Achalasia Treatment. Robotic Approach or Laparoscopy?

Background: Nowadays the question persists whether to choose the endoscopic or surgical method as the first treatment of choice for achalasia. Another debate topic is about the differences between the outcomes of the two approaches of minimally invasive surgical treatment and their feasibility. Material and Methods: This retrospective observational study included 193 patients with achalasia treated between 2008 and 2021. The patients were divided into 2 groups (A and B): 152 with minimally invasive heller myotomy (HM), and 41 with pneumatic dilation (PD). Patients surgically treated were then subdivided into robotic group (RG) and laparoscopic group (LG). Results: The recurrence rate was significantly higher in PD group (Ã?2 = 16.81, DF = 1, p 0.0001), with a success rate of 63,4%, comparing with 92,7% in HM group. No significant difference was obtained between the 2 groups concerning symptom relief on patients successfully treated. The success rate was comparable between the robotic and laparoscopic groups (p = 1). Significant difference was obtained in length of hospital stay between the 2 groups, with a mean of 4.78 +-1.59 days in the RG and, respectively, 5.52 +-2.1 days in the LG (t = 2.40, DF = 124.34, p = 0.0177). Postprocedural esophagitis rates were higher in patients with no fundoplication (6 out of 37 - 16.2%) and in patients treated with pneumatic dilation (4 out of 26 - 15.4%) than in patients with fundoplication (4 out of 46 - 8.5%). Conclusion: The present study indicates that surgery may be a better choice in fit patients for the treatment of achalasia. The procedure has a better success rate, even if the long-term outcomes are comparable in patients successfully treated. The success rate and long-term results were comparable between laparoscopy and robotic surgery.

Is There a Role for Minimally Invasive Surgery in Cervical Cancer Treatment: Carry on, Discard, or Modify? A Literature Review and Case Series Presentation.

Oncological surgery is constantly evolving. Recommendations and guidelines are updated periodically in light of new research. Since surgery is a key step in the treatment of cervical cancer in Romania and considering the new findings, this study aims to assess the new guideline recommendations and the surgical treatment options available. The paradigm shift that took place in 2018 left the question: does minimally invasive surgery still play a role in the treatment of cervical cancer? K ouml;hler surgical technique seems to address some of the issues raised by the minimally invasive surgery with good results. H ouml;ckel proposes total mesometrial excision to decrease the risk of recurrence. This study presents 3 cases of cervical cancer patients with stages ranging from IB1 to IIIB that had undergone total mesometrial excision and vaginal cuff closure using the laparoscopic approach to minimize the risk of local recurrence. The case series presented showed that it is feasible and safe to merge these techniques. Further prospective studies are needed in order to assess the risk and benefits of these techniques.

Abdominoperineal Resection for Rectal Cancer: Open, Laparoscopic or Robotic Approach.

OBJECTIVES: The present study compares abdominoperineal resection (APR) performed by minimally invasive and open approach, regarding preoperative selection criteria, intraoperative and early postoperative aspects, in choosing the suitable technique performed by surgical teams with experience in both open and minimally invasive surgery (MIS). Methods: This is a retrospective study, conducted between 2008-2020. Two hundred thirty-three patients with APR performed for low rectal or anal cancer were included. The cohort was divided into two groups, depending on the surgical approach used: Minimally Invasive Surgery (laparoscopic and robotic procedures) and Open Surgery (OS). The perioperative characteristics were analyzed in order to identify the optimal approach and a possible selection criteria. Results: We identified a high percentage of patients with a history of abdominal surgery in the open group (p = .0002). Intraoperative blood loss was significantly higher in the open group (p= .02), with an increased number of simultaneous resections (p = .041). The early postoperative outcome was marked by significantly lower morbidity in the MIS group (p = .005), with mortality recorded only in the open group (3 cases), in patients that associated severe comorbidities. The hystopathological results identified a significant number of patients with stage T2 in the MIS group (p= .037). Conclusions: Minimally invasive surgery provides a major advantage to APR, by avoiding an additional incision, the specimen being extracted through the perineal wound. The success of MIS APR seems to be assured by a good preoperative selection of the patients, alongside with experienced surgical teams in both open and minimally invasive rectal resections. The lack of conversion identified in robotic APR confirm the technical superiority over laparoscopic approach.