Multicenter retrospective cohort Italian study on elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed by the surgical residents.

PURPOSE: This retrospective multicenter cohort study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes (mortality rate, operative time, complications) of elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) when performed by a surgical resident in comparison to experienced consultant in the backdrop of Italian academic centers. METHODS: Retrospective review of all patients undergoing elective LC between January 2016 and January 2022 at six teaching hospitals across Italy was performed. Cases were identified using the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code 5123 (LC without cholangiogram). All cases of emergency surgery, ASA score > 3, or when cholecystectomy was performed with another surgical procedure, were excluded. All suitable cases were divided into 2 groups based on primary surgeon: consultant or senior resident. Main outcome was complication rates (intraoperative and peri/postoperative); secondary outcomes included operative time, the length of stay, and the rate of conversion to open. RESULTS: A total of 2331 cases (1425 females) were included, of which, consultants performed 1683 LCs (72%), while the residents performed 648 (28%) surgeries. The groups were statistically comparable regarding demographics, history of previous abdominal surgery, operative time, or intraoperative complications. The rate of conversion to open cholecystectomy was 1.42% for consultant and none for resident (p = 0.02). A statistically significant difference was observed between groups regarding the average length of stay (2.2 ± 3 vs 1.6 ± 1.3 days p = 0.03). Similarly, postoperative complications (1.7% vs 0.5%) resulted in statistically significant (p = 0.02) favoring resident group. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that in selected patients, senior residents can safely perform LC when supervised by senior staff surgeons.

Colorectal cancer after bariatric surgery (Cric-Abs 2020): Sicob (Italian society of obesity surgery) endorsed national survey.

BACKGROUND: The published colorectal cancer (CRC) outcomes after bariatric surgery (BS) are conflicting, with some anecdotal studies reporting increased risks. The present nationwide survey CRIC-ABS 2020 (Colo-Rectal Cancer Incidence-After Bariatric Surgery-2020), endorsed by the Italian Society of Obesity Surgery (SICOB), aims to report its incidence in Italy after BS, comparing the two commonest laparoscopic procedures-Sleeve Gastrectomy (SG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (GBP). METHODS: Two online questionnaires-first having 11 questions on SG/GBP frequency with a follow-up of 5-10 years, and the second containing 15 questions on CRC incidence and management, were administered to 53 referral bariatric, high volume centers. A standardized incidence ratio (SIR-a ratio of the observed number of cases to the expected number) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was calculated along with CRC incidence risk computation for baseline characteristics. RESULTS: Data for 20,571 patients from 34 (63%) centers between 2010 and 2015 were collected, of which 14,431 had SG (70%) and 6140 GBP (30%). 22 patients (0.10%, mean age = 53 ± 12 years, 13 males), SG: 12 and GBP: 10, developed CRC after 4.3 ± 2.3 years. Overall incidence was higher among males for both groups (SG: 0.15% vs 0.05%; GBP: 0.35% vs 0.09%) and the GBP cohort having slightly older patients. The right colon was most affected (n = 13) and SIR categorized/sex had fewer values < 1, except for GBP males (SIR = 1.07). CONCLUSION: Low CRC incidence after BS at 10 years (0.10%), and no difference between procedures was seen, suggesting that BS does not trigger the neoplasm development.

Comparison of pure lateral and oblique lateral inter-body fusion for treatment of lumbar degenerative disk disease: a multicentric cohort study.

PURPOSE: The most effective interbody fusion technique for degenerative disk disease (DDD) is still controversial. The purpose of our study is to compare pure lateral (LLIF) and oblique lateral (OLIF) approaches for the treatment of lumbar DDD from L1-L2 to L4-L5, in terms of clinical and radiological outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 45 patients underwent lumbar interbody fusion for pure lumbar DDD from  L1-L2 to L4-L5 through LLIF (n = 31, mean age 62.1 years, range 45-78 years) or OLIF (n = 14, mean age 57.4 years, range 47-77 years). Clinical evaluations were performed with ODI and SF-36 tests. Radiological assessment was based on the modification of coronal segmental Cobb angles and segmental lumbar lordosis (L1-S1). RESULTS: On ODI and SF-36, all patients presented good results at follow-up, with 26% the difference between the LIF and OLIF groups on ODI scale in the post-operative period, and 3.9 and 8.8 points difference on physical and mental SF-36 in favor of OLIF. Radiological parameters improved significantly in both groups. The mean correction was 6.25° for cCobb (11.3° in LIF and 1.9° in OLIF), 2.5° for sLL (2° in LLIF and 4° in OLIF). CONCLUSIONS: LLIF and OLIF represent safe and effective MIS procedures for the treatment of lumbar DDD. LLIF had some risks of motor deficit and monitoring is mandatory, though it addressed more the coronal deformities. OLIF did not imply risks for motor deficits, but attention should be paid to vascular anatomy. It was more effective in kyphotic segmental deformities. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary material.