Upfront laparotomy versus conversion from minimally invasive surgery to open surgery in colon cancer: Is there a difference in outcomes?

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether conversion from minimally invasive surgery to laparotomy in patients with colon cancer contributes to worse outcomes compared with those operated by laparotomy. In this study, we aimed to assess the implications of transitioning from minimally invasive surgery to laparotomy in patients with colon cancer compared with patients undergoing upfront laparotomy. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the National Cancer Database, including patients with stages I to III colon cancer (2010-2019). Patients who underwent either upfront laparotomy (Open Surgery Group) or minimally invasive surgery converted to open surgery (Converted Surgery Group) were included. Groups were balanced using propensity-score matching. Primary outcome was overall survival, and secondary outcomes included 30- and 90-day mortality and 30-day readmission rates. RESULTS: The study included 65,083 operated patients with stage I to III colon cancer; 57,091 patients (87.7%) were included in the Open Surgery group and 7,992 (12.3%) in the Converted Surgery group. 93.5% were converted from laparoscopy, and 6.5% were converted from robotic surgery. After propensity-score matching, 7,058 patients were included in each group. Median overall survival was significantly higher in the Converted Surgery group (107.3 months) than in the Open Surgery group (101.5 months; P = .006). A survival benefit was seen in patients >65 years of age (79.5 vs 71.9 months; P = .001), left-sided disease (129.4 vs 114.5 months; P < .001), and with a high Charlson comorbidity index score (=3; 58.9 vs 42.3 months; P = .03). Positive margin rates were similar between the groups (6.3% vs 5.6%; P = .07). Converted patients had a higher 30-day readmission rate (6.7% vs 5.6%, P = .006) and shorter duration of stay (median, 5 vs 6 days, P < .001) than patients in the Open Surgery group. In addition, 30-day mortality was comparable between the groups (2.9% vs 3.5%; P = .07). CONCLUSION: Conversion to open surgery from minimally invasive surgery was associated with better overall survival compared with upfront open surgery. A survival benefit was mainly seen in patients >65 years of age, with significant comorbidities, and with left-sided tumors. We believe these data suggest that, in the absence of an absolute contraindication to minimally invasive surgery, it should be the preferred approach in patients with colon cancer.

Open versus minimally invasive nephroureterectomy in octogenarians: An analysis of surgical approach trends, outcomes, and survival analysis with propensity matching.

INTRODUCTION: Upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) is a rare disease accounting only for 5%-10% of urothelial carcinoma (UC). For localized high-risk disease, radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) is the standard of care. While minimally invasive (MIS) RNU has not been shown to decisively improve overall survival (OS) compared to open surgery, MIS RNU has been associated with reduced hospital length of stay (LOS), blood transfusion requirements and improved recovery, which are important considerations when treating older patients. The purpose of this study is to examine trends in surgical approach selection and outcomes of open vs. MIS RNU in patients aged ≥80 years. METHODS: Using the National Cancer Database (NCDB), patients aged ≥80 years who underwent open or MIS (either robotic or laparoscopic) RNU were identified from 2010 to 2019. Demographic, patient-related, and disease-specific factors associated with either open or MIS RNU were assessed using multivariate logistic regression models. Survival analysis was conducted using Kaplan-Meier plots and Cox-proportional hazard regression. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was utilized to adjust for confounding variables. Survival analysis was also conducted on the IPTW adjusted cohort using Kaplan-Meier plots and Cox-proportional hazard regression. RESULTS: 5,687 patients were identified, with 1,431 (25.2%) and 4,256 (74.8%) patients undergoing open and MIS RNU respectively. The proportion of RNU performed robotically has increased from 12.5% in 2010 to 50.4% in 2019. MIS was associated with a shorter hospital LOS (4.7 days versus 5.9 days, SMD 23.7%). Multivariate analysis revealed that MIS was associated with a significant reduction in 90-day mortality (OR: 0.571; 95%CI: 0.34-0.96, P = 0.033) and improved median OS (53.8 months [95%CI: 50.9-56.9] vs 42.35 months [95%CI: 38.6-46.8], P < 0.001) compared to open surgery. IPTW-adjusted survival analysis revealed improved median OS with MIS when compared to open surgery, with a survival benefit of 46.1 months (95%CI: 40.2-52.4 months) versus 37.7 months (95%CI: 32.6-46.5 months, P = 0.0034) respectively. IPTW-adjusted cox proportional hazard analysis demonstrated that MIS was significantly associated with reduced mortality (HR 0.76, 95%CI: 0.66-0.87, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In octogenarians undergoing RNU, MIS is associated with improved median OS and 90-day mortality.

Minimally Invasive Compared With Open Hysterectomy in High-Risk Endometrial Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To compare disease-free survival between minimally invasive surgery and open surgery in patients with high-risk endometrial cancer. METHODS: We conducted a multicentric, propensity-matched study of patients with high-risk endometrial cancer who underwent hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, and staging between January 1999 and June 2016 at two centers. High-risk endometrial cancer included grade 3 endometrioid, serous, clear cell, undifferentiated carcinoma or carcinosarcoma with any myometrial invasion. Patients were categorized a priori into two groups based on surgical approach, propensity scores were calculated based on potential confounders and groups were matched 1:1 using nearest neighbor technique. Cox hazard regression analysis and Kaplan-Meier curves evaluated the association of surgical technique with survival. RESULTS: Of 626 eligible patients, 263 (42%) underwent minimally invasive surgery and 363 (58%) underwent open surgery. In the matched cohort, there were no differences in disease-free survival rates at 5 years between open (53.4% [95% CI 45.6-60.5%]) and minimally invasive surgery (54.6% [95% CI 46.6-61.8]; P=.82). Minimally invasive surgery was not associated with worse disease-free survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.85, 95% CI 0.63-1.16; P=.30), overall survival (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.73-1.48, P=.81), or recurrence rate (HR 0.99; 95% CI 0.69-1.44; P=.99) compared with open surgery. Use of uterine manipulator was not associated with worse disease-free survival (HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.65-1.58, P=.96), overall survival (HR 1.18, 95% CI 0.71-1.96, P=.53), or recurrence rate (HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.67-1.87; P=.66). CONCLUSION: There was no difference in oncologic outcomes comparing minimally invasive and open surgery among patients with high-risk endometrial cancer.

Long-term results after mitral valve surgery using minimally invasive versus sternotomy approach: a propensity matched comparison of a large single-center series.

BACKGROUND: Mitral valve (MV) surgery has traditionally been performed by conventional sternotomy (CS), but more recently minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has become another treatment option. The aim of this study is to compare short- and long-term results of MV surgery after CS and MIS. METHODS: This study was a retrospective propensity-matched analysis of MV operations between January 2005 and December 2015. RESULTS: Among 1357 patients, 496 underwent CS and 861 MIS. Matching resulted in 422 patients per group. The procedure time was longer with MIS than CS (192 vs. 185 min; p = 0.002) as was cardiopulmonary bypass time (133 vs. 101 min; p < 0.001) and X-clamp time (80 vs. 71 min; p < 0.001). 'Short-term' successful valve repair was higher with MIS (96.0% vs. 76.0%, p < 0.001). Length of hospital stay was shorter in MIS than CS patients (10 vs. 11 days; p = 0.001). There was no difference in the overall 30-day mortality rate. Cardiovascular death was lower after MIS (1.2%) compared with CS (3.8%; OR 0.30; 95%CI 0.11-0.84). The difference did not remain significant after adjustment for procedural differences (aOR 0.40; 95%CI 0.13-1.25). Pacemaker was required less often after MIS (3.3%) than CS (11.2%; aOR 0.31; 95%CI 0.16-0.61), and acute renal failure was less common (2.1% vs. 11.9%; aOR 0.22; 95%CI 0.10-0.48). There were no significant differences with respect to rates of stroke, myocardial infarction or repeat MV surgery. The 7-year survival rate was significantly better after MIS (88.5%) than CS (74.8%; aHR 0.44, 95%CI 0.31-0.64). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that good results for MV surgery can be obtained with MIS, achieving a high MV repair rate, low peri-procedural morbidity and mortality, and improved long-term survival.

Comparison between short and long-term outcomes after minimally invasive versus open primary liver resections for hepatocellular carcinoma: A 1:1 matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of patients undergoing minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) versus open liver resection (OLR) for nonrecurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: Review of 204 MILR and 755 OLR without previous LR performed between 2005 and 2018. 1:1 coarsened exact matching (CEM) and 1:1 propensity-score matching (PSM) were performed. RESULTS: Overall, 190 MILR were well-matched with 190 OLR by PSM and 86 MILR with 86 OLR by CEM according to patient baseline characteristics. After PSM and CEM, MILR was associated with a significantly longer operation time [230 min (interquartile range [IQR], 145-330) vs. 160 min (IQR, 125-210), p < .001] [215 min (IQR, 135-295) vs. 153.5 min (120-180), p < .001], shorter postoperative stay [4 days (IQR, 3-6) vs. 6 days (IQR, 5-8), p = .001)] [4 days (IQR, 3-5) vs. 6 days (IQR, 5-7), p = .004] and lower postoperative morbidity [40 (21%) vs. 67 (35.5%), p = .003] [16 (18.6%) vs. 27 (31.4%), p = .036] compared to OLR. MILR was also associated with a significantly longer median time to recurrence (70 vs. 40.3 months, p = .014) compared to OLR after PSM but not CEM. There was no significant difference in terms of overall survival and recurrence-free survival. CONCLUSION: MILR is associated with superior short-term postoperative outcomes and with at least equivalent long-term oncological outcomes compared to OLR for HCC.

Minimally Invasive Stabilization with or without Ablation for Metastatic Periacetabular Tumors.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic bone disease in the periacetabular region represents a potentially devastating problem for patients. Surgical treatment can offer pain relief and restore function. We describe a series of patients treated with minimally invasive osteoplasty and screw fixation with or without ablation. METHODS: Thirty-eight patients with 16 different metastatic tumor subtypes were managed with osteoplasty and screw fixation with or without ablation at a single institution. A retrospective review was performed to determine functional outcomes with use of the 1993 Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score as well as changes in narcotic usage. RESULTS: MSTS scores improved for all patients following surgery. Narcotic usage decreased in >80% of patients. Approximately half of the operations were outpatient procedures. Complications were minimal, there were no delays in chemotherapy or radiation due to surgical wound concerns, and there were no surgery-related deaths. The mean duration of follow-up was 9 months, with a 39% survival rate at the time of writing. Six of the 12 patients who survived for >1 year required additional procedures at a mean of 12 months (range, 4 to 23 months). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of periacetabular metastatic disease with minimally invasive stabilization with or without ablation provides pain relief and functional improvement with lower complication rates than previously reported open reconstruction techniques. The minimally invasive approach allows for rapid initiation of chemotherapy and radiation. Patients with particularly aggressive cancers that are poorly responsive to systemic therapies and radiation may have progression of disease and may require additional procedures. Conversion to total hip arthroplasty was uncomplicated, and the cement and screw constructs were retained, providing a stable base for the arthroplasty reconstruction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Does minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy increase the chance of a textbook oncologic outcome?

BACKGROUND: Textbook oncologic outcome has been described in an effort to improve upon traditional outcomes defining care after pancreaticoduodenectomy for adenocarcinoma. We sought to examine whether minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy increased the likelihood of an optimal textbook oncologic outcome. METHODS: Patients undergoing open pancreaticoduodenectomy or minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy between 2010 and 2015 were identified in the National Cancer Database. Textbook oncologic outcome was defined as R0 resection with American Joint Committee on Cancer compliant lymphadenectomy, no prolonged duration of stay, no 30-day readmission/mortality, and receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy. Propensity score matching was employed to evaluate adjusted rates of textbook oncologic outcome, in addition to overall survival. RESULTS: Among 12,854 patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy, 48.3% were female, and the median patient age was 66 years; 87.5% underwent open pancreaticoduodenectomy, and 12.5% underwent whether minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy. After propensity score matching, there were no noted differences in the likelihood of R0 resection, adequate lymphadenectomy, nonprolonged duration of stay, no readmission, no 30-day mortality, adjuvant chemotherapy, or textbook oncologic outcome among open pancreaticoduodenectomy versus minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (P > .05). Textbook oncologic outcome was associated with an improved median overall survival (negative textbook oncologic outcome: 21.3 months vs positive textbook oncologic outcome: 27.6 months, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Although textbook oncologic outcome was associated with a survival advantage, it was only achieved in 1 in 4 patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy for adenocarcinoma. Achievement of textbook oncologic outcome was equivalent among patients who underwent minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy compared with open pancreaticoduodenectomy after propensity score matching.

Minimal invasive versus open esophagectomy for patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma after neoadjuvant treatments.

BACKGROUND: Although previous studies have discussed whether the minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is superior to open surgery, the data concerning esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) patients underwent neoadjuvant treatment followed by radical resection is limited. The purpose of our study was to compare the short- and long-term clinical outcomes of the two surgical approaches in treating ESCC patients. METHODS: Between January 2010 and December 2016, ESCC patients who had received neoadjuvant therapy and underwent Mckeown esophagectomy at our institute were eligible. The baseline characteristics, pathological data, short-and long-term outcomes of these patients were collected and compared based on the surgical approach. RESULTS: A total of 195 patients was included in the current study. Compared to patients underwent open surgery, patients underwent MIE had shorter operative time and less intraoperative bleeding (390 min vs 330 min, P = 0.001; 204 ml vs 167 ml, P = 0.021). In addition, the risk of anastomotic leakage was decreased in MIE group (20.0% vs 3.3%, P < 0.001), while the occurrence of other complications did not have statistical significance between two groups. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) was no difference in patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy between the two approaches. For the patients underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, OS was significantly better in the MIE group (log rank = 6.197; P = 0.013). CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive Mckeown esophagectomy is safe and feasible for ESCC patients who underwent neoadjuvant therapy. MIE approach presented better perioperative results than open esophagectomy. The effect of surgical approaches on survival was depending on the scheme of neoadjuvant treatment.

Comparison of open and minimally invasive approaches to colon cancer resection in compliance with 12 regional lymph node harvest quality measure.

BACKGROUND: There has been a growing trend toward minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for colon cancer. Pathological analysis of a minimum of 12 lymph nodes (LNs) is a benchmark for adequate resection. Here, we present a comparison of surgical techniques in achieving a full oncologic resection. METHODS: Patients undergoing surgery for Stage I-III colon cancer (2010-2016) were identified from the National Cancer Database. Cases were stratified by surgical approach. Trends in approach were assessed, including whether the 12-LN benchmark was met. Uni- and multivariate regression was used to assess overall survival (OS). RESULTS: A total of 290,776 colectomies were analyzed. MIS increased from 32.8% to 57.2% from 2010 to 2016 (p < .001). An overall median of 18 LNs were harvested and compliance with the 12-LN benchmark increased (84.6%-91.6%, p < .001); there were no difference between open and MIS. A subset analysis comparing hospital type revealed that regardless of approach, compliance was lower at community hospitals (p < .001). OS was better for patients treated at academic or National Cancer Institute centers, underwent MIS, and in those meeting the 12-LN benchmark (all p ≤ .002). CONCLUSION: As MIS colon resections continue to increase, we demonstrate that there is no difference in the ability to achieve the 12-LN benchmark with open and MIS approaches.

Intracerebral Hemorrhage Volume Reduction and Timing of Intervention Versus Functional Benefit and Survival in the MISTIE III and STICH Trials.

BACKGROUND: The extent of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) removal conferred survival and functional benefits in the minimally invasive surgery with thrombolysis in intracerebral hemorrhage evacuation (MISTIE) III trial. It is unclear whether this similarly impacts outcome with craniotomy (open surgery) or whether timing from ictus to intervention influences outcome with either procedure. OBJECTIVE: To compare volume evacuation and timing of surgery in relation to outcomes in the MISTIE III and STICH (Surgical Trial in Intracerebral Hemorrhage) trials. METHODS: Postoperative scans were performed in STICH II, but not in STICH I; therefore, surgical MISTIE III cases with lobar hemorrhages (n = 84) were compared to STICH II all lobar cases (n = 259) for volumetric analyses. All MISTIE III surgical patients (n = 240) were compared to both STICH I and II (n = 722) surgical patients for timing analyses. These were investigated using cubic spline modeling and multivariate risk adjustment. RESULTS: End-of-treatment ICH volume ≤28.8 mL in MISTIE III and ≤30.0 mL in STICH II had increased probability of modified Rankin Scale (mRS) 0 to 3 at 180 d (P = .01 and P = .003, respectively). The effect in the MISTIE cohort remained significant after multivariate risk adjustments. Earlier surgery within 62 h of ictus had a lower probability of achieving an mRS 0 to 3 at 180 d with STICH I and II (P = .0004), but not with MISTIE III. This remained significant with multivariate risk adjustments. There was no impact of timing until intervention on mortality up to 47 h with either procedure. CONCLUSION: Thresholds of ICH removal influenced outcome with both procedures to a similar extent. There was a similar likelihood of achieving a good outcome with both procedures within a broad therapeutic time window.

Minimally invasive puncture versus conventional craniotomy for spontaneous supratentorial hemorrhage: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive puncture and conventional craniotomy are both utilized in the treatment of spontaneous supratentorial hemorrhage. The purpose of this study is to review evidence that compares the safety and effectiveness of these two techniques. METHODS: We searched EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and PubMed for studies published between 2000 and 2019 that compared the minimally invasive puncture procedure with the conventional craniotomy for the treatment of spontaneous supratentorial hemorrhage. RESULTS: Seven trials (2 randomized control trials and 5 observational studies) with a total of 970 patients were included. The odds ratio indicated a statistically significant difference between the minimally invasive puncture and conventional craniotomy in terms of good functional outcome (OR 2.36, 90% CI 1.24-4.49). The minimally invasive puncture procedure was associated with lower mortality rates (OR 0.61, 90% CI 0.44-0.85) and rebleeding rates (OR 0.48, 95%CI 0.24-0.99; P=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: The use of the minimally invasive puncture for the management of spontaneous supratentorial hemorrhage was associated with better functional outcome results, a lower mortality rate, and decreased rebleeding rates. However, because insufficient data has been published thus far, we need more robust evidence to provide a better guide for future management.

Uptake of minimally invasive surgery for early stage colorectal cancer and its effect on survival: A population-based study.

PURPOSE: The uptake of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for colorectal cancer (CRC) varies between jurisdictions. We aimed to identify the factors associated with the uptake of MIS for early-stage CRC and its oncologic outcomes in the Canadian province of Ontario. METHODS: This study includes all patients with CRC in Ontario from 2007 to 2017. A logistic regression analysis was used to identify the predictors of MIS and a flexible parametric survival model to estimate survival rates based on MIS versus open surgery. RESULTS: In total, 14,675 patients with CRC were identified of which 29.5% had MIS resections. The likelihood of undergoing MIS decreased with age, disease stage, and distance to the regional cancer center, and increased with year of diagnosis. The likelihood of mortality for MIS was significantly lower compared to open surgery (p < 0.001). In terms of survival, MIS was most beneficial to older patients with stage II disease, despite their lower likelihood of receiving MIS. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the lower uptake of MIS among older patients and patients with stage II disease, these patients had the greatest long-term survival benefit from MIS. This suggests further use of laparoscopy to patient populations that are often excluded.

Minimally invasive surgery vs laparotomy for early stage cervical cancer: A propensity score-matched cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the long-term oncologic outcomes of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) vs laparotomy for patients with stage IB (2018 FIGO) cervical cancer. METHODS: A matched retrospective study of cervical cancer patients who underwent MIS or laparotomy at Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center from January 2012 to December 2015 was carried out. Patients were restaged according to the 2018 FIGO staging system for cervical cancer, 700 cases with stage IB cervical cancer were enrolled. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed by software SPSS version 22.0, and a total of 426 patients were enrolled and analyzed. Oncologic outcomes were compared between patients undergoing MIS vs laparotomy. RESULTS: After PSM, there were no statistical differences in other baseline characteristics between MIS and laparotomy, except for age (p = 0.008). In all stage IB patients, MIS group had significantly lower disease-free survival (DFS) rate and overall survival (OS) rate compared with laparotomy group (5-year DFS rate, 87.5% vs 94.1%, hazard ratio for disease recurrence, 2.403; 95% CI, 1.216-4.744; 5-year OS rate, 92.3% vs 98.1%, hazard ratio for death, 3.719; 95% CI, 1.370-10.093). In stage IB1 patients population, MIS was still associated with worse DFS and OS compared to laparotomy (5-year DFS rate: 89.5% vs 100%, p = 0.012; 5-year OS rate: 93.4% vs 100%, p = 0.043). Even in stage IB1 patients without lymph vascular space invasion, worse oncologic outcome could be observed in MIS group (DFS: p = 0.021; OS: p = 0.076). CONCLUSION: Our study suggested that laparotomy resulted in better OS and DFS compared with MIS among patients with stage IB cervical cancer. Even in stage IB1 patients without lymph vascular space invasion (2018 FIGO), laparotomy might be still an oncologically safer approach.

Survival outcomes of single-port access laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer.

BACKGROUND: Emerging data from the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer trial (NCT00614211) suggested that minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for cervical cancer is correlated with worse survival outcomes than open surgery. This finding could be attributed to the different learning curves for laparoscopic surgery among surgeons. This study aimed to assess the feasibility, safety, and survival outcomes of single-port access (SPA) laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) for treating early cervical cancer. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients with early-stage cervical cancer who underwent SPA LRH between 2009 and 2018 performed by a single surgeon with expertise in SPA laparoscopy using conventional instrumentation and a homemade glove port system. RESULTS: Type C (93.2%) and B (6.8%) radical hysterectomy were performed in 59 women with cervical cancer classified as IA (3.4%), IB (94.9%), and IIA (1.7%). Forty-one patients (69.5%) had squamous cell carcinoma and 32 patients (52.5%) had tumors < 2 cm. The median operative time was 235 (125-382) minutes. There were no perioperative complications or cases of conversion to open surgery. Postoperative complications, including chylous ascites, low hemoglobin, lymphedema, and vault dehiscence, were observed in 5 patients (8.5%). Median follow-up time was 3.1 (0.6-8.6) years and 3 patients experienced recurrence (1 local and 2 distant failures). Five-year disease-free survival was 94.9% (56/59) and the 5-year overall survival rate was 98.3% (58/59). CONCLUSIONS: SPA LRH is feasible and safe for patients with early-stage cervical cancer when performed by experienced surgeons without compromising the radicality and oncologic outcomes.

Routine minimalist transcatheter aortic valve implantation with local anesthesia only.

AIMS: Conscious sedation instead of general anesthesia has been increasingly adopted in many centers for transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Improvement of materials and operators' experience and reduction of periprocedural complications allowed procedural simplification and adoption of a minimalist approach. With this study, we sought to assess the feasibility and safety of transfemoral TAVR routinely performed under local anesthesia without on-site anesthesiology support. METHODS: The routine transfemoral TAVR protocol adopted at our center includes a minimalist approach, local anesthesia alone with fully awake patient, anesthesiologist available on call but not in the room, and direct transfer to the cardiology ward after the procedure. All consecutive patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR between January 2015 and July 2018 were included. We assessed the rates of actual local anesthesia-only procedures, conversion to conscious sedation or general anesthesia and 30-day clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Among 321 patients, 6 received general anesthesia upfront and 315 (98.1%) local anesthesia only. Mean age of the local anesthesia group was 83.2 ±â€Š6.9 years, Society of Thoracic Surgery score 5.8 ±â€Š4.8%. A balloon-expandable valve was used in 65.7%. Four patients (1.3%) shifted to conscious sedation because of pain or anxiety; 6 patients (1.9%) shifted to general anesthesia because of procedural complications. Hence, local anesthesia alone was possible in 305 patients (96.8% of the intended cohort, 95% of all transfemoral procedures). At 30 days, in the intended local anesthesia group, mortality was 1.6%, stroke 0.6%, major vascular complications 2.6%. Median hospital stay was 4 days (IQR 3-7). CONCLUSION: Transfemoral TAVR can be safely performed with local anesthesia alone and without an on-site anesthesiologist in the vast majority of patients.

Effect of the surgical approach on survival outcomes in patients undergoing radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: A real-world multicenter study of a large Chinese cohort from 2006 to 2017.

OBJECTIVE: To compare survival outcomes of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and laparotomy in early-stage cervical cancer (CC) patients. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective cohort study was conducted with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO, 2009) stage IA1 (lymphovascular invasion)-IIA1 CC patients undergoing MIS or laparotomy at four tertiary hospitals from 2006 to 2017. Propensity score matching and weighting and multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed. Survival was compared in various matched cohorts and subgroups. RESULTS: Three thousand two hundred and fifty-two patients (2439 MIS and 813 laparotomy) were included after matching. (1) The 2- and 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) (2-year, hazard ratio [HR], 1.81;95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-3.0; 5-year, HR, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.21-3.89) or overall survival (OS) (2-year, HR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.03-3.40; 5-year, HR, 2.57; 95% CI, 1.29-5.10) were significantly worse for MIS in patients with stage I B1, but not the cohort overall (2-year RFS, HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.76-1.42; 2-year OS, HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.70-1.41; 5-year RFS, HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.76-1.65; 5-year OS, HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.79-1.83) or other stages (2) In a subgroup analysis, MIS exhibited poorer survival in many population subsets, even in patients with less risk factors, such as patients with squamous cell carcinoma, negative for parametrial involvement, with negative surgical margins, negative for lymph node metastasis, and deep stromal invasion < 2/3. (3) In the cohort treated with (2172, 54%) or without adjuvant treatment (1814, 46%), MIS showed worse RFS than laparotomy in patients treated without adjuvant treatment, whereas no differences in RFS and OS were observed in adjuvant-treatment cohort. (4) Inadequate surgeon proficiency strongly correlated with poor RFS and OS in patients receiving MIS compared with laparotomy. CONCLUSIONS: MIS exhibited poorer survival outcomes than laparotomy group in many population subsets, even in low-risk subgroups. Therefore, laparotomy should be the recommended approach for CC patients.

Risk factors for complications in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy: A NSQIP analysis with propensity score matching.

BACKGROUND: Reports on the safety of minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy compared to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) have demonstrated mixed results. One study comparing robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) vs OPD demonstrated decreased complications associated with RPD. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the morbidity of RPD vs OPD using a national data set. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study from 2014 to 2017. Factors associated with complications in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy were evaluated using multivariate logistic regression (MVA) and propensity score matching (PSM). RESULTS: Of 13 110 PDs performed over the study period, 12 612 (96.2%) were OPD and 498 (3.8%) were RPD. Patients who underwent RPD vs OPD were less likely to have any complications (46.8% vs 53.3%; P = .004), surgical complications (42.6% vs 48.6%; P = .008), wound complications (6.2% vs 9.1%; P = .029), clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistulas (11.9% vs 15.6%; P = .026), sepsis (6.2% vs 9.3%; P = .019), and pneumonia (1.6% vs 3.8%; P = .012). On MVA, OPD was associated with increased complications compared with RPD. On PSM analysis, OPD remained a significant predictor for any (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.03-1.61; P = .029) and surgical (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.00-1.58; P = .048) complications. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest multicenter study to evaluate the impact of RPD on morbidity and suggests RPD is associated with decreased morbidity.

How Safe Is Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Octogenarians?: A Perioperative Complication Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Technical advances in minimally invasive spine surgery have reduced blood loss, access trauma, and postoperative length of stay. However, operating on the susceptible group of octogenarians still poses a dilemma because of a plethora of age-related comorbidities. The aim of this study was to investigate the safety of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in octogenarians. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective single-center study of all patients over 80 years of age who, between March 2009 and February 2014, had undergone MIS TLIF. The primary outcome was recorded major and minor complications within 30 days of surgery. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients with an average age of 84.1 ± 2.7 years underwent MIS TLIF in 31 levels for degenerative lumbar disk disease with intolerable pain after failure of conservative treatment. Of the patients, 33.3% showed no perioperative complications. In the remaining 66.7%, 6 major complications and 24 minor complications occurred within 30 days of surgery. Two of these patients died within 30 days of surgery because of sepsis and pulmonary embolism (mortality rate 9.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Our study spotlighted the susceptible group of octogenarians and evaluated the safety of MIS TLIF. The perioperative morbidity for octogenarians undergoing MIS TLIF is substantial and even higher than for patients over 65 years of age. Two thirds of patients in this subgroup suffer at least 1 complication. The 30-day mortality rate was 9.5%. Therefore, it is advisable for these patients to exploit all available conservative options prior to surgery.

[Advantages of minimally invasive approach for carotid endarterectomy]. / Preimushchestva mini-dostupa pri karotidnoi éndarteréktomii.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the advantages and disadvantages of different approaches for carotid endarterectomy (conventional, longitudinal and transverse incision). MATERIAL AND METHODS: There were 58 patients who underwent carotid endarterectomy. Patients were divided into 2 groups depending on surgical approach. Group 1 (n=37) - minimal skin incision (less than 5 cm). There were subgroup 1A (transverse minimal skin incision along the natural skin wrinkle, n=17) and subgroup 1B (longitudinal minimal skin incision, n=20). Group 2 (n=21) - conventional longitudinal incision. Surgical outcomes were analyzed after 1 month and 1 year. End-points were mortality, stroke, TIA, cranial nerve neuropathy. Cosmetic effect was evaluated using POSAS scale (Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale, Draaijers, 2004). RESULTS: Mortality, stroke and TIA were absent after 1 month. Cranial nerve neuropathy was not observed in subgroup 1A and diagnosed in 2 (10%) patients of subgroup 1B and 6 (28.5%) patients of group 2. Cosmetic effect: subgroup 1A - 48.4±9.5 scores, subgroup 1B - 52.4±9.2, group 2 - 63.1±11.1 (p<0.05). The outcomes after 12 months: mortality was absent in subgroups 1A and 1B, 2 patients died in group 2 from AMI. Stroke was absent in subgroups 1A and 1B, group 2 - 1 patient. Cranial nerve neuropathy was absent in 1A and 1B subgroups and diagnosed in 4 (21%) patients of group 2. Cosmetic effect: subgroup 1A - 37.2 scores, subgroup 1B - 40.0 scores, group 2 - 55.1 scores. Physical component of QOL: subgroup 1A - 51.63±6.31 scores, subgroup 1B - 46.01±7.53 scores, group 2 - 38.85±5.33 scores. Psychological component of QOL: subgroup 1A - 49.64±6.72 scores, subgroup 1B - 45.68±5.63 scores, group 2 - 48.6±7.36 scores (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Transverse minimal skin incision for carotid endarterectomy is a safe alternative to classic longitudinal incision and reduces the risk of postoperative complications with significant cosmetic effect.