Systematic review: robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic multiport cholecystectomy.

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy has become the standard of care for the treatment of symptomatic gallstone disease. In the context of the increasing uptake of robotic surgery, robotic cholecystectomy has seen a substantial growth over the past decades. Despite this, a formal assessment of the evidence for this practice remains elusive and a randomised controlled trial is yet to be performed. This paper reviews the evidence to date for robotic multiport cholecystectomy compared to conventional multiport cholecystectomy. This systematic review was performed conducted using the Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases; in line with the PRISMA guideline. All articles that compared robotic and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy were included. The studies were assessed with regards to operative outcomes, postoperative recovery and complications. Fourteen studies were included, describing a total of 3002 patients. There was no difference in operative blood loss, complication rates, incidence of bile duct injury or length of hospital stay between the robotic and laparoscopic groups. The operative time for robotic cholecystectomy was longer, whereas the risk of conversion to open surgery was lower. There was marked variation in definitions of measured outcomes, and most studies lacked data on training and quality assessment, leading to substantial heterogeneity of the data. Available evidence on multiport robotic cholecystectomy compared to conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy is scarce and the quality of the available studies is generally poor. Results suggest longer operating time for robotic cholecystectomy, although many studies included the learning curve period. Postoperative recovery and complications were similar in both groups.

Population-based observational study of acute pancreatitis in southern England.

INTRODUCTION: Acute pancreatitis is a common surgical emergency. Identifying variations in presentation, incidence and management may assist standardisation and optimisation of care. The objective of the study was to document the current incidence management and outcomes of acute pancreatitis against international guidelines, and to assess temporal trends over the past 20 years. METHODS: A prospective four-month audit of patients with acute pancreatitis was performed across the Wessex region. The Atlanta 2012 classifications were used to define cases, severity and complications. Outcomes were recorded using validated systems and correlated against guideline standards. Case ascertainment was validated with clinical coding and hospital episode statistics data. RESULTS: A total of 283 patient admissions with acute pancreatitis were identified. Aetiology included 153 gallstones (54%), 65 idiopathic (23%), 29 alcohol (10%), 9 endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (3%), 6 drug related (2%), 5 tumour (2%) and 16 other (6%). Compliance with guidelines had improved compared with our previous regional audit. Results were 6.5% mortality, 74% severity stratification, 23% idiopathic cases, 65% definitive treatment of gallstones within 2 weeks, 39% computed tomography within 6-10 days of severe pancreatitis presentation and 82% severe pancreatitis critical care admission. The Atlanta 2012 severity criteria significantly correlated with critical care stay, length of stay, development of complications and mortality (2% vs 6% vs 36%, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of acute pancreatitis in southern England has risen substantially. The Atlanta 2012 classification identifies patients with severe pancreatitis who have a high risk of fatal outcome. Acute pancreatitis management is seen to have evolved in keeping with new evidence and updated clinical guidelines.