Global benchmarks in primary robotic bariatric surgery redefine quality standards for Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy.

BACKGROUND: Whether the benefits of the robotic platform in bariatric surgery translate into superior surgical outcomes remains unclear. The aim of this retrospective study was to establish the 'best possible' outcomes for robotic bariatric surgery and compare them with the established laparoscopic benchmarks. METHODS: Benchmark cut-offs were established for consecutive primary robotic bariatric surgery patients of 17 centres across four continents (13 expert centres and 4 learning phase centres) using the 75th percentile of the median outcome values until 90 days after surgery. The benchmark patients had no previous laparotomy, diabetes, sleep apnoea, cardiopathy, renal insufficiency, inflammatory bowel disease, immunosuppression, history of thromboembolic events, BMI greater than 50 kg/m2, or age greater than 65 years. RESULTS: A total of 9097 patients were included, who were mainly female (75.5%) and who had a mean(s.d.) age of 44.7(11.5) years and a mean(s.d.) baseline BMI of 44.6(7.7) kg/m2. In expert centres, 13.74% of the 3020 patients who underwent primary robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and 5.9% of the 4078 patients who underwent primary robotic sleeve gastrectomy presented with greater than or equal to one complication within 90 postoperative days. No patient died and 1.1% of patients had adverse events related to the robotic platform. When compared with laparoscopic benchmarks, robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass had lower benchmark cut-offs for hospital stay, postoperative bleeding, and marginal ulceration, but the duration of the operation was 42 min longer. For most surgical outcomes, robotic sleeve gastrectomy outperformed laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy with a comparable duration of the operation. In robotic learning phase centres, outcomes were within the established benchmarks only for low-risk robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. CONCLUSION: The newly established benchmarks suggest that robotic bariatric surgery may enhance surgical safety compared with laparoscopic bariatric surgery; however, the duration of the operation for robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is longer.

Laparoscopic repeat surgery for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: Results of the analyses of a cohort study of 117 patients from a multicenter experience.

BACKGROUND: Short and long-term outcomes after repeat anti-reflux surgery (RARS) are still debated and generally not considered as satisfying as after primary anti-reflux surgery (PARS). The aim of this study was to evaluate functional outcomes after RARS and risk factors associated to intra-operative and post-operative complications. METHODS: This is a multicenter retrospective survey from four European laparoscopic centers. Patients who underwent elective RARS from January 2005 to October 2017 for dysphagia or for persistent reflux disease refractory to medical treatment were analyzed. Data on demographic characteristics, including type and timing of previous operations as well as intra-operative details (surgical technique, type of RARS, conversion to open surgery, prosthetic material placement) were collected. Patients who underwent operations in the emergency setting, interventions mixed with bariatric procedures and PARS performed in other surgical departments were not included in this study. Primary endpoint of this study was to evaluate risk factors associated with intraoperative and postoperative complications. Secondary endpoint was to evaluate clinical outcomes and to identify any possible correlation with clinical and surgical parameters. RESULTS: Among 1662 patients who underwent PARS, failure occurred in 174 (10.5%) patients. Repeat surgery was performed in 117 (7%) patients, after a mean time of 80 months (range 4-315). RARS was carried out laparoscopically in 88% of cases. Prosthetic mesh to reinforce hiatoplasty was used in 22.2% of patients. Intra-operative upper gastro-intestinal tract's injuries occurred in 6 (5.1%) patients. Perioperative mortality was nil and 13 (11.1%) patients experienced postoperative complications. Mean length of hospital stay was 9.6 ± 6.4 days. Based on a multivariable analysis, age >70 years (OR 1.074, C.I.95% 1.018-1.133, p = 0.008) and body mass index (BMI) < 23 (OR 0.172, C.I.95% 0.052-0.568, p = 0.004) were independently associated to postoperative complications. After a mean follow-up time of 36 months (range 6-107), 24 (20.5%) patients presented recurrent symptoms. Based on a multivariable analysis, early onset of dysphagia (OR 3.539, C.I.95% 1.254-9.990, p = 0.017), open approach (OR 4.505, C.I.95% 1.314-15.442, p = 0.016) and the use of prosthetic material (OR 2.790, C.I.95% 0.930-8.776, p = 0.047) were significantly associated to good clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Repeat anti-reflux surgery is a safe and feasible procedure in high-volume centers, with acceptable perioperative outcomes. Long-term results are favorable with a success rate of almost 80%. Advanced age (>70 years) and low BMI (<23 kg/m2) were factor predicting perioperative complications. The use of prosthesis for hiatoplasty was associated to better functional outcomes.

A retrospective multicenter analysis on redo-laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery: conservative or conversion fundoplication?

BACKGROUND: Nearly 20% of patients who undergo hiatal hernia (HH) repair and anti-reflux surgery (ARS) report recurrent HH at long-term follow-up and may be candidates for redo surgery. Current literature on redo-ARS has limitations due to small sample sizes or single center experiences. This type of redo surgery is challenging due to rare but severe complications. Furthermore, the optimal technique for redo-ARS remains debatable. The purpose of the current multicenter study was to review the outcomes of redo-fundoplication and to identify the best ARS repair technique for recurrent HH and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). METHODS: Data on 975 consecutive patients undergoing hiatal hernia and GERD repair were retrospectively collected in five European high-volume centers. Patient data included demographics, BMI, techniques of the first and redo surgeries (mesh/type of ARS), perioperative morbidity, perioperative complications, duration of hospitalization, time to recurrence, and follow-up. We analyzed the independent risk factors associated with recurrent symptoms and complications during the last ARS. Statistical analysis was performed using GraphPad Prism® and R software®. RESULTS: Seventy-three (7.49%) patients underwent redo-ARS during the last decade; 71 (98%) of the surgeries were performed using a minimally invasive approach. Forty-two (57.5%) had conversion from Nissen to Toupet. In 17 (23.3%) patients, the initial Nissen fundoplication was conserved. The initial Toupet fundoplication was conserved in 9 (12.3%) patients, and 5 (6.9%) had conversion of Toupet to Nissen. Out of the 73 patients, 10 (13%) underwent more than one redo-ARS. At 8.5 (1-107) months of follow-up, patients who underwent reoperation with Toupet ARS were less symptomatic during the postoperative period compared to those who underwent Nissen fundoplication (p = 0.005, OR 0.038). Patients undergoing mesh repair during the redo-fundoplication (21%) were less symptomatic during the postoperative period (p = 0.020, OR 0.010). The overall rate of complications (Clavien-Dindo classification) after redo surgery was 11%. Multivariate analysis showed that the open approach (p = 0.036, OR 1.721), drain placement (p = 0.0388, OR 9.308), recurrence of dysphagia (p = 0.049, OR 8.411), and patient age (p = 0.0619, OR 1.111) were independent risk factors for complications during the last ARS. CONCLUSIONS: Failure of ARS rarely occurs in the hands of experienced surgeons. Redo-ARS is feasible using a minimally invasive approach. According to our study, in terms of recurrence of symptoms, Toupet fundoplication is a superior ARS technique compared to Nissen for redo-fundoplication. Therefore, Toupet fundoplication should be considered in redo interventions for patients who initially underwent ARS with Nissen fundoplication. Furthermore, mesh repair in reoperations has a positive impact on reducing the recurrence of symptoms postoperatively.

Laparoscopic gastrectomies for cancer: The ACOI-IHTSC national guidelines.

Guidelines for laparoscopy and cancer of stomach have been outlined by several scientific societies: The main recommendation being that laparoscopy should be used only by surgeons already highly skilled in gastric surgery. The laparoscopic approach to gastric cancer surgery has become more and more frequent in most Italian centers. On behalf of the Guideline Committee of the Italian Society of Hospital Surgeons and the Italian Hi-Tech Surgical Club, a panel of experts analyzed the highest evidence of all scientific papers focusing on laparoscopic gastrectomies for cancer and published from 2003 to 2011, and drew these national guidelines. Laparoscopic gastrectomy may be considered as a safe procedure with better short-term and comparable long-term results. compared to open gastrectomy (Grade A). There is a general agreement that a laparoscopic approach to the treatment of gastric cancer should be chosen only by surgeons already highly skilled in gastric surgery and other advanced laparoscopic interventions. Furthermore, the first procedures should be carried out during a tutoring program. Diagnostic laparoscopy is strongly recommended as the first step of laparoscopic as well as laparotomic gastrectomies (Grade B). Additional randomized controlled trials (RCT) that compare and investigate the long-term oncological outcomes of laparoscopic assisted gastrectomy are required.