Laparoscopic Versus Open Hartmann Reversal: A Case-Control Study.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic reversal of Hartmann's procedure (LHR) offers reduced morbidity compared with open Hartmann's reversal (OHR). The aim of this study is to compare the outcome of laparoscopic versus open Hartmann reversal. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-four patients who underwent Hartmann reversal between January 2017 and July 2019 were evaluated. Patients underwent either LHR (n = 17) or OHR (n = 17). Variables such as numbers of patients, patient's age, sex, body mass index (BMI), comorbidities, ASA (American Society of Anesthesiology) score, indication for previous open sigmoid resection, mean operation time, rate of conversion to open surgery, length of hospital stay, mortality, and morbidity were retrospectively evaluated. RESULTS: The two groups of patients were homogeneous for gender, age, body mass index, cause of primary surgery, time to reversal, and comorbidities. In 97% of the cases, HP was done by open surgery. Our data revealed no difference in mean operation time (LHR: 180.5 ± 35.1 vs. OHR: 225.2 ± 48.4) and morbidity rate, although, in OHR group, there were more severe complications. Less intraoperative blood loss (LHR: 100 ± 40 mL vs. OHR: 450 ± 125 mL; p value <0.001), shorter time to flatus (LHR: 2.4 days vs. OHR: 3.6 days; p value <0.021), and shorter hospitalization (LHR: 4.4 vs. OHR: 11.2 days; p value <0.001) were observed in the LHR group. Mortality rate was null in both groups. Discussion. LHR is feasible and safe even for patients who received a primary open Hartmann's procedure. We suggest careful patient's selection allowing LHR procedures to highly skilled laparoscopy surgeons.

Outcome after single-site robotic cholecystectomy: An initial single center's experience.

BACKGROUND: Although laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the gold standard for symptomatic gallbladder disease, a single-incision approach may be a new challenge in order to achieve minimization of surgical trauma. Single-site robotic cholecystectomy (SSRC) is able to offset the ergonomic limitation of laparoscopic single-site cholecystectomy and improves cosmesis. METHODS: We present a single-institution initial experience of SSRC for cholecystolithiasis. Intra-operative and post-operative data of patients were reviewed to assess the technical feasibility and cosmetic outcome. RESULTS: We evaluated a series of 27 consecutive patients retrospectively analyzed and prospectively collected who underwent SSRC. One patient was excluded from the final analysis because they converted to open procedure. The female/male ratio was 17/9, with mean age of 48 ± 12 years. The body mass index mean value was 26.0 ± 4.2. The mean operative time was 99.6 ± 21.5 minutes. No intra- or post-operative complications and readmissions were recorded. At 12 months follow up, every patient received the Body Image Questionnaire (BIQ) and a Photo Series Questionnaire. We recorded three patients (11.5%) with post-operative incisional hernia. Scores of the BIQ subscale for body image perception were 6 ± 1.2, while the scores of scar cosmesis were 21.1 ± 3.0. A statistically significant improvement in scar self-rating from T0 to T1 (P < .01) was found. CONCLUSION: In our initial experience SSRC may be preferred to treat patients with higher needs in terms of cosmesis and body image perception. Lower costs for rent, maintenance and consumables may allow the spread of robotic surgery also for singe site cholecystectomy.

How to choose the most appropriate technique for the single-stage treatment of cholecysto-choledocolithiasis?

BACKGROUND: We utilized transcystic clearance and intra-operative papillotomy through a rendezvous technique for the treatment of cholecysto-choledocolithiasis. The goal of this study was to evaluate the reliability of pre-operative parameters to address the most suitable surgical procedure. METHODS: A total of 180 patients affected by calculi of the gallbladder and bile duct underwent the single-stage treatment. According to several pre-operative parameters, 141 patients had to supposedly undergo transcystic clearance of the bile duct, while 39 patients had to be treated with the rendezvous technique. All patients were treated with the sequential procedure: first, we tried the transcystic procedure and, if there was a failure, we used a rendezvous technique. We prospectively analysed each group based on a series of variables such as sex, age, operative time, success rate of proposed treatment, conversion rate, post-operative complications and hospital stay. RESULTS: Transcystic clearance was successful in 134 out of 141 patients (95.0%), while 2 patients needed to undergo a laparo-endoscopy procedure (failure). Thirty-five out of 39 patients (89.7%) obtained common bile-duct (CBD) clearance through the rendezvous technique, while 1 patient obtained clean-up through the simple transcystic procedure (failure). Five out of 141 patients with transcystic clearance and 3 out of 39 patients with the rendezvous technique underwent laparotomy CBD clearance with conversion rates of 3.5% and 7.7%, respectively. Post-operative complications showed similar percentages for both procedures. However, the surgical time turned out to be longer for the rendezvous technique. CONCLUSIONS: The one-stage procedure for the treatment of cholecysto-choledocolithiasis was possible in 94% of the cases utilizing a surgical technique selected according to the patient's case history. The pre-operative parameters, such as jaundice, CBD diameters and stone diameters, have certified their reliability as good predictors of the most suitable procedure to follow.

Peritoneal sarcoidosis mimicking peritoneal carcinomatosis.

AIM: Describtion of a rare case of intestinal obstruction due to peritoneal sarcoidosis mimicking peritoneal carcinomatosis, and of the literature review about its surgical management. MATERIAL OF STUDY: A 69 year-old woman was referred to our emergency department with diffuse abdominal pain, enteric vomiting and constipation. Abdominal CT showed a dilatated small bowel loops extended to the jejunum with a mechanical obstruction. Given the failure of a non operative management, an explorative laparotomy was performed. RESULTS: Intraoperative evaluation showed an omental cake with extensive adhesions between small bowel and abdominal wall. The adhesion band determining occlusion was identified and cut. Furthermore, several peritoneal and omental biopsies were performed. Postoperative period was uneventful. Unfortunately, one month later, the patient died following an episode of spontaneous pneumothorax and respiratory complications. DISCUSSION: Sarcoidosis is a chronic multisystemic disorder of unknown aetiology with granulomatous inflammation. Peritoneal involvement is a rare presentation of sarcoidosis. Clinical presentation depends on the extent of organ involvement. In some cases,symptoms are no specific and uncommon findings have been reported so far. CONCLUSION: Despite a peritoneal carcinomatosis was suspeted, this case shows that abdominal sarcoidosis might be considered as a differential diagnosis when a lesion suspected of being peritoneal carcinomatosis shows non-typical clinical presentations. KEY WORDS: Peritoneal sarcoidosis, Small bowel obstruction.

How we do it: totally laparoscopic complete mesocolon excision for splenic flexure cancer.

BACKGROUND: Splenic flexure (SF) cancer is not a common condition and its treatment is still under discussion. Although laparoscopic surgery is well accepted for the treatment of colon cancer at any stage, complete mesocolon excision (CME) with selective vascular ligation using the laparoscopic approach for SF cancer remains technically demanding and represents a real challenge for surgeons. METHODS: We present a single-institution experience of laparoscopic CME for SF cancer. Intra-operative, pathologic, and post-operative data of patients who underwent laparoscopic SF resection were reviewed to assess the technical feasibility and oncologic safety. Technical features, histopathology, morbidity, and mortality were evaluated. RESULTS: From February 2015 to October 2017, a minimally invasive approach was proposed to 17 patients (M/F 14/3) affected by splenic flexure cancer. In all patients, the procedure was completed by laparoscopy. The anastomosis was completed intra-corporeally in 89% of cases. The distal margin was 3.1 ± 2.6 cm and the proximal margin was 6.5 ± 3.3 cm from the tumor site. The number of mean harvested nodes was 13.9 ± 7. The mean operative time was 215.5 ± 65 min, and blood loss was 80 ± 27. In one case, a laparoscopic partial gastrectomy was associated due to tumor invasion. The mean post-operative stay was 6.7 ± 3.3 days. Readmission was necessary for two patients. No major morbidity was recorded. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the wide spread and increasing confidence in laparoscopic colectomy, SF resection remains one of the most challenging procedures in colorectal surgery with a complex learning curve. SF resection with CME and CVL is feasible and safe for the treatment of early-stage and locally advanced SF cancer.

Minimally Invasive Pancreaticoduodenectomy: What is the Best "Choice"? A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Non-randomized Comparative Studies.

BACKGROUND: Many mini-invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) techniques have been reported, but their advantages with respect to an open technique (OPD) and with respect to each other are unclear. METHOD: A systematic literature search of studies comparing different types of MIPD was carried out: laparoscopic-assisted (LAPD), totally robotic (TRPD), totally laparoscopic (TLPD) or totally laparoscopic-robotic assisted (TLPD-RA) to OPD. The primary endpoint was postoperative mortality. The secondary endpoints were intraoperative, postoperative and oncological outcomes. A network meta-analysis was designed to generate direct, indirect and mixed estimate effects, between different approaches, for each variable. The effects were reported as pairwise comparisons and hierarchical ranking as to each approach could be the best or the worst for each outcome, expressed by the surface under the cumulative ranking curve. RESULTS: Twenty studies were identified, involving 2759 patients: 1813 OPDs, 81 LAPDs, 505 TRPDs, 224 TLPDs and 136 TLPD-RAs. No differences regarding postoperative mortality were found in pairwise comparison. The LAPD technique had a high probability of being the worst approach, while TRPD had a high probability of being one of the best. Regarding the secondary endpoints, OPD was the best regarding operative time and postoperative bleeding, but the worst regarding blood loss and wound infection. The TRPD or TLPD-RA techniques seemed to be the best for delayed gastric emptying, length of hospital stay, harvested lymph nodes and postoperative morbidity. The TLPD technique was often the worst approach, especially for overall and major complications, postoperative bleeding and biliary leak. CONCLUSION: The safest MIPDs are those involving a robotic system which seems to have a promising role in ameliorating the outcomes of OPD, especially when compared to a laparoscopic approach.