Impact of operation duration on postoperative outcomes of minimally-invasive right colectomy.

AIM: Operation time (OT) is a key operational factor influencing surgical outcomes. The present study aimed to analyse whether OT impacts on short-term outcomes of minimally-invasive right colectomies by assessing the role of surgical approach (robotic [RRC] or laparoscopic right colectomy [LRC]), and type of ileocolic anastomosis (i.e., intracorporal [IA] or extra-corporal anastomosis [EA]). METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of the Minimally-invasivE surgery for oncological Right ColectomY (MERCY) Study Group database, which included adult patients with nonmetastatic right colon adenocarcinoma operated on by oncological RRC or LRC between January 2014 and December 2020. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used. RESULTS: The study sample was composed of 1549 patients who were divided into three groups according to the OT quartiles: (1) First quartile, <135 min (n = 386); (2) Second and third quartiles, 135-199 min (n = 731); and (3) Fourth quartile ≥200 min (n = 432). The majority (62.7%) were LRC-EA, followed by LRC-IA (24.3%), RRC-IA (11.1%), and RRC-EA (1.9%). Independent predictors of an OT ≥ 200 min included male gender, age, obesity, diabetes, use of indocyanine green fluorescence, and IA confection. An OT ≥ 200 min was significantly associated with an increased risk of postoperative noninfective complications (AOR: 1.56; 95% CI: 1.15-2.13; p = 0.004), whereas the surgical approach and the type of anastomosis had no impact on postoperative morbidity. CONCLUSION: Prolonged OT is independently associated with increased odds of postoperative noninfective complications in oncological minimally-invasive right colectomy.

Robot-assisted surgery in elderly and very elderly population: our experience in oncologic and general surgery with literature review.

BACKGROUND: Although there is no agreement on a definition of elderly, commonly an age cutoff of ≥65 or 75 years is used. Nowadays most of malignancies requiring surgical treatment are diagnosed in old population. Comorbidities and frailty represent well-known problems during and after surgery in elderly patients. Minimally invasive surgery offers earlier postoperative mobilization, less blood loss, lower morbidity as well as reduction in hospital stay and as such represents an interesting and validated option for elderly population. Robot-assisted surgery is a recent improvement of conventional minimally invasive surgery. AIMS: We provided a complete review of old and very old patients undergoing robot-assisted surgery for oncologic and general surgery interventions. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients undergoing robot-assisted surgery in our General Surgery Unit from September 2012 to June 2016 was conducted. Analysis was performed for the entire cohort and in particular for three of the most performed surgeries (gastric resections, right colectomy, and liver resections) classifying patients into three age groups: ≤64, 65-79, and ≥80. Data from these three different age groups were compared and examined in respect of different outcomes: ASA score, comorbidities, oncologic outcomes, conversion rate, estimated blood loss, hospital stay, geriatric events, mortality, etc. RESULTS: Using our in-patient robotic surgery database, we retrospectively examined 363 patients, who underwent robot-assisted surgery for different diseases (402 different robotic procedures): colorectal surgery, upper GI, HPB, etc.; the oncologic procedures were 81%. Male were 56%. The mean age was 65.63 years (18-89). Patients aged ≥65 years represented 61% and ≥80 years 13%. Overall conversion rate was of 6%, most in the group 65-79 years (59% of all conversions). The more frequent diseases treated were colorectal surgery 43%, followed by hepatobilopancreatic surgery 23.4%, upper gastro-intestinal 23.2%, and others 10.4%. DISCUSSION: Robot-assisted surgery is a safe and effective technique in aging patient population too. There was no increased risk of death or morbidity compared to younger patients in the three groups examined. A higher conversion rate was observed in our experience for patients aged 65-79. Prolonged operative time and in any cases steep positions (Trendelenburg) have not represented a problem for the majority of patients. CONCLUSIONS: In any case, considering the high direct costs, minimally invasive robot-assisted surgery should be performed on a case-by-case basis, tailored to each patient with their specific histories and comorbidities.

Minimally invasive robotic-assisted combined colorectal and liver excision surgery: feasibility, safety and surgical technique in a pilot series.

Different strategies may be adopted in patients with synchronous colorectal liver metastases (LM). The role of laparoscopy has been investigated to define the benefits of minimally invasive surgery in a single-stage operation. In our study, we report our experience of 28 Minimally Invasive Robotic-Assisted combined Colorectal and Liver Excision Surgery (MIRACLES). From October 2012 to December 2019, 135 Robotic liver resections and 218 Robotic Colorectal resections were performed in our center. Twenty-eight patients underwent MIRACLES resection with 37 nodules removed. Fifty-two lesions in 28 patients were resected in minimally invasive robot-assisted surgery. Eighteen lesions were located in postero-superior liver segments (eight in segment VII, two in segment VIII, eight in segment IVa). Nine right colectomies, seven left colectomies, ten anterior rectal resections, one Hartmann and one MILES procedures were performed. The median surgical time of MIRACLES procedures was 332 min. Two conversions to open approach were necessary. Four major complications (> III) were observed. No postoperative mortality was recorded. The median hospital stay was 8 days. The median overall survival was 27.5 months. The MIRACLES approach is feasible and safe for colorectal resection and hepatic nodules located in all segments, with a low rate of postoperative complications. Surgical technique is demanding and should be reserved, presently, to tertiary centers.

2020 WSES guidelines for the detection and management of bile duct injury during cholecystectomy.

Bile duct injury (BDI) is a dangerous complication of cholecystectomy, with significant postoperative sequelae for the patient in terms of morbidity, mortality, and long-term quality of life. BDIs have an estimated incidence of 0.4-1.5%, but considering the number of cholecystectomies performed worldwide, mostly by laparoscopy, surgeons must be prepared to manage this surgical challenge. Most BDIs are recognized either during the procedure or in the immediate postoperative period. However, some BDIs may be discovered later during the postoperative period, and this may translate to delayed or inappropriate treatments. Providing a specific diagnosis and a precise description of the BDI will expedite the decision-making process and increase the chance of treatment success. Subsequently, the choice and timing of the appropriate reconstructive strategy have a critical role in long-term prognosis. Currently, a wide spectrum of multidisciplinary interventions with different degrees of invasiveness is indicated for BDI management. These World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) guidelines have been produced following an exhaustive review of the current literature and an international expert panel discussion with the aim of providing evidence-based recommendations to facilitate and standardize the detection and management of BDIs during cholecystectomy. In particular, the 2020 WSES guidelines cover the following key aspects: (1) strategies to minimize the risk of BDI during cholecystectomy; (2) BDI rates in general surgery units and review of surgical practice; (3) how to classify, stage, and report BDI once detected; (4) how to manage an intraoperatively detected BDI; (5) indications for antibiotic treatment; (6) indications for clinical, biochemical, and imaging investigations for suspected BDI; and (7) how to manage a postoperatively detected BDI.

Management of Complications of First Instance of Hepatic Trauma in a Liver Surgery Unit: Portal Vein Ligation as a Conservative Therapeutic Strategy.

BACKGROUND: According to the National Trauma Data Bank, the liver, after the spleen, is the first most injured organ in closed abdominal trauma. METHODS: From June 2010 to December 2015 we observed in our department of Hepato-biliary Surgery and Liver Transplant Unit of the A.O.R.N. A. Cardarelli of Naples 40 patients affected by hepatic trauma. In our retrospective study, we review our experience and propose portal vein ligation (PVL) as a first - line strategy for damage control surgery (DCS) in liver trauma. RESULTS: 26/40 patients (65%) which received gauze-packing represented our study group. In 10 cases out of 26 patients (38,4%) the abdominal packing was enough to control the damage. In 7 cases (18,4%) we performed a liver resection. In 7 cases, after de-packing, we adopted PVL to achieve DCS. Trans Arterial Embolization was chosen in 6 patients. 2 of them were discharged 14 days later without performing any other procedure.In 3 cases we had to perform a right epatectomy in second instance. Two hepatectomies were due to hemoperitoneum, and the other for coleperitoneum. Two patients were treated in first instance by only doing hemostasis on the bleeding site. We observed 6 patients in first instance. Five of them underwent surgery with hepatic resection and surgical hemostasis of the bleeding site. The other one underwent to conservative management. In summary we performed 15 hepatic resections, 8 of them were right hepatectomies, 1 left hepatectomy, 2 trisegmentectomies V-VI-VII. So in second instance we operated on 10 patients out of 34 (30%). CONCLUSIONS: The improved knowledge of clinical physio-pathology and the improvement of diagnostic and instrumental techniques had a great impact on the prognosis of liver trauma. We think that a rigid diagnostic protocol should be applied as this allows timely pathological finding, and consists of three successive but perfectly integrated steps: 1) patient reception, in close collaboration with the resuscitator; 2) accurate but quick diagnostic framing 3) therapeutic decisional making. Selective portal vein ligation is a well-tolerated and safe manoeuvre, which could be effective, even if not definitive, in treating these subjects. That is why we believe that it can be a choice to keep in mind especially in post-depacking bleeding.

Robot-assisted liver surgery in a general surgery unit with a "Referral Centre Hub&Spoke Learning Program". Early outcomes after our first 70 consecutive patients.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate safety, feasibility and short-term outcomes of our first 70 consecutive patients treated by robotic-assisted liver resection after a reversal proctoring between a high HPB volume centre and our well-trained center in minimally invasive General Surgery. Six surgeons were involved in this Hub&Spoke learning program. METHODS: From September 2012 to December 2016, 70 patients underwent robotic-assisted liver resections (RALR). We treated 18 patients affected by colorectal and gastric cancer with synchronous liver lesions suspected for metastases in a one-stage robotic-assisted procedure. For the first 20 procedures we had a tutor in the operatory room, who was present also in the next most difficult procedures. RESULTS: The 30- and 90-day mortality rate was zero with an overall morbidity rate of 10.1%. Associated surgical procedures were performed in about 65,7% of patients. The observed conversion rate was 10%. The results of the first 20 cases were similar to the next 50 showing a shortned learning curve. CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive robot-assisted liver resection is a safe technique; it allows overcoming many limits of conventional laparoscopy. This innovative, time-enduring Hub&Spoke may allow patients to undergo a proper standard of care also for complex surgical procedures, without the need of reaching referral centres.

A New Robot-assisted Billroth-I Reconstruction: Details of the Technique and Early Results.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic surgery for gastric tumor is considered a demanding procedure because of lymph node dissection and reconstruction. Billroth-I (B-I) reconstruction after laparoscopic distal gastrectomy is commonly performed extracorporeally because of the complexity of an intracorporeal procedure. Robotic surgery overcomes some limitations of laparoscopy, allowing to reproduce the basic maneuvers of open surgery. We describe a new technique to perform robotic B-I anastomosis. METHODS: Between January 2012 and February 2015, 5 patients underwent distal gastrectomy with intracorporeal B-I-stapled anastomosis. Patient demographics, tumor characteristics, histopathologic features, and perioperative data were analyzed. RESULTS: Median operative time was 170 minutes (145 to 180 min). There were no conversions. Contrast swallow was routinely performed on the third postoperative day. Median postoperative hospitalization was 7 days (range: 6 to 8). No major complications or mortality were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic distal gastrectomy with intracorporeal B-I anastomosis is a safe and promising technique in selected cases of gastric tumors.