Laparoscopy versus endovascular aneurysm repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm: A systematic review.

Minimally invasive surgery is a useful alternative to open repair for patients with nonruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). We aim to compare the clinical outcomes for three different minimally invasive techniques: hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS), total laparoscopic surgery (TLS), and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). The electronic databases MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library were searched between January and March 2023. Cohort studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing two minimally invasive techniques were eligible for inclusion. Primary outcomes were mortality (in-hospital, 30-day, or 1-year) and reintervention rates (30-day or 1-year). Length of surgery, blood loss, transfusion volume, conversion to open surgery, major complication rates, length of hospital stay, and length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay were also evaluated. Eight cohort studies and one RCT were included comparing patients undergoing HALS (n = 500), TLS (n = 263), and EVAR (n = 438) for elective AAA repair. The TLS group had the highest rate of 30-day postoperative reinterventions (p = 0.00056), the longest surgical duration (p = 0.0311), and the highest rate of conversion to open surgery (p < 0.001). TLS was also associated with the most blood loss during surgery, the highest blood transfusion volumes, and the longest length of ICU stay, although these results did not reach statistical significance. Subgroup analysis revealed superior contemporary EVAR outcomes compared to TLS. Laparoscopic surgery (LAS) and EVAR have comparable mortality rates. However, LAS, particularly TLS, is significantly less efficacious than EVAR in terms of intraoperative conversions to open surgery and 30-day reintervention rates. Further controlled trials with larger sample sizes are needed to confirm the evidence.

Comparative Analysis of Learning Curves in Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Systematic Review.

Robotic surgery has undergone much development and increased use over the years; it has offered many benefits for the operating surgeon compared to the more restrictive nature of conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) which is the current standard of care. However, to the best of our knowledge, no studies have attempted to draw a comparison between the two in terms of the cases required for the learning curve to be achieved. The systematic review was performed at Barts Cancer Institute. A search of Cochrane, PubMed and Embase was made on 15 March 2024. Screening and risk of bias were done by two reviewers. Screening was done via the eligibility criteria by two reviewers. Data collection was done using Excel (Microsoft® Corp., Redmond, USA) and information was double-checked by another reviewer and transferred into a tabulated format. Seventeen studies were included, with the learning curve reported in 14 studies. The cases required to achieve the learning curve for multiport robotic cholecystectomy (MRC) ranged from 16 to 134 and for single-site robotic cholecystectomy (SSRC), it ranged from 10 to over 102 cases. Conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC) was from 7 to 200. The improvement in operating times was measured in very different ways and was reported in 10 of the 17 studies. The studies that were available had a high level of heterogeneity making it difficult for comparisons to be made between studies. Several studies included only one surgeon resulting in the sample size of surgeons being too small and vulnerable to bias. As robotic surgery is still relatively novel, higher-quality studies have to be made in order for more conclusive conclusions to be made on the benefits of the learning curve of MRC and SSRC.