Alarming correlation between multidrug-resistant bacteriobilia and morbidity after pancreatic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic surgery is characterized by high morbidity and mortality. Biliary colonization may affect clinical outcomes in these patients. AIMS: This study aimed to verify whether bacteriobilia and multidrug resistance (MDR) detected during and after pancreatic surgery may have an impact on post-operative outcomes. METHODS: Data from patients undergoing pancreatic surgery involving bile duct transection (2016-2022) in two high-volume centers were analyzed in relationship to overall morbidity, major morbidity and mortality after pancreato-duodenectomy (PD) or total pancreatectomy (TP). Simple and multivariable regressions were used. RESULTS: 227 patients submitted to PD (n=129) or TP (n=98) were included. Of them, 133 had preoperative biliary drainage (BD; 56.6%), mostly with the employment of endoscopic stents (91.7%). Bacteriobilia was detected in 111 patients (48.9%), and remarkably, observed in patients with BD (p=0.001). In addition, 25 MDR pathogens were identified (22.5%), with a significant prevalence in patients with BD. Multivariable regression analysis showed BD was strongly related to MDR isolation (odds ratio [OR]: 5.61; p=0.010). MDR isolation was the main factor linked to a higher number of major complications (OR: 2.75; p=0.041), including major infection complications (OR: 2.94; p=0.031). CONCLUSIONS: Isolation of MDR from biliary swab during PD or TP significantly increases the risk of a worse post-operative outcome. Pre-operative precautions could improve patient safety.

Robotic versus laparoscopic left colectomy: a propensity score matched analysis from a bi-centric experience.

The advantages of using the robotic platform may not be clearly evident in left colectomies, where the surgeon operates in an "open field" and does not routinely require intraoperative suturing. Current evidences are based on limited cohorts reporting conflicting outcomes regarding robotic left colectomies (RLC). The aim of this study is to report a bi-centric experience with robotic left colectomy in order to help in defining the role of the robotic approach for these procedures. This is a bi-centric propensity score matched study including patients who underwent RLC or laparoscopic left colectomy (LLC) between January 1, 2012 and May 1, 2022. RLC patients were matched to LLC patients in a 1:1 ratio. Main outcomes were conversion to open surgery and 30-day morbidity. In total, 300 patients were included. Of 143 (47.7%) RLC patients, 119 could be matched. After matching, conversion rate (4.2 vs. 7.6%, p = 0.265), 30-day morbidity (16.1 vs. 13.7%, p = 0.736), Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3 complications (2.4 vs 3.2%, p = 0.572), transfusions (0.8 vs. 4.0%, p = 0.219), and 30-day mortality (0.8 vs 0.8%, p = 1.000) were comparable for RLC and LLC, respectively. Median operative time was longer for RLC (296 min 260-340 vs. 245, 195-296, p < 0.0001). Early oral feeding, time to first flatus, and hospital stay were similar between groups. RLC has safety parameters as well as conversion to open surgery comparable with standard laparoscopy. Operative time is longer with the robotic approach.

Advantages of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and matched studies.

BACKGROUND: We sought to provide a meta-analysis and credibility assessment of available randomized controlled trials and propensity score matched studies when assessing early and oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy compared with open distal pancreatectomy. METHODS: The MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were searched for pertinent literature up to June 2022. Random-effect meta-analyses were applied. Trial sequential analysis was applied to verify whether results were true- or false-positive or -negative findings. RESULTS: Thirteen studies were identified (2 randomized controlled trials and 11 propensity score matched studies). The early outcomes were assessed on 12 studies, including 4,346 patients. In this population, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy decreased postoperative stay (mean difference = 1.8 days; P = .001) and estimated blood loss (mean difference = 148 mL; P = .001), and trial sequential analysis confirmed these as true-positive findings. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and open distal pancreatectomy had similar operating times (P = .165), and trial sequential analysis confirmed this as a true-negative finding. Major morbidity, mortality, and readmission were similar, but results were inconclusive by trial sequential analysis. Oncologic outcomes were assessed on 5 studies, including 2,430 patients. In this population, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy showed higher R0 resection rate (OR = 1.46; P = .001) and shorter time to adjuvant therapy (mean difference 4.0 days P = .003). A survival benefit was observed at 1 year after laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (OR = 1.45; P = .001), which was not confirmed at 3 years (P = .650). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is superior to open distal pancreatectomy for most of the early outcomes analyzed. The operating time was equalized as a result of the learning curve. Results from patients with pancreatic cancer suggest at least an oncologic noninferiority of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy compared with open distal pancreatectomy.

Robotic versus laparoscopic left colectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to review the new evidence to understand whether the robotic approach could find some clear indication also in left colectomy. METHODS: A systematic review of studies published from 2004 to 2022 in the Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus databases and comparing laparoscopic (LLC) and robotic left colectomy (RLC) was performed. All comparative studies evaluating robotic left colectomy (RLC) versus laparoscopic (LLC) left colectomy with at least 20 patients in the robotic arm were included. Abstract, editorials, and reviews were excluded. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies was used to assess the methodological quality. The random-effect model was used to calculate pooled effect estimates. RESULTS: Among the 139 articles identified, 11 were eligible, with a total of 52,589 patients (RLC, n = 13,506 versus LLC, n = 39,083). The rate of conversion to open surgery was lower for robotic procedures (RR 0.5, 0.5-0.6; p < 0.001). Operative time was longer for the robotic procedures in the pooled analysis (WMD 39.1, 17.3-60.9, p = 0.002). Overall complications (RR 0.9, 0.8-0.9, p < 0.001), anastomotic leaks (RR 0.7, 0.7-0.8; p < 0.001), and superficial wound infection (RR 3.1, 2.8-3.4; p < 0.001) were less common after RLC. There were no significant differences in mortality (RR 1.1; 0.8-1.6, p = 0.124). There were no differences between RLC and LLC with regards to postoperative variables in the subgroup analysis on malignancies. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic left colectomy requires less conversion to open surgery than the standard laparoscopic approach. Postoperative morbidity rates seemed to be lower during RLC, but this was not confirmed in the procedures performed for malignancies.

Anatomic Laparoscopic Liver Resection in the Scenario of the Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Aim: To assess the impact of the laparoscopic anatomic resections (LARs) on hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients, analyzing the pooled short- and long-term outcomes of this technique and comparing it with the standard open approach [open anatomic resections (OAR)]. Material and Methods: A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Scopus for studies published between 2010 and 2020 concerning LAR for HCC. Results: After screening 311 articles, 10 studies with a total of 398 patients who underwent LAR for HCC were included. The pooled cohort included mostly male (76.6%), Child A (98.2%), with hepatitis B virus (HBV)-related disease (60.5%). The pooled conversion rate was 7.3%. The pooled overall complication rate was 10.2 with a mortality rate of 1.0%. In the pooled analyses of only comparative studies, LAR group included 378 versus 455 in OAR. Operative time was longer in the LAR group (329 minutes versus 248; P = .001). Blood loss (179 versus 331 mL; P = .018) was lower in the LAR group. The pooled mean length of hospital stay was 8.4 days in LARs and 11.3 in OARs (P = .002). The pooled rate of postoperative complications was higher in the OAR group (25.3 versus 13.8; P = .009), while mortality rates were similar. The LAR group had a pooled 3- and 5-year overall survival of 90.1 and 81.9 versus 83.5 and 80.7 of the OARs (P > .05), respectively. Conclusions: In conclusion, the LAR for HCC is safe and associated with decreased blood loss and length of hospital stay. Survival rates are comparable with those of the conventional open approach.