Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
1.
Surg Endosc ; 32(8): 3562-3569, 2018 08.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29396754

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Benefits and cost-effectiveness of robotic approach for distal pancreatectomy (DP) remain debated. In this prospective study, we aim to compare the short-term results and real costs of robotic (RDP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP). METHODS: From 2011 until 2016, all consecutive patients underwent minimally invasive DP were included and data were prospectively collected. Patients were assigned in two groups, RDP and LDP, according to the availability of the Da Vinci® Surgical System for our Surgical Unit. RESULTS: A minimally invasive DP was performed in 38 patients with a median age of 61 years old (44-83 years old) and a BMI of 26 kg/m2 (20-31 kg/m2). RDP group (n = 15) and LDP group (n = 23) were comparable concerning demographic data, BMI, ASA score, comorbidities, malignant lesions, lesion size, and indication of spleen preservation. Median operative time was longer in RDP (207 min) compared to LDP (187 min) (p = 0.047). Conversion rate, spleen preservation failure, and perioperative transfusion rates were nil in both groups. Pancreatic fistula was diagnosed in 40 and 43% (p = 0.832) of patients and was grade A in 83 and 80% (p = 1.000) in RDP and LDP groups, respectively. Median postoperative hospital stay was similar in both groups (RDP: 8 days vs. LDP: 9 days, p = 0.310). Major complication occurred in 7% in RDP group and 13% in LDP group (p = 1.000). Ninety-days mortality was nil in both groups. No difference was found concerning R0 resection rate and median number of retrieved lymph nodes. Total cost of RDP was higher than LDP (13611 vs. 12509 €, p < 0.001). The difference between mean hospital incomes and costs was negative in RDP group contrary to LDP group (- 1269 vs. 1395 €, p = 0.040). CONCLUSION: Short-term results of RDP seem to be similar to LDP but the high cost of RDP makes this approach not cost-effective actually.


Asunto(s)
Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Costos de Hospital/estadística & datos numéricos , Laparoscopía/métodos , Pancreatectomía/métodos , Enfermedades Pancreáticas/cirugía , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Robotizados/métodos , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Femenino , Francia , Humanos , Laparoscopía/economía , Tiempo de Internación/economía , Tiempo de Internación/estadística & datos numéricos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Tempo Operativo , Pancreatectomía/economía , Enfermedades Pancreáticas/economía , Estudios Prospectivos , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Robotizados/economía , Resultado del Tratamiento
2.
Dig Liver Dis ; 48(7): 812-6, 2016 Jul.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27130912

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Peristomal hernia (PH) is a common complication of colostomy. It often leads to a decrease in the patient's quality of life. Surgical procedures for PH are difficult and present high failure and morbidity rates. This randomized, double blind, multicentre trial was conducted to determine the benefits and risks of mesh reinforcement vs conventional stoma formation in preventing PH. METHODS: 200 patients undergoing a permanent end colostomy are randomized into two groups. In the mesh group an end-colostomy is created inserting a lightweight (<50g/m(2)) monofilament mesh in a sublay location, and compared to a group with traditional stoma creation. The presence or absence of a PH is determined by another practitioner by clinical exam and by a CT scan or MRI after 24 months of follow-up. 19 university hospitals participate during a 3-year inclusion period. The primary endpoint is the comparison of the PH incidence. To find a difference of 20% with a power of 80% a total number of 174 patients must be included. CONCLUSION: This GRECCAR study is a multicentre, double blind, and randomized trial conducted to determine whether a preventive insertion of a prosthetic mesh decreases the incidence of a PH with an acceptable morbidity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01380860.


Asunto(s)
Neoplasias Colorrectales/cirugía , Colostomía/efectos adversos , Hernia/prevención & control , Prevención Primaria/métodos , Mallas Quirúrgicas , Estomas Quirúrgicos , Método Doble Ciego , Femenino , Francia , Humanos , Incidencia , Imagen por Resonancia Magnética , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Complicaciones Posoperatorias , Calidad de Vida , Tomografía Computarizada por Rayos X , Resultado del Tratamiento
3.
J Gastrointest Surg ; 17(8): 1512-5, 2013 Aug.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23371309

RESUMEN

Arterial revascularization during liver transplantation is normally achieved by anastomosing the graft hepatic artery to the largest artery available at the recipient pedicle--either the common hepatic artery (CHA) or an accessory right hepatic artery (RHA) originating from the superior mesenteric artery (SMA). When a small caliber RHA is present, the artery is ligated and a single anastomosis with the CHA is performed. In the absence of a vascular reconstruction of the graft, the gastroduodenal artery is usually ligated as well. In this article, we describe a new type of arterial anastomosis in the case of a small accessory RHA and/or severe graft hepatic artery atherosclerosis that is commonly seen in elderly donors. To our knowledge, these are the first cases reported in the literature. This technique can be easily performed without increasing the arterial revascularization time or increasing the risk of complications associated with arteriosclerotic arteries. A 12-month follow-up revealed excellent function of the liver grafts.


Asunto(s)
Arteria Hepática/cirugía , Trasplante de Hígado/métodos , Anciano , Anastomosis Quirúrgica/métodos , Femenino , Humanos , Hígado/irrigación sanguínea , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA