Single-center retrospective assessment of robotic-assisted simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplants: Exploring clinical utility.

The diabetic population is witnessing a rise in obesity rates, creating specific hurdles for individuals seeking pancreas transplantation because they are frequently disqualified due to their elevated body weight. Introducing a robotic-assisted approach to transplantation has been proven to yield improved outcomes, particularly in patients with obesity. A retrospective analysis was conducted between January 2015 and September 2023. The study included a total of 140 patients, with 16 receiving robotic-assisted simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation (RSPK) and 124 undergoing open approach simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation (OSPK) during the study period. The median age was 45 (36.8-52.7) and 44.5 years (36.8-51.8) (RSPK vs OSPK, P = .487). There were no significant differences in demographics except body mass index (RSPK vs OSPK, 34.9 vs 28.1, P < .001) and a higher percentage of patients with high cardiac risk in the RSPK group. The robotic approach has a lengthier overall operative time and warm ischemia time. Surgical and nonsurgical complications at 30-days and 1-year grafts and patient survival (93.8% vs 96.8%, RSPK vs OSPK, P = .521) were similar. Our findings suggest that employing robotic assistance in simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation is safe. Wider adoption and utilization of this technique could potentially improve transplant accessibility for individuals with obesity and diabetes.

Center-level Variation in HLA-incompatible Living Donor Kidney Transplantation Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Desensitization protocols for HLA-incompatible living donor kidney transplantation (ILDKT) vary across centers. The impact of these, as well as other practice variations, on ILDKT outcomes remains unknown. METHODS: We sought to quantify center-level variation in mortality and graft loss following ILDKT using a 25-center cohort of 1358 ILDKT recipients with linkage to Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients for accurate outcome ascertainment. We used multilevel Cox regression with shared frailty to determine the variation in post-ILDKT outcomes attributable to between-center differences and to identify any center-level characteristics associated with improved post-ILDKT outcomes. RESULTS: After adjusting for patient-level characteristics, only 6 centers (24%) had lower mortality and 1 (4%) had higher mortality than average. Similarly, only 5 centers (20%) had higher graft loss and 2 had lower graft loss than average. Only 4.7% of the differences in mortality (P < 0.01) and 4.4% of the differences in graft loss (P < 0.01) were attributable to between-center variation. These translated to a median hazard ratio of 1.36 for mortality and 1.34 of graft loss for similar candidates at different centers. Post-ILDKT outcomes were not associated with the following center-level characteristics: ILDKT volume and transplanting a higher proportion of highly sensitized, prior transplant, preemptive, or minority candidates. CONCLUSIONS: Unlike most aspects of transplantation in which center-level variation and volume impact outcomes, we did not find substantial evidence for this in ILDKT. Our findings support the continued practice of ILDKT across these diverse centers.

Real-Time Intraoperative Assessment of Microcirculation in Living-Donor Small Bowel Transplant: A Case Report.

Living-donor small bowel transplant has emerged as a modality to transplant patients with short bowel syndrome without prolonged wait time, albeit at the cost of technical challenges associated with vascular anastomosis due to the small size of vessels. Suboptimal perfusion in a transplanted bowel can lead to a devastating outcome, and clinical judgment alone is not completely reliable for assessment of bowel microcirculation. Here, we report a 55-year-old female patient who underwent flow cytometric cross-match-positive living-donor bowel transplant from her daughter. Initial suboptimal perfusion prompted a revision of the arterial anastomoses. Despite normal Doppler signals over the mesenteric vessels, the bowel had a variegated appearance. The microcirculation of the bowel wall was subsequently assessed in a real-time fashion by indocyanine green fluorescence angiography, which showed improved perfusion indices with time. Hence, this simple test helped us to avoid another unnecessary exploration and revision of the anastomoses. At present, the patient is thriving on an enteral diet. This case underpins the importance of real-time intraoperative assessment of bowel per-fusion and microcirculation in difficult cases. These assessments are needed to help surgeons identify tissues at risk for ischemia and necrosis, thereby allowing for maneuvers to improve intestinal viability.

Financial Impact of the Robotic Approach in Liver Surgery: A Comparative Study of Clinical Outcomes and Costs Between the Robotic and Open Technique in a Single Institution.

BACKGROUND: One of the perceived major drawbacks of minimally invasive techniques has always been its cost. This is especially true for the robotic approach and is one of the main reasons that has prevented its wider acceptance among hospitals and surgeons. The aim of our study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes and economic impact of robotic and open liver surgery in a single institution. METHODS: Sixty-eight robotic and 55 open hepatectomies were performed at our institution between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2013. Demographics, perioperative data, and postoperative outcomes were collected and compared between the two groups. An independent company performed the financial analysis. The economic parameters comprised direct variable costs, direct fixed costs, and indirect costs. RESULTS: Mean estimated blood loss was significantly less in the robotic group (438 versus 727.8 mL; P = .038). Overall morbidity was significantly lower in the robotic group (22% versus 40%; P = .047). Clavien III/IV complications were also lower, with 4.4% in the robotic versus 16.3% in the open group (P = .043). The length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) was shorter for patients who underwent a robotic procedure (2.1 versus 3.3 days; P = .004). The average total cost, including readmissions, was $37,518 for robotic surgery and $41,948 for open technique. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic liver resections had less overall morbidity, ICU, and hospital stay. This translates into decreased average costs for robotic surgery. These procedures are financially comparable to open resections and do not represent a financial burden to the hospital.

Perioperative risk assessment in robotic general surgery: lessons learned from 884 cases at a single institution.

OBJECTIVE: To assess factors associated with morbidity and mortality following the use of robotics in general surgery. DESIGN: Case series. SETTING: University of Illinois at Chicago. PATIENTS AND INTERVENTION: Eight hundred eighty-four consecutive patients who underwent a robotic procedure in our institution between April 2007 and July 2010. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Perioperative morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: During the study period, 884 patients underwent a robotic procedure. The conversion rate was 2%, the mortality rate was 0.5%, and the overall postoperative morbidity rate was 16.7%. The reoperation rate was 2.4%. Mean length of stay was 4.5 days (range, 0.2-113 days). In univariate analysis, several factors were associated with increased morbidity and included either patient-related (cardiovascular and renal comorbidities, American Society of Anesthesiologists score ≥ 3, body mass index [calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared] <30, age ≥ 70 years, and malignant disease) or procedure-related (blood loss ≥ 500 mL, transfusion, multiquadrant operation, and advanced procedure) factors. In multivariate analysis, advanced procedure, multiquadrant surgery, malignant disease, body mass index of less than 30, hypertension, and transfusion were factors significantly associated with a higher risk for complications. American Society of Anesthesiologists score of 3 or greater, age 70 years or older, cardiovascular comorbidity, and blood loss of 500 mL or more were also associated with increased risk for mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the robotic approach for general surgery can be achieved safely with low morbidity and mortality. Several risk factors have been identified as independent causes for higher morbidity and mortality. These can be used to identify patients at risk before and during the surgery and, in the future, to develop a scoring system for the use of robotic general surgery