did not experience severe complications, while the median hospital stay was 8 days. The median number of harvested lymph nodes was 22, with non-R1 microscopic residual tumors found. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic pancreatic surgery is a safe and oncologically adequate technique to manage benign and malignant diseases arising from the head, body, and tail of the pancreas.

Robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: Is there any difference for frail patients?

BACKGROUND: Old age and frailty are predictors of early postoperative results after pancreatic surgery. We analysed the results of robotic and open pancreatoduodenectomy in elderly and frail patients. METHODS: Data from the local robotic pancreatoduodenectomy database were reviewed and matched with those from open operations during the same period (2014-2020). Both old age and frailty were used to determine any correlation with postoperative outcomes. Elderly patients were defined as patients aged 70 years or more, while frailty was classified according to the validated modified Frailty Index. RESULTS: A total of 118 pancreatoduodenectomies were included in the analysis: 65 (55.1%) robotic and 53 (44.9%) open. More than 50% of patients were frail. Overall, 7.6% of patients experienced grade IV Clavien-Dindo complications, and 3.4% died within 90 days after surgery. Frail patients experienced a similar rate of severe complications after robotic vs. open operations (5.3 vs. 11.6; p = 0.439) but earlier refeeding (3 days vs. 4 days; p = 0.006) and earlier drain removal (6 days vs. 7 days; p = 0.046) when operated on by a robotic approach. The oncological outcomes, including limphnodes retrieval, residual disease, recurrences, and survival, were not influenced by the surgical approach. Non-elderly patients also showed more benefits with the robotic approach (lower complication index, earlier refeeding, and drain removal). CONCLUSIONS: Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy is associated with risks of major complications that are comparable to those of open operation in frail patients. Some perioperative parameters (refeeding, drain removal) seem to favour robotics in frail patients and younger patients, although at the price of longer operating times.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Partial Mesorectal Excision for Cancer of the High Rectum: A Single-Center Study with Propensity Score Matching Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The role of robotic surgery for partial mesorectal excision (PME) in patients with high rectal cancer (RC) remains unexplored. This study aimed to compare the operative and postoperative outcomes of robotic (R-PME) versus laparoscopic (L-PME) PME for high RC. METHODS: This was a single-center propensity score cohort study of consecutive patients diagnosed with RC in the high rectum (>10 to 15 cm from the anal verge) who underwent surgery between September 2012 and May 2019. RESULTS: Of 131 selected patients (50 R-PME and 81 L-PME), 88 were matched using propensity score (44 per group). Operative and postoperative variables were similar between R-PME and L-PME patients, except for operative time (220 min and 190 min, respectively; p < 0.0001). No conversion was needed. Overall morbidity was 15.9%; 4 patients (4.5%) developed anastomotic leakage. The mean hospital stay was 7.25 days for R-PME vs. 7.64 days for L-PME (p = 0.597). R0 resection was achieved in 100% of R-PME and 90.9% of L-PME (p = 0.116). Only 3 patients (1 R-PME, 2 L-PME) received a permanent stoma (p = 1). No group differences were observed for overall or disease-free survival rates at 5 years. The costs of R-PME were significantly higher than those of L-PME. CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive surgery can be performed safely for PME in high RC. No difference can be detected between R-PME and L-PME for both short- and long-term outcomes, leaving the choice of the surgical approach to the surgeon's experience. Specific health economic studies are needed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of robotic surgery for RC.