Evolving trends in the management of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) during SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: A multicenter retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) is usually managed by conservative treatment, but in selected cases, especially in the presence of a tubo-ovarian abscess (TOA), surgical management is a recognized treatment option. We compared the trends in managing PID and short-term outcomes before and during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. METHODS: This is a retrospective study performed in three Italian gynecological centers. We included patients admitted to hospital with a diagnosis of PID. Demographic characteristics, management, time to diagnosis, and time to treatment were compared before versus during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. RESULTS: One hundred nineteen PID patients were screened, eighty-one before the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, and thirty-eight after the onset. At admission, leukocytosis (median 19.73 vs. 13.99 WBC/mm3, p-value = 0.02) was significantly higher in patients who underwent surgery after the onset of the pandemic. TOA incidence was higher in patients who underwent surgery during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, but the difference did not reach statistically significance (p = 0.06). The proportion of patients treated with surgery dropped to 26.3% after the onset from 46% of patients before the onset of pandemic (p = 0.03). Furthermore, a higher percentage of emergency surgical procedures on day 0 of hospital admission were performed after the onset of the pandemic (50% vs. 13.1%, p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective cohort study, we found that the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic influenced the clinical presentation and management of PID in favor of conservative treatment. Patients who underwent surgery during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic had higher inflammatory markers.

Major and minor complications in Veress needle (VN) and direct trocar insertion (DTI) for laparoscopic closed-entry techniques: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Direct insertion of the trocar is an alternative method to Veress needle insertion for the creation of pneumoperitoneum. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare these two entry closed techniques. DATA SOURCE: A systematic review of the literature was done on PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and EBSCO. METHODS: The literature search was constructed until May 01, 2022, around search terms for "Veress," "direct trocar," "needle," "insertion," and "laparoscopic ways of entry." This systematic review was reported according to the PRISMA Statement 2020. RESULTS: Sixteen controlled trials (RCTs) and 5 observational studies were included in the systematic review. We found no significant differences in the risk of major complication during the access manoeuvres between DTI and VN: bowel injuries (OR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.24-2.36, P = 0.63), major vascular injuries (OR = 1.74, 95% CI 0.56-5.38, P = 0.34), port site hernia (OR = 2.41, 95% CI: 0.28-20.71, P = 0.42). DTI has a lower risk of minor complications such as subcutaneous emphysema (OR = 5.19 95% CI: 2.27-11.87, P < 0.0001), extraperitoneal insufflation (OR = 5.93 95% CI: 1.69-20.87, P = 0.006), omental emphysema (OR = 18.41, 95% CI: 7. 01-48.34, P < 0.00001), omental bleeding (OR = 2.32, 95% CI: 1.18-4.55, P = 0.01), and lower number of unsuccessful entry or insufflation attempts (OR = 2.25, 95% CI: 1.05-4.81, P = 0.04). No significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of time required to achieve complete insufflation (MD = - 15.53, 95% CI: - 91.32 to 60.27, P = 0.69), trocar site bleeding (OR = 0.66, 95% CI, 0.25-1.79, P = 0.42), and trocar site infection (OR = 1.19, 95% CI, 0.34-4.20, P = 0.78). CONCLUSION: There were no statistically significant differences in the risk of major complications during the access manoeuvres between DTI and VN. A lower number of minor complications were observed in DTI compared with those in Veress access.

Robotic platforms in gynaecological surgery: past, present, and future.

Background: More than two decades ago, the advent of robotic laparoscopic surgery marked a significant milestone, featuring the introduction of the AESOP robotic endoscope control system and the ZEUS robotic surgery system. The latter, equipped with distinct arms for the laparoscope and surgical instruments, was designed to accommodate remote connections, enabling the practice of remote telesurgery as early as 2001. Subsequent technological progress has given rise to a range of options in today's market, encompassing multi-port and single-port systems, both rigid and flexible, across various price points, with further growth anticipated. Objective: This article serves as an indispensable guide for gynaecological surgeons with an interest in embracing robotic surgery. Materials and methods: Drawing insights from the experience of the Strasbourg training centre for minimally invasive surgery (IRCAD), this article offers a comprehensive overview of existing robotic platforms in the market, as well as those in development. Results: Robotic surgical systems not only streamline established operative methods but also broaden the scope of procedures, including intra- and transluminal surgeries. As integral components of the digital surgery ecosystem, these robotic systems actively contribute to the increasing integration and adoption of advanced technologies, such as artificial intelligence-based data analysis and support systems. Conclusion: Robotic surgery is increasingly being adopted in clinical practice. With the growing number of systems available on the marketplace, the primary challenge lies in identifying the optimal platform for each specific procedure and patient. The seamless integration of robotic systems with artificial intelligence, image-guided surgery, and telesurgery presents undeniable advantages, enhancing the precision and effectiveness of surgical interventions. What is new?: This article provides a guide to the robotic platforms available on the market and those in development for gynaecologists interested in robotic surgery.

Simple hysterectomy versus radical hysterectomy in early-stage cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: This systematic review (SR) and meta-analysis aims to compare the surgery-related results and oncological outcomes between SH and RH in patients with early-stage cervical cancer. METHOD: We systematically searched databases including PubMed, Embase and Cochrane to collect studies that compared oncological and surgery-related outcomes between SH and RH groups in patients with stage IA2 and IB1 cervical cancer. A random-effect model calculated the weighted average difference of each primary outcome via Review Manager V.5.4. RESULT: Seven studies comprising 6977 patients were included into our study. For oncological outcomes, we found no statistical difference in recurrence rate [OR = 0.88; 95% CI (0.50, 1.57); P = 0.68] and Overall Survival (OS) [OR = 1.23; 95% CI (0.69, 2.19), P = 0.48]. No difference was detected in the prevalence of positive LVSI and lymph nodes metastasis between the two groups. Concerning surgery-related outcomes, the comprehensive effects revealed that the bladder injury [OR = 0.28; 95% CI (0.08, 0.94), P = 0.04] and bladder disfunction [OR = 0.10; 95% CI (0.02, 0.53), P = 0.007] of the RH group were higher compared to the SH group. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis suggested there are no significant differences in terms of both recurrence rate and overall survival among patients with stage IA2-IB1 cervical cancer undergoing SH or RH, while the SH group has better surgery-related outcomes. These data confirm the need to narrow the indication for RH in early-stage cervical cancer.

Influence of uterine manipulator on oncological outcome in minimally invasive surgery of endometrial cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: The endoscopic approach for early-stage endometrial cancer (EC) treatment is considered gold standard. Some authors expressed their concern regarding uterine manipulator (UM) as a risk factor for tumor spillage and dissemination allowing peritoneal or lympho-vascular spaces invasion (LVSI). This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effect of UM on the presence of LVSI, recurrence rate and presence of atypical or malignant peritoneal cytology in patients with endometrial cancer. METHODS: We searched electronic databases including PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, EBSCO, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The pooled results were used to evaluate the association between the use of UM and oncological outcomes. This systematic review was reported according to PRISMA statement 2020. Statistical meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager software. RESULTS: This systematic review included 18 studies (3 prospective studies, 13 retrospective studies, and 2 RCT). The pooled results showed no significant difference (RR: 0.86, 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.08) in the incidence of LVSI between manipulated hysterectomy and total abdominal hysterectomy (TAH) and between UM group and non-UM group in minimally invasive surgery (RR: 1.18, 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.85), no significant difference in the rate of recurrence (RR: 1.11, 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.74), in the incidence of positive peritoneal cytology between manipulated and non-manipulated hysterectomies in minimally invasive surgery (RR: 1.89, 95% CI, 0.74 to 4.83) and before and after the use of uterine manipulator (RR: 1.21, 95% CI, 0.68 to 2.16). We found a positive association between malignant cytology and hysterectomies in which a uterine manipulator had been used in a sub-group analysis where LH/LAVH were compared to TAH. (RR = 2.26, 95% CI, 1.08-4.71. P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis supports that the use of uterine manipulator for minimally invasive treatment of endometrial cancer does not increase the rate of recurrence and LVSI. Therefore, the opportunity of any other studies on its use in endometrial cancer women should be questioned.