Long-Term Survival Outcomes After Minimally Invasive Surgery for Ileal Neuroendocrine Tumors.

BACKGROUND: Ileal neuroendocrine tumors (i-NETs) are characterized by their multifocality and bulky mesenteric mass. Having shown that minimally invasive surgery (MIS) utilizing a hand-access port device has favorable short-term outcomes and achieves the goals of surgery for i-NETs, we sought to analyze long-term survival outcomes of MIS. METHODS: One hundred and sixty-eight patients who underwent resection of primary i-NETs at a single institution between January 2007 and February 2023 were retrospectively studied. Patients were categorized into the MIS or open surgery cohorts on an intention-to-treat basis. Open surgery was selected mainly based on the need for hepatectomy or bulky mesenteric mass resection. Overall survival was analyzed using log-rank tests with propensity score matching (PSM) and Cox proportional hazards regression. PSM was performed to reduce standardized mean differences of the variables to <0.2. RESULTS: Overall, 129 (77%) patients underwent MIS and 39 (23%) underwent open surgery. Twenty-seven MIS patients were converted to an open procedure. The median follow-up time was 49 months (interquartile range 23-87 months). In the PSM cohorts, overall survival did not differ significantly between the MIS and open surgery cohorts {median 99 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 91-not applicable [NA]) vs. 103 months (95% CI 86-NA), p = 0.77; hazard ratio 0.87 (95% CI 0.33-2.2), p = 0.77}. CONCLUSIONS: MIS is an alternative to open surgery for i-NETs, achieving similar short- and long-term oncological outcomes. Bulky mesenteric mass and a plan for concurrent liver resection are potential criteria for open surgery.

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 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.

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.

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.

Outcomes After Minimally-invasive Versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy: A Pan-European Propensity Score Matched Study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess short-term outcomes after minimally invasive (laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and hybrid) pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) versus open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) among European centers. BACKGROUND: Current evidence on MIPD is based on national registries or single expert centers. International, matched studies comparing outcomes for MIPD and OPD are lacking. METHODS: Retrospective propensity score matched study comparing MIPD in 14 centers (7 countries) performing ≥10 MIPDs annually (2012-2017) versus OPD in 53 German/Dutch surgical registry centers performing ≥10 OPDs annually (2014-2017). Primary outcome was 30-day major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo ≥3). RESULTS: Of 4220 patients, 729/730 MIPDs (412 laparoscopic, 184 robot-assisted, and 130 hybrid) were matched to 729 OPDs. Median annual case-volume was 19 MIPDs (interquartile range, IQR 13-22), including the first MIPDs performed in 10/14 centers, and 31 OPDs (IQR 21-38). Major morbidity (28% vs 30%, P = 0.526), mortality (4.0% vs 3.3%, P = 0.576), percutaneous drainage (12% vs 12%, P = 0.809), reoperation (11% vs 13%, P = 0.329), and hospital stay (mean 17 vs 17 days, P > 0.99) were comparable between MIPD and OPD. Grade-B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) (23% vs 13%, P < 0.001) occurred more frequently after MIPD. Single-row pancreatojejunostomy was associated with POPF in MIPD (odds ratio, OR 2.95, P < 0.001), but not in OPD. Laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and hybrid MIPD had comparable major morbidity (27% vs 27% vs 35%), POPF (24% vs 19% vs 25%), and mortality (2.9% vs 5.2% vs 5.4%), with a fewer conversions in robot-assisted- versus laparoscopic MIPD (5% vs 26%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In the early experience of 14 European centers performing ≥10 MIPDs annually, no differences were found in major morbidity, mortality, and hospital stay between MIPD and OPD. The high rates of POPF and conversion, and the lack of superior outcomes (ie, hospital stay, morbidity) could indicate that more experience and higher annual MIPD volumes are needed.

Long-Term Survival after Minimally Invasive Versus Open Gastrectomy for Gastric Adenocarcinoma: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of Patients in the United States and China.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare the long-term survival of patients undergoing minimally invasive gastrectomy and those undergoing open gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma (GA) in the United States and China. METHODS: Data on patients with GA who underwent gastrectomy without neoadjuvant therapy were retrieved from prospectively maintained databases at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) and Fujian Medical University Union Hospital (FMUUH). Using propensity score-matching (PSM), equally sized cohorts of patients with similar clinical and pathologic characteristics who underwent minimally invasive versus open gastrectomy were selected. The primary end point of the study was 5-year overall survival (OS). RESULTS: The study identified 479 patients who underwent gastrectomy at MSKCC between 2000 and 2012 and 2935 patients who underwent gastrectomy at FMUUH between 2006 and 2014. Of the total 3432 patients, 1355 underwent minimally invasive gastrectomy, and 2059 underwent open gastrectomy. All the patients had at least 5 years of potential follow-up evaluation. Before PSM, most patient characteristics differed significantly between the patients undergoing the two types of surgery. After PSM, each cohort included 889 matched patients, and the actual 5-year OS did not differ significantly between the two cohorts, with an OS rate of 54% after minimally invasive gastrectomy and 50.4% after open gastrectomy (p = 0.205). Subgroup analysis confirmed that survival was similar between surgical cohorts among the patients for each stage of GA and for those undergoing distal versus total/proximal gastrectomy. In the multivariable analysis, surgical approach was not an independent prognostic factor. CONCLUSIONS: After PSM of U.S. and Chinese patients with GA undergoing gastrectomy, long-term survival did not differ significantly between the patients undergoing minimally invasive gastrectomy and those undergoing open gastrectomy.

Multicentre evaluation of case volume in minimally invasive hepatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Surgical outcomes may be associated with hospital volume and the influence of volume on minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) is not known. METHODS: Patients entered into the prospective registry of the Italian Group of MILS from 2014 to 2018 were considered. Only centres with an accrual period of at least 12 months and stable MILS activity during the enrolment period were included. Case volume was defined by the mean number of minimally invasive liver resections performed per month (MILS/month). RESULTS: A total of 2225 MILS operations were undertaken by 46 centres; nine centres performed more than two MILS/month (1376 patients) and 37 centres carried out two or fewer MILS/month (849 patients). The proportion of resections of anterolateral segments decreased with case volume, whereas that of major hepatectomies increased. Left lateral sectionectomies and resections of anterolateral segments had similar outcome in the two groups. Resections of posterosuperior segments and major hepatectomies had higher overall and severe morbidity rates in centres performing two or fewer MILS/month than in those undertaking a larger number (posterosuperior segments resections: overall morbidity 30·4 versus 18·7 per cent respectively, and severe morbidity 9·9 versus 4·0 per cent; left hepatectomy: 46 versus 22 per cent, and 19 versus 5 per cent; right hepatectomy: 42 versus 34 per cent, and 25 versus 15 per cent). CONCLUSION: A volume-outcome association existed for minimally invasive hepatectomy. Complex and major resections may be best managed in high-volume centres.

ANTECEDENTES: Los resultados quirúrgicos pueden estar relacionados con el volumen de casos del hospital, pero no se conoce la influencia en la cirugía mínimamente invasiva del hígado (minimally­invasive liver surgery, MILS). MÉTODOS: Se incluyeron los pacientes registrados en el registro prospectivo del grupo italiano de MILS desde 2014 a 2018. Solo se consideraron centros con extensión de ≥ 12 meses y actividad estable de MILS durante el periodo de reclutamiento. El volumen de casos se definió como el número de MILS efectuado por mes. RESULTADOS: Se llevaron a cabo un total de 2.225 MILS en 46 centros, 9 de ellos con > 2 MILS/mes (n = 1.376 pacientes) y 37 centros con ≤ 2 MILS/mes (n = 849). La proporción de resecciones de segmentos anterolaterales disminuyó con el volumen de casos, mientras que la proporción de hepatectomías mayores aumentó. Los resultados para ambos grupos fueron similares en las seccionectomías lateral izquierda y en las resecciones del segmento anterolateral. Las resecciones del segmento posterosuperior y las hepatectomías mayores presentaron tasas más altas de morbilidad global y morbilidad grave en centros que realizaban ≤ 2 MILS/mes que en los que realizaban > 2 MILS/mes (resecciones del segmento posterosuperior, morbilidad global 30,4 versus 18,7%, morbilidad grave 9,9 versus 4,0%; hepatectomía izquierda, 46,2 versus 22,0%, 19,2 versus 5,5%; hepatectomía derecha, 41,7 versus 33,8%, 25,0 versus 14.9%). CONCLUSIÓN: Se observó una asociación volumen­resultado para la resección hepática mínimamente invasiva. Las resecciones complejas y mayores se pueden manejar mejor en centros de gran volumen.

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.

Impact of minimally invasive gastrectomy on use of and time to adjuvant chemotherapy for gastric adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy improves outcomes in patients with resectable gastric cancer. Minimally invasive gastrectomy (MIS) rates are increasing, though the impact of MIS on postoperative chemotherapy remains uncertain. This study examines the impact of MIS vs open gastrectomy (OG) on utilization of adjuvant chemotherapy for high-risk gastric cancer. METHODS: Patients in the National Cancer Database who underwent resection for high-risk gastric adenocarcinoma between 2010 and 2015 were included. Patients were stratified by surgical approach (MIS vs OG) and analyzed using multivariable regression modeling. Primary endpoints were utilization of and time to initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy. RESULTS: Overall, 23 071 patients were included; 16 595 (71.9%) underwent OG and 6476 (28.1%) underwent MIS. After adjusting for patient and tumor characteristics, MIS was not associated with increased use of adjuvant chemotherapy (odds ratio [OR]: 1.027, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.95 to 1.11, P = .50), and time to initiation of chemotherapy was similar (-2% change, 95% CI: -5% to +1%, P = .27). MIS was associated with shorter hospital stays (-1 day). Thirty-day readmission rates, 90-day mortality, and overall survival were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, while MIS for gastric adenocarcinoma was associated with shorter hospital stays and comparable survival, it was not associated with improved utilization or time to initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy.

Minimally Invasive Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy (MILE): technique and outcomes of 100 consecutive cases.

BACKGROUND: Esophagectomy is the mainstay of therapy for esophageal cancer but is a complex operation that is associated with significantly high morbidity and mortality rates. The primary aim of this study is to report our perioperative outcomes, and long-term survival of Minimally Invasive Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy (MILE). METHODS: IRB approved retrospective study of 100 consecutive patients who underwent elective MILE from September 2013 to November 2017 at University of Florida, Jacksonville. RESULTS: Primary diagnosis was esophageal cancer (n = 96) and benign esophageal disease (n = 4). Anastomotic leak rate was observed in 6%; 30- and 90-day mortality rates were 2% and 3%, respectively. The mean length of hospital stay was 10.3 days; 87 patients were discharged to home, while 12 patients were discharged to rehabilitation facility, and there was one in-hospital mortality secondary to graft necrosis. At a mean follow-up was 37 months (2-74), the 3- and 5-year overall survivals are 63.9 ± 5.0% (95% CI 53.3-72.7%) and 60.5 ± 5.3% (95% CI 49.4-69.9%), respectively. The 3- and 5-year disease-free survival is 75.0 ± 4.8% (95% CI 64.2-83.0%) and 70.4 ± 5.5% (95% CI 58.0-80.0%). CONCLUSION: MILE can be performed with low perioperative mortality, and favorable long-term overall and disease-free survival.

Prospective longitudinal cohort study of patient recovery after major gastrointestinal surgery: is there a difference between minimally invasive and open approaches?

BACKGROUND: Surgeons use the absence of post-operative complications to define recovery while patients define recovery as return to normal function. We aimed to better define the recovery process after minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open gastrointestinal surgery. METHODS: Patients scheduled for open or MIS pancreaticoduodenectomy, esophagectomy, colectomy, and proctectomy were prospectively enrolled. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were collected using validated PROMIS and LASA scales pre-operatively, on post-operative days 2, 7, 14, 30, and monthly until 6 months. Patients were also asked if they felt fully recovered. Descriptive statistics and area under the curve (AUC) were used to compare approaches. Multivariable mixed-effects repeated measures models and logistic regression were used to control for covariates. RESULTS: 340 patients met inclusion criteria (158 open and 182 MIS). Median age was 60 years with 44% women. The PRO showed improved post-operative QOL scores in MIS compared to open on all measures by AUC. None of these difference persisted at 6-months. After adjusting for covariates, MIS had higher overall QOL scores at day 14 (Estimate + 0.58, p = 0.02) and 30 (+ 0.56, p = 0.03). Differences did not persist at 3 and 6 months (both p > 0.05). At 1, 3, and 6 months, 20%, 47%, and 61% of patients reported feeling completely recovered. On adjusted analysis there was no difference in odds of complete recovery in MIS at 1 (OR 1.07 [95% CI 0.53-2.14] and 3 months (1.12 [0.63-2.01]) compared to open. MIS patients were more likely to report complete recovery at 6 months (1.87 [1.05-3.33]). CONCLUSION: MIS patients reported improved PRO on selected QOL measures early in the recovery period compared to open. There was no difference in long-term QOL data between MIS and open patients. Two-thirds (61%) of patients reported being fully recovered at 6 months with MIS patients being more likely to report a complete recovery.

Use of minimally invasive surgery in emergency general surgery procedures.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has demonstrated superior outcomes in many elective procedures. However, its use in emergency general surgery (EGS) procedures is not well characterized. The purpose of this study was to examine the trends in utilization and outcomes of MIS techniques in EGS over the past decade. METHODS: The 2007-2016 ACS-NSQIP database was utilized to identify patients undergoing emergency surgery for four common EGS diagnoses: appendicitis, cholecystitis/cholangitis, peptic ulcer disease, and small bowel obstruction. Trends over time were described. Preoperative risk factors, operative characteristics, outcomes, morbidity, and trends were compared between MIS and open approaches using univariate and multivariate analysis. RESULTS: During the 10-year study period, 190,264 patients were identified. The appendicitis group was the largest (166,559 patients) followed by gallbladder disease (9994), bowel obstruction (6256), and peptic ulcer disease (366). Utilization of MIS increased over time in all groups (p < 0.001). There was a concurrent decrease in mean days of hospitalization in each group: appendectomy (2.4 to 2.0), cholecystectomy (5.7 to 3.2), peptic ulcer disease (20.3 to 11.7), and bowel obstruction (12.9 to 10.5); p < 0.001 for all. On multivariate analysis, use of MIS techniques was associated with decreased odds of 30-day mortality, surgical site infection, and length of hospital stay in all groups (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Use of MIS techniques in these four EGS diagnoses has increased in frequency over the past 10 years. When adjusted for preoperative risk factors, use of MIS was associated with decreased odds of wound infection, death, and length of stay. Further studies are needed to determine if increased access to MIS techniques among EGS patients may improve outcomes.

Mortality Rates in Benign Laparoscopic and Robotic Gynecologic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To review mortality rates in benign gynecologic minimally invasive laparoscopic and robotic surgery (MIS) and the rates associated with commonly performed MIS procedures. DATA SOURCES: An electronic-based search was performed on PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database for articles published in the last 10 years in English, French, German, Spanish, and Italian. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: All MIS articles in benign gynecology reporting operative mortality (within 30 days) were reviewed. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: The articles identified through the aforementioned search criteria were independently evaluated by the first 2 authors. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale for observational studies and Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool for randomized controlled trials were used to assess the risk of bias. Meta-analysis was applied to calculate pooled mortality rates using the inverse-variance method. Twenty-one articles (124 216 patients) were included. Operative mortality from any benign MIS (laparoscopy and robotics) procedure was 1:6456 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1:3946-1:10 562). Studies were then grouped based on the surgical procedure. The mortality rate for hysterectomy (119 721 patients), sacrocolpopexy, and adnexal surgery and diagnostic laparoscopy was 1:6814 (95% CI: 1:4119-1:11 275), 1:1246 (95% CI: 1:36-1:44 700), and 1:2245 (95% CI: 1:45-1:113 372), respectively. Eighteen articles reported operative mortality for laparoscopic surgery and 4 for robotic surgery. CONCLUSION: Operative mortality in benign minimally invasive gynecologic surgery is low, and mortality for laparoscopic and robotic approaches appears to be similar.

[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.

Oncologic Outcomes of Self-Expandable Metallic Stent as a Bridge to Surgery and Safety and Feasibility of Minimally Invasive Surgery for Acute Malignant Colonic Obstruction.

BACKGROUND: Although self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) are widely used as a bridge to surgery (BTS) in patients with malignant colorectal cancer obstruction, there has been some debate about their effect on long-term oncological outcomes. Furthermore, data on the safety and feasibility of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) combined with stent placement are scarce. We aimed to determine the long-term oncological outcomes of SEMS as a BTS, and the short-term outcomes of SEMS used with minimally invasive colorectal surgery. METHODS: Data from patients who were admitted with malignant obstructing colon cancer between January 2006 and December 2015 were retrospectively reviewed; 71 patients underwent direct surgery and 182 patients underwent SEMS placement as a BTS. Long-term and short-term outcomes of the groups were compared. In a subgroup analysis of the BTS group, the short-term outcomes of conventional open surgery and MIS were compared. RESULTS: There were no differences in long-term oncologic outcomes between groups. The primary anastomosis rate was higher in the stent group than in the direct surgery group. In the stent group, postoperative complication rates were lower in the minimally invasive group than in the open surgery group. Time to flatus and time to soft diet resumption were shorter in the minimally invasive group, as was length of hospital stay. CONCLUSIONS: Elective surgery after stent insertion does not adversely affect long-term oncologic outcomes. Furthermore, MIS combined with stent insertion for malignant colonic obstruction is safe and feasible.

Quality Improvement in Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: Outcome Improvement Through Data Review.

BACKGROUND: Esophagectomy is a complex operation in which outcomes are profoundly influenced by operative experience and volume. We report the effects of experience and innovation on outcomes in minimally invasive esophagectomy. METHODS: Esophageal resections for cancer from 2007 to 2016 at Levine Cancer Institute at Carolinas Medical Center (Charlotte, NC) were reviewed. During this time, three changes in technique were made to improve outcomes: vascular evaluation of the gastric conduit to improve anastomotic healing (beginning at case #63), one-stage approach to permit access to abdomen and chest through one draped surgical field (case #82), and adoption of a lung-protective anesthetic protocol (case #101). Mortality, operative time, complications, and length of stay were analyzed relative to these interventions using GLM regression. RESULTS: 200 patients underwent minimally invasive esophagectomy. There were no mortalities at 30 days, and no change in mortality rate at 60 and 90 days. Anastomotic leak decreased significantly after the introduction of intraoperative vascular evaluation of the gastric conduit (3.6 vs 19.4%). Operative time decreased with adoption of a one-stage approach (416 vs 536 min). Pulmonary complications decreased coincident with a change in anesthetic technique (pneumonia 6 vs 28%). Lymph node harvest increased over time. Length of stay was driven primarily by complications and decreased with operative experience. CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative complications, operative time, and length of stay decreased with case experience and alterations in surgical and anesthetic technique. We believe that adoption of the techniques and technology described herein can reduce complications, reduce hospital stay, and improve patient outcomes.

Outcomes of Open Versus Minimally Invasive Ivor-Lewis Esophagectomy for Cancer: A Propensity-Score Matched Analysis of NSQIP Database.

INTRODUCTION: We conducted this analysis to compare the outcomes of open transthoracic esophagectomy (OTTE) and minimally invasive transthoracic esophagectomy (MITTE) when performed for oncologic indications. METHODS: The NSQIP esophagectomy-targeted database during 2-year period was used. Only patients who underwent elective TTE for oncologic indications were included. Patients were matched per a propensity score for the likelihood of receiving OTTE versus MITTE. RESULTS: Overall, 2098 esophagectomies were reported; 576 met the inclusion criteria. A total of 161 purely OTTE patients were matched 1:1 with patients who received purely MITTE. OTTE was associated with higher reported rates of abdominal and mediastinal lymphadenectomies (LAD) (26.7% vs. 3.1% and 38.5% vs. 16.1%, respectively; p < 0.001) and had shorter mean operative time (329 vs. 414 min; p < 0.001). However, OTTE patients had higher rates of wound infection (7.5% vs. 1.9%), longer median hospitalization (10 vs. 8 days), more non-home discharges (18.0 vs. 8.1%), and a tendency toward higher rates of postoperative transfusion (13.0% vs. 6.8%; p = 0.092). The overall complications rate was higher in OTTE (46.0% vs. 33.5%; p = 0.028). No difference was noted in the rates of anastomotic leak, negative margins, reoperation, readmission, or mortality. Laparoscopic versus robotic approaches were uniformly comparable, except for higher rates of reported abdominal LAD in laparoscopic and higher rates of reported mediastinal LAD in robotic approach. CONCLUSIONS: MITTE is comparable to OTTE for oncologic indications in immediate postoperative outcomes. A concern is raised regarding the oncologic outcome given the lower reported rates of lymphadenectomies. Comparison of long-term outcomes is essential to address this concern.

The cost of endoscopic treatment for walled-off pancreatic necrosis.

BACKGROUND: Use of minimally invasive techniques has reduced mortality in walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WON) but may be costly. The aim of this study was to evaluate the actual costs associated with the endoscopic management of patients with WON. METHODS: We included a retrospective cohort of WON patients treated with endoscopic, transgastric drainage and necrosectomy (ETDN) during 2013-2014. Costs were calculated for six sub-areas based on a micro-costing model. Students T-test and non-parametric analysis of variance were performed to evaluate costs in relation to disease etiology and outcome. RESULTS: We included 58 patients (50% men, median age 57 years). The most common etiologies were gallstones (57%) and alcohol (19%). Nine patients (16%) died during admission. The median length of stay was 50 days (IQR 31 days). Eighteen patients (31%) needed treatment in our intensive care unit with a median length of stay of 16 days (IQR 31 days). The mean costs and standard deviation of costs (SD) per patient were: diagnostic imaging $2,431 ($2,301), laboratory tests $3,579 ($2,477), blood products $982 ($1,734), endoscopic treatment $3,794 ($1,777), medicine $5,440 ($6,656), and ward cost $41,260 ($35,854). The mean total cost was $57,486 ($46,739). Post-ERCP pancreatitis and mortality predicted higher costs. CONCLUSIONS: This study sheds light on the different costs associated with endoscopic treatment of WON. As nearly three quarters of the costs are related to ward care, initiatives aimed at reducing the length of hospital stay may have a great impact on making endoscopic treatment more cost effective.

Comparison of survival outcomes between minimally invasive surgery and conventional open surgery for radical hysterectomy as primary treatment in patients with stage IB1-IIA2 cervical cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To compare survival outcomes of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and conventional open surgery for radical hysterectomy (RH) among patients with early-stage cervical cancer (CC). METHODS: We retrospectively identified stage IB1-IIA2 CC patients who underwent either laparoscopic or open Type C RH between 2000 and 2018. Patients' clinicopathologic characteristics and survival outcomes were compared according to the surgical approach. For a more robust statistical analysis, we narrowed the study population down to the patients with stage IB1 who underwent pre-operative MRI. RESULTS: In total, 435 and 158 patients were assigned to open surgery and MIS groups, respectively. MIS group had significantly less parametrial invasion (6.3% vs. 15.4%; P = 0.004). Despite similar proportions of patients received adjuvant treatment, concurrent chemoradiation therapy was performed less frequently in MIS group. After a median follow up of 114.8 months, the groups showed similar overall survival; however, MIS group displayed poorer progression-free survival (PFS; 5-year rate, 78.5% vs. 89.7%; P < 0.001). Multivariate analyses identified MIS as an independent poor prognostic factor for PFS (adjusted HR, 2.883; 95% CI, 1.711-4.859; P < 0.001). Consistent results were observed among 349 patients with stage IB1: MIS was associated with higher recurrence rates (adjusted HR, 2.276; 95% CI, 1.039-4.986; P = 0.040). However, MIS did not influence PFS of stage IB1 patients with cervical mass size ≤2 cm on pre-operative MRI (adjusted HR, 1.146; 95% CI, 0.278-4.724; P = 0.850). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, MIS RH was associated with higher recurrence rates than open RH in patients with early-stage CC. However, MIS was not a poor prognostic factor among those with stage IB1 and cervical mass size ≤2 cm on pre-operative MRI.