Reconstruction of upper digestive tract: reducing morbidity by laparoscopic pull-up.

BACKGROUND: Gastric pull-up is a useful method for reconstruction of the upper digestive tract, with considerable morbidity/mortality, especially in esophageal cancers (EC). OBJECTIVE: To analyze the experience of a multidisciplinary team with a laparoscopic gastric pull-up (LGPU) method, with or without thoracoscopy, in a series of 120 patients with EC. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From 1992 to 2004, 120 EC [cervical/cervicothoracic (3.0%), middle third (15.0%), and inferior third (82.0%)]. Most were squamous cell carcinomas (47.0%) and adenocarcinomas (34.0%). Stomach was dissected and mobilized exclusively by laparoscopy. Occasionally, laparoscopic approach was extended cranially, until connecting with cervical dissection. In other cases, dissection of thoracic esophagus was accomplished through a thoracoscopic approach. RESULTS: Eighty-one patients (68.0%) had LGPU; 39 (32.0%) needed thoracoscopy. Mortality was 5.9%. Complications were fistula (10.0%) and pneumonia (10.0%). All fistulae closed spontaneously; 89.2% of patients could swallow a normal oral diet. CONCLUSION: Low morbidity/mortality of LGPU for EC compared favorably with conventional techniques.

Comparison of the morbidity, weight loss, and relative costs between robotic and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy for the treatment of obesity in Brazil.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, there has been renewed interest in using robotics in bariatric surgery for the treatment of morbid obesity. However, the high cost of a robotic surgical system has hindered its widespread use in developing countries. This study aims to compare the rate of morbidity, weight loss, and relative costs between laparoscopic (LSG) and robotic-assisted sleeve gastrectomy (RSG) performed for the treatment of obesity in a single center in Brazil. METHODS: From January 2011 to March 2013, 48 severely obese patients underwent either LSG or RSG at our institution and were prospectively followed up for 12 months. Patients were free to choose either approach and were informed of any extra costs that may be incurred. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients underwent LSG and 16 patients, RSG. No significant differences were observed between LSG and RSG groups regarding age, sex, BMI, incidence of comorbidities, duration of surgery, and length of hospital stay. Also, there were no significant between-group differences in BMI values evaluated at 6 and 12 months after surgery. Surgical costs were almost twice as high and total hospital costs were approximately 50 % higher in the robotic approach compared to the laparoscopic approach. CONCLUSION: Both RSG and LSG had excellent and similar post-operative clinical outcomes. However, the much higher costs of purchasing and maintaining the robotic system are still precluding the use of RSG as a routine approach in the treatment of morbid obesity in Brazil.