Prenatally diagnosed fetal tumors of the head and neck: a systematic review with antenatal and postnatal outcomes over the past 20 years.

AIM: The aim of this study was to review prenatally diagnosed tumors of the head and neck in the fetus and to report antenatal and postnatal outcomes. METHODS: PubMed/Medline, EMBASE/SCOPUS, Cochrane database and Google Scholar were reviewed over the last 20 years. No language or article type restriction was used. RESULTS: A total of 1940 record were retrieved. Of the 713 records screened, 566 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. After 445 articles were excluded for specified reasons, 111 studies met the research criteria and were included for qualitative analysis. Overall, 306 cases of fetal tumors of the head and neck were reviewed. Maternal age was an independent factor. The mean maternal age was 28.2 years and gestational age at prenatal diagnosis was 27.1 weeks. Conventional 2D ultrasound was the standard diagnostic procedure in 27.9% of cases and was implemented in 27.3% of cases by 3D ultrasound and fetal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Diagnostic evaluation of intracranial spreading and high-airway obstructions was greatly enhanced by fetal MRI. The more common type of fetal tumor was hemangioma/lymphangioms (42.1%), followed by teratomas (29.7%), tumors of the gingiva (10.1%) and lymphatic venous malformations (9.1%), respectively. Fetal karyotyping was performed only in 9.8% of cases; within fetuses undergoing karyotype, chromosomal abnormalities accounted for 20% of cases. The most common pregnancy complication was polyhydramnios (26.3%). Ex utero intrapartum treatment (EXIT) procedure was performed in 30.1% of cases while surgical excision was used in 22.9% during postnatal life. The survival rate was 35.35%. CONCLUSION: Fetal tumors of the head and neck are rare congenital malformations. Two-dimensional ultrasound is diagnostic in almost all cases; however, MRI may be an important diagnostic adjunct in targeted cases and help patient selection for immediate intubation at the time of delivery. EXIT procedure and surgical removal of the tumor was associated with good prognosis.

Safety Model for the Introduction of Robotic Surgery in Gynecology.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the perioperative results and safety of performing gynecological surgeries using robot-assisted laparoscopy during implementation of the technique in a community hospital over a 6-year period. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational study in which the medical records of 274 patients who underwent robotic surgery from September 2008 to December 2014 were analyzed. We evaluated age, body mass index (BMI), diagnosis, procedures performed, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, the presence of a proctor (experienced surgeon with at least 20 robotic cases), operative time, transfusion rate, perioperative complications, conversion rate, length of stay, referral to the intensive care unit (ICU), and mortality. We compared transfusion rate, perioperative complications and conversion rate between procedures performed by experienced and beginner robotic surgeons assisted by an experienced proctor. RESULTS: During the observed period, 3 experienced robotic surgeons performed 187 surgeries, while 87 surgeries were performed by 20 less experienced teams, always with the assistance of a proctor. The median patient age was 38 years, and the median BMI was 23.3 kg/m2. The most frequent diagnosis was endometriosis (57%) and the great majority of the patients were classified as ASA I or ASA II (99.6%). The median operative time was 225 minutes, and the median length of stay was 2 days. We observed a 5.8% transfusion rate, 0.8% rate of perioperative complications, 1.1% conversion rate to laparoscopy or laparotomy, no patients referred to ICU, and no deaths. There were no differences in transfusion, complications and conversion rates between experienced robotic surgeons and beginner robotic surgeons assisted by an experienced proctor. CONCLUSION: In our casuistic, robot-assisted laparoscopy demonstrated to be a safe technique for gynecological surgeries, and the presence of an experienced proctor was considered a highlight in the safety model adopted for the introduction of the robotic gynecological surgery in a high-volume hospital and, mainly, for its extension among several surgical teams, assuring patient safety.

OBJETIVO: Analisar os resultados perioperatórios e a segurança da realização de cirurgias ginecológicas por laparoscopia robô-assistida durante a implementação da técnica num hospital comunitário ao longo de 6 anos. MéTODOS: Este foi um estudo retrospectivo observacional, com análise dos prontuários de 274 pacientes que se submeteram à cirurgia robótica de setembro de 2008 a dezembro de 2014. Avaliamos idade, índice de massa corpórea (IMC), diagnóstico, procedimentos realizados, classificação da Sociedade Americana de Anestesiologia (ASA), presença de um preceptor (cirurgião experiente, com pelo menos 20 casos robóticos), tempo cirúrgico, taxa de transfusão, complicações perioperatórias, taxa de conversão, tempo de internação, encaminhamento para Unidade de Terapia Intensiva (UTI) e mortalidade. Comparamos taxa de transfusão, complicações perioperatórias e taxa de conversão entre procedimentos realizados por cirurgiões experientes com a técnica e cirurgiões iniciantes na robótica, sempre assistidos por um preceptor experiente. RESULTADOS: Durante o período observado, 3 cirurgiões experientes realizaram 187 cirurgias, enquanto que 87 cirurgias foram realizadas por 20 equipes menos experientes, sempre com a presença de um preceptor. A mediana da idade foi 38 anos, e a mediana do IMC foi 23,3 kg/m2. O diagnóstico mais frequente foi endometriose (57%) e a grande maioria das pacientes foi classificada como ASA I ou ASA II (99,6%). O tempo de cirurgia teve uma mediana de 225 minutos, e o tempo de permanência hospitalar teve uma mediana de 2 dias. Observamos 5,8% de taxa de transfusão, 0,8% de taxa de complicações perioperatórias, 1,1% de taxa de conversão para laparoscopia ou laparotomia e não houve pacientes encaminhadas à UTI, nem óbitos. Não houve diferença nos índices de transfusão, complicações e conversão entre cirurgiões experientes e cirurgiões iniciantes na robótica, assistidos por um preceptor experiente. CONCLUSãO: Em nossa casuística, a laparoscopia robô-assistida demonstrou ser uma técnica segura para cirurgias ginecológicas, e a presença de um preceptor experiente foi considerada um ponto de destaque no modelo de segurança adotado para a introdução da cirurgia robótica em ginecologia num hospital de grande volume e, principalmente, na sua expansão entre diversas equipes cirúrgicas, mantendo a segurança das pacientes.

Safety model for the introduction of robotic surgery in gynecology / Modelo de segurança para a introdução da cirurgia robótica em ginecologia

Abstract Objective To analyze the perioperative results and safety of performing gynecological surgeries using robot-assisted laparoscopy during implementation of the technique in a community hospital over a 6-year period. Methods This was a retrospective observational study in which the medical records of 274 patients who underwent robotic surgery from September 2008 to December 2014 were analyzed. We evaluated age, body mass index (BMI), diagnosis, procedures performed, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, the presence of a proctor (experienced surgeon with at least 20 robotic cases), operative time, transfusion rate, perioperative complications, conversion rate, length of stay, referral to the intensive care unit (ICU), and mortality. We compared transfusion rate, perioperative complications and conversion rate between procedures performed by experienced and beginner robotic surgeons assisted by an experienced proctor. Results During the observed period, 3 experienced robotic surgeons performed 187 surgeries,while 87 surgeries were performedby 20 less experienced teams, always with the assistance of a proctor. The median patient age was 38 years, and the median BMI was 23.3 kg/m2. The most frequent diagnosis was endometriosis (57%) and the great majority of the patients were classified as ASA I or ASA II (99.6%). The median operative time was 225 minutes, and the median length of stay was 2 days. We observed a 5.8% transfusion rate, 0.8% rate of perioperative complications, 1.1% conversion rate to laparoscopy or laparotomy, no patients referred to ICU, and no deaths. There were no differences in transfusion, complications and conversion rates between experienced robotic surgeons and beginner robotic surgeons assisted by an experienced proctor. Conclusion In our casuistic, robot-assisted laparoscopy demonstrated to be a safe technique for gynecological surgeries, and the presence of an experienced proctor was considered a highlight in the safety model adopted for the introduction of the robotic gynecological surgery in a high-volume hospital and, mainly, for its extension among several surgical teams, assuring patient safety.

Resumo Objetivo Analisar os resultados perioperatórios e a segurança da realização de cirurgias ginecológicas por laparoscopia robô-assistida durante a implementação da técnica num hospital comunitário ao longo de 6 anos. Métodos Este foi umestudo retrospectivo observacional, comanálise dos prontuários de 274 pacientes que se submeteramà cirurgia robótica de setembro de 2008 a dezembro de 2014. Avaliamos idade, índice de massa corpórea (IMC), diagnóstico, procedimentos realizados, classificação da Sociedade Americana de Anestesiologia (ASA), presença de um preceptor (cirurgião experiente, compelomenos 20casos robóticos), tempocirúrgico, taxa de transfusão, complicações perioperatórias, taxa de conversão, tempo de internação, encaminhamento para Unidade de Terapia Intensiva (UTI) e mortalidade. Comparamos taxa de transfusão, complicações perioperatórias e taxa de conversão entre procedimentos realizados por cirurgiões experientes com a técnica e cirurgiões iniciantes na robótica, sempre assistidos por um preceptor experiente. Resultados Durante o período observado, 3 cirurgiões experientes realizaram 187 cirurgias, enquanto que 87 cirurgias foram realizadas por 20 equipes menos experientes, sempre com a presença de um preceptor. A mediana da idade foi 38 anos, e a mediana do IMC foi 23,3 kg/m2. O diagnósticomais frequente foi endometriose (57%) e a grande maioria das pacientes foi classificada como ASA I ou ASA II (99,6%). O tempo de cirurgia teve uma mediana de 225 minutos, e o tempo de permanência hospitalar teve uma mediana de 2 dias. Observamos 5,8% de taxa de transfusão, 0,8% de taxa de complicações perioperatórias, 1,1% de taxa de conversão para laparoscopia ou laparotomia e não houve pacientes encaminhadas à UTI, nem óbitos. Não houve diferença nos índices de transfusão, complicações e conversão entre cirurgiões experientes e cirurgiões iniciantes na robótica, assistidos por umpreceptor experiente. Conclusão Em nossa casuística, a laparoscopia robô-assistida demonstrou ser uma técnica segura para cirurgias ginecológicas, e a presença de um preceptor experiente foi considerada um ponto de destaque no modelo de segurança adotado para a introdução da cirurgia robótica em ginecologia num hospital de grande volume e, principalmente, na sua expansão entre diversas equipes cirúrgicas, mantendo a segurança das pacientes.