Is robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for pelvic floor disorders better than laparoscopic approach at the beginning of the experience? A retrospective single-center study.

PURPOSE: To compare perioperative results of laparoscopic and robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for pelvic floor disorders at the beginning of the surgical experience. METHODS: Between 2017 and 2022, the first 30 laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexies and the first 30 robotic ventral mesh rectopexies at the beginning of the experience of 2 surgeons were retrospectively analyzed. Perioperative (demographic characteristics, surgical indication, conversion rate, operative time), and postoperative (complications, length of stay, unplanned reintervention) data were compared between groups. RESULTS: Demographic characteristics were similar between groups. Conversion rate was lower (0 vs 17%, p = 0.05), but the operative time was significantly longer (182 [146-290] vs 150 [75-240] minutes, p < 0.0001) during robotic procedure when compared with laparoscopic approach. In terms of learning curve, the number of procedures to obtain the same operative time between the 2 approaches was 15. Postoperative results were similar between groups, in terms of pain (visual analogic scale = 2 [0-8] vs 4 [0-9], p = 0.07), morbidity (17 vs 3%, p = 0.2), and unplanned reintervention (1 vs 0%, p = 0.99). Mean length of stay was significantly reduced after robotic approach when compared with laparoscopic approach (3 [2-10] vs 5 [2-11] days, p < 0.01). Functional results were better after robotic than laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy, with higher satisfaction rate (93 vs 75%, p = 0.05), and reduced recurrence rate (0 vs 14%, p = 0.048). CONCLUSION: Despite longer operative time at the beginning of the learning curve, robotic ventral mesh rectopexy was associated with similar or better perioperative results than laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy.

Effect of Hydroxyethyl Starch vs Saline for Volume Replacement Therapy on Death or Postoperative Complications Among High-Risk Patients Undergoing Major Abdominal Surgery: The FLASH Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: It is not known if use of colloid solutions containing hydroxyethyl starch (HES) to correct for intravascular deficits in high-risk surgical patients is either effective or safe. Objective: To evaluate the effect of HES 130/0.4 compared with 0.9% saline for intravascular volume expansion on mortality and postoperative complications after major abdominal surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group, randomized clinical trial of 775 adult patients at increased risk of postoperative kidney injury undergoing major abdominal surgery at 20 university hospitals in France from February 2016 to July 2018; final follow-up was in October 2018. Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive fluid containing either 6% HES 130/0.4 diluted in 0.9% saline (n = 389) or 0.9% saline alone (n = 386) in 250-mL boluses using an individualized hemodynamic algorithm during surgery and for up to 24 hours on the first postoperative day, defined as ending at 7:59 am the following day. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite of death or major postoperative complications at 14 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes included predefined postoperative complications within 14 days after surgery, durations of intensive care unit and hospital stays, and all-cause mortality at postoperative days 28 and 90. Results: Among 826 patients enrolled (mean age, 68 [SD, 7] years; 91 women [12%]), 775 (94%) completed the trial. The primary outcome occurred in 139 of 389 patients (36%) in the HES group and 125 of 386 patients (32%) in the saline group (difference, 3.3% [95% CI, -3.3% to 10.0%]; relative risk, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.91-1.34]; P = .33). Among 12 prespecified secondary outcomes reported, 11 showed no significant difference, but a statistically significant difference was found in median volume of study fluid administered on day 1: 1250 mL (interquartile range, 750-2000 mL) in the HES group and 1500 mL (interquartile range, 750-2150 mL) in the saline group (median difference, 250 mL [95% CI, 83-417 mL]; P = .006). At 28 days after surgery, 4.1% and 2.3% of patients had died in the HES and saline groups, respectively (difference, 1.8% [95% CI, -0.7% to 4.3%]; relative risk, 1.76 [95% CI, 0.79-3.94]; P = .17). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients at risk of postoperative kidney injury undergoing major abdominal surgery, use of HES for volume replacement therapy compared with 0.9% saline resulted in no significant difference in a composite outcome of death or major postoperative complications within 14 days after surgery. These findings do not support the use of HES for volume replacement therapy in such patients. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02502773.

Triage and monitoring of COVID-19 patients in intensive care using unsupervised machine learning.

BACKGROUND: We designed an algorithm to assess COVID-19 patients severity and dynamic intubation needs and predict their length of stay using the breathing frequency (BF) and oxygen saturation (SpO2) signals. METHODS: We recorded the BF and SpO2 signals for confirmed COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU of a teaching hospital during both the first and subsequent outbreaks of the pandemic in France. An unsupervised machine-learning algorithm (the Gaussian mixture model) was applied to the patients' data for clustering. The algorithm's robustness was ensured by comparing its results against actual intubation rates. We predicted intubation rates using the algorithm every hour, thus conducting a severity evaluation. We designed a S24 severity score that represented the patient's severity over the previous 24 h; the validity of MS24, the maximum S24 score, was checked against rates of intubation risk and prolonged ICU stay. RESULTS: Our sample included 279 patients. . The unsupervised clustering had an accuracy rate of 87.8% for intubation recognition (AUC = 0.94, True Positive Rate 86.5%, true Negative Rate 90.9%). The S24 score of intubated patients was significantly higher than that of non-intubated patients at 48 h before intubation. The MS24 score allowed for the distinguishing between three severity levels with an increased risk of intubation: green (3.4%), orange (37%), and red (77%). A MS24 score over 40 was highly predictive of an ICU stay greater than 5 days at an accuracy rate of 81.0% (AUC = 0.87). CONCLUSIONS: Our algorithm uses simple signals and seems to efficiently visualize the patients' respiratory situations, meaning that it has the potential to assist staffs' in decision-making. Additionally, real-time computation is easy to implement.

Perioperative hemodynamic optimization: from guidelines to implementation-an experts' opinion paper.

Despite a large body of evidence, the implementation of guidelines on hemodynamic optimization and goal-directed therapy remains limited in daily routine practice. To facilitate/accelerate this implementation, a panel of experts in the field proposes an approach based on six relevant questions/answers that are frequently mentioned by clinicians, using a critical appraisal of the literature and a modified Delphi process. The mean arterial pressure is a major determinant of organ perfusion, so that the authors unanimously recommend not to tolerate absolute values below 65 mmHg during surgery to reduce the risk of postoperative organ dysfunction. Despite well-identified limitations, the authors unanimously propose the use of dynamic indices to rationalize fluid therapy in a large number of patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery, pending the implementation of a "validity criteria checklist" before applying volume expansion. The authors recommend with a good agreement mini- or non-invasive stroke volume/cardiac output monitoring in moderate to high-risk surgical patients to optimize fluid therapy on an individual basis and avoid volume overload. The authors propose to use fluids and vasoconstrictors in combination to achieve optimal blood flow and maintain perfusion pressure above the thresholds considered at risk. Although purchase of disposable sensors and stand-alone monitors will result in additional costs, the authors unanimously acknowledge that there are data strongly suggesting this may be counterbalanced by a sustained reduction in postoperative morbidity and hospital lengths of stay. Beside existing guidelines, knowledge and explicit clinical reasoning tools followed by decision algorithms are mandatory to implement individualized hemodynamic optimization strategies and reduce postoperative morbidity and duration of hospital stay in high-risk surgical patients.