A Medium-Term Comparison of Quality of Life and Pain After Robotic or Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.

INTRODUCTION: We sought to compare medium-term outcomes between robotic-assisted cholecystectomy (RC) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) using validated quality of life (QoL) and pain assessments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent RC or LC between 2012 and 2017 at a single academic institution were examined. Cases converted to open were excluded. Patients were contacted by telephone in 2019 and completed two standardized surveys to rate their QoL and pain. RESULTS: Of those screened, 122 (35.8%) completed both surveys. Ninety three (76.2%) underwent RC and 29 (23.8%) underwent LC. The groups (RC versus LC) were similar based on mean age (47.9 versus 45.5 y, P = 0.48), gender (66.7% versus 72.4% female, P = 0.56), race (86.0% White/5.4% Black versus 72.4% White/13.8% Black, P = 0.2), insurance status (98.9% versus 100.0% insured, P = 0.58), median body mass index (31.8 versus 31.3, P = 0.43), and median Charlson Comorbidity Index (1 versus 0, P = 0.14). Fewer RC patients had a history of steroid use compared to LC (16.1% versus 34.5%, P = 0.03). No overall significant difference in QoL was demonstrated. LC group had higher severity of "tiring-exhausting pain" (P = 0.04), "electric-shock pain" (P = 0.003), and "shooting pain" (P = 0.05). The "overall intensity" of pain in the "gallbladder region" between the groups was similar at the time of follow-up (P = 0.31). CONCLUSIONS: QoL over 2-7 y following time of surgery is comparable for robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomies. The laparoscopic approach may be associated with a higher severity of subset categories of pain, but overall pain between the two approaches is comparable.

Basilar apex aneurysm systematic review: Microsurgical versus endovascular treatment.

BACKGROUND: Both microsurgical and endovascular techniques continued to be treatment options for basilar apex aneurysms (BAA). We conducted a systematic review to compare both treatment options in terms of both clinical and radiological outcomes. METHODS: The PRISMA method was used to identify related articles. Data collected from each article and the two treatment approaches were compared in terms of favorable clinical outcome and complete/near complete occlusion rate. Subgroup analysis was done based on the size and the rupture status of BAA. RESULTS: Fifty-nine (59) and 32 articles reported a measurable clinical and radiological outcome respectively. The weighted average favorable clinical outcome was significantly higher in the endovascular group (86.4% vs 79.6%, P<0.0001), while the weighted average complete/near complete occlusion rate was significantly higher in the surgical group (92.6% vs 83.8%, P<0.0001). In the subgroup analysis, the favorable clinical outcome remained significantly higher in the endovascular group for the ruptured, unruptured and giant/large BAA (P<0.001), but not in the small BAA subgroup (P=0.26). The occlusion rate remained significantly higher in the surgical group for all subgroups (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Treatment of BAA remains in a trade-off between favorable clinical outcome and complete or near-complete occlusion depending on the treatment modality selected. Careful selection of cases and judicial discussion between open surgical and endovascular team is warranted for treatment optimization.