Should we encourage the use of robotic technologies in complicated diverticulitis? Results of systematic review and meta-analysis.

Introduction: Complicated diverticulitis is a common abdominal emergency that often requires a surgical intervention. The systematic review and meta-analysis below compare the benefits and harms of robotic vs. laparoscopic surgery in patients with complicated colonic diverticular disease. Methods: The following databases were searched before 1 March 2023: Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The internal validity of the selected non-randomized studies was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool. The meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis were performed using RevMan 5.4 (Cochrane Collaboration, London, United Kingdom) and Copenhagen Trial Unit Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) software (Copenhagen Trial Unit, Center for Clinical Intervention Research, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark), respectively. Results: We found no relevant randomized controlled trials in the searched databases. Therefore, we analyzed 5 non-randomized studies with satisfactory internal validity and similar designs comprising a total of 442 patients (184 (41.6%) robotic and 258 (58.4%) laparoscopic interventions). The analysis revealed that robotic surgery for complicated diverticulitis (CD) took longer than laparoscopy (MD = 42 min; 95% CI: [-16, 101]). No statistically significant differences were detected between the groups regarding intraoperative blood loss (MD = -9 mL; 95% CI: [-26, 8]) and the rate of conversion to open surgery (2.17% or 4/184 for robotic surgery vs. 6.59% or 17/258 for laparoscopy; RR = 0.63; 95% CI: [0.10, 4.00]). The type of surgery did not affect the length of in-hospital stay (MD = 0.18; 95% CI: [-0.60, 0.97]) or the rate of postoperative complications (14.1% or 26/184 for robotic surgery vs. 19.8% or 51/258 for laparoscopy; RR = 0.81; 95% CI: [0.52, 1.26]). No deaths were reported in either group. Discussion: The meta-analysis suggests that robotic surgery is an appropriate option for managing complicated diverticulitis. It is associated with a trend toward a lower rate of conversion to open surgery and fewer postoperative complications; however, this trend does not reach the level of statistical significance. Since no high quality RCTs were available, this meta-analysis isnot able to provide reliable conclusion, but only a remarkable lack of proper evidence supporting robotic technology. The need for further evidence-based trials is important.

[Comparison of robot-assisted and conventional endoscopic surgeries in the Russian Federation. (A systematic review and meta-analysis)]. / Sravnenie robot-assistirovannykh i traditsionnykh videoendoskopicheskikh operatsii v RF. (Rezul'taty sistematicheskogo obzora i metaanaliza).

OBJECTIVE: Comparative assessment of immediate and long-term results of robot-assisted and conventional endoscopic technologies in the Russian Federation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Searching for primary trials devoted to robot-assisted (RAE) and traditional video endoscopic (TVE) surgeries in the Russian Federation was carried out in the e-library and CENTRAL Cochrane databases. We used the recommendations of the Center for Expertise and Quality Control of Medical Care (2017, 2019) and the current version of the Cochrane Community Guidelines (2021). These guidelines define the features of meta-analysis of non-randomized comparative studies. Review Manager 5.4 software was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: We enrolled 26 Russian-language primary sources (3111 patients) including 1174 (38%) ones in the RAE group and 1937 (62%) patients in the TVE group. There were no randomized controlled trials in the Russian Federation, and all primary studies were non-randomized. We found no significant between-group differences in surgery time, incidence of intraoperative complications, intraoperative blood loss in thoracic surgery, urology and gynecology, conversion rate, postoperative hospital-stay, postoperative morbidity (in abdominal surgery, urology and gynecology), postoperative mortality. We observed slightly lower intraoperative blood loss for RAE in abdominal surgery and lower incidence of postoperative complications in robot-assisted thoracic surgery. These results can be compromised by methodological quality of comparative studies, significant heterogeneity and systematic errors. CONCLUSION: Currently, we cannot confirm the benefits of robot-assisted technologies, since this approach does not worsen or improve treatment outcomes. Further high-quality studies are needed.

[Diagnostic and treatment approaches for acute appendicitis in the Russian Federation. Results of the all-Russian survey]. / Diagnosticheskie i lechebnye podkhody pri ostrom appenditsite v praktike khirurgov Rossiiskoi Federatsii. Rezul'taty obshcherossiiskogo oprosa.

OBJECTIVE: To improve treatment outcomes in patients with acute appendicitis (AA). MATERIAL AND METHODS: An internet survey was performed. Questionnaire consisted of 15 questions concerning diagnosis and treatment of AA: application of prognostic scales, incidence and technical aspects of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA), antibiotic prophylaxis, postoperative management, compliance with international and national clinical guidelines. A total of 690 questionnaires were received and analyzed (3.67% of all surgeons in the Russian Federation). RESULTS: Eighteen percent of respondents use at least one prognostic scale. The vast majority of surgeons (92%) use antibiotic prophylaxis. Almost half of respondents place trocars in the triangulation position (44%), one third of surgeons ligate the mesentery of the appendix (35%), most respondents perform mesoappendectomy (60%) with monopolar and bipolar cautery. Forty-five percent of all respondents do not invert the appendix stump. Significant number of respondents use abdominal drainage routinely. Only 3.5% of surgeons use multimodal postoperative analgesia. Less than 22% of patients are operated under low-pressure pneumoperitoneum. Standardization of surgical technique and perioperative approaches including those specified in the guidelines is absent. We also found insufficient awareness of surgeons about international and national clinical guidelines. CONCLUSION: This study may be useful for standardizing treatment approaches, choosing the best practice, popularizing and improving of current clinical guidelines.

[Fast-track rehabilitation for acute cholecystitis: intermediate outcomes of prospective randomized trial]. / Uskorennoe vyzdorovlenie pri ostrom kholetsistite: promezhutochnye rezul'taty prospektivnogo randomizirovannogo issledovaniia.

AIM: To analyze an efficacy of FT-protocol in patients with acute cholecystitis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Prospective randomized study included 102 patients (45 of main group (FT) and 57 of control groups). Patients did not differ by TG13 severity index. The protocol included information, antibiotic prophylaxis, restriction of drainage, intraperitoneal anesthesia with long-term anesthetics, low pressure pneumoperitoneum, antiemetics in the presence of risk factors, early activation and feeding of the patient. Pain was assessed by VAS immediately after surgery, and 2, 6 and 12-24 hours postoperatively. RESULTS: Surgery time was similar in both groups. Need for anesthesia and pain severity were significantly lower in the FT group. A total absence of pain (VAS 0-1) on the 1st postoperative day was noted in 8 (17.7%) of the FT group and 2 (3.5%) patients of the control group (p=0.038). Shoulder pain developed in 4 (8.9%) cases of the main and 22 (38.6%) cases of the control group (p=0.001). Postoperative nausea developed in 13% of the FT group vs 40.5% in the control group (p=0.05). Hospital-stay was 1.29±0.7 days and 2.7±1.6 (p<0.0001), respectively. The time of the first stool was similar. Twenty-four (53.5%) patients of the FT group and 8,9% of the control group were discharged on 1st postoperative day. There were 2 (IIIA) complications in the main group and 3 - in the control group (IIIA, IIIB and IV). There were no mortality and readmissions. CONCLUSION: FT protocol in AC reduce postoperative pain, dyspepsia, shoulder pain and in-hospital stay with equal number of postoperative complications.

[Comparison of standard and fast track rehabilitation in patients with acute appendicitis. Intermediate results of multicenter prospective randomized trial]. / Sravnitel'naia otsenka metodov standartnoi i uskorennoi reabilitatsii bol'nykh s ostrym appenditsitom. Promezhutochnye rezul'taty mnogotsentrovogo prospektivnogo randomizirovannogo issledovaniia.

AIM: To analyze outcomes of fast track rehabilitation in patients with acute appendicitis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Prospective, randomized multi-center trial including 86 patients was conducted. There were 38 patients in the main group and 48 in the control group. All patients underwent laparoscopic appendectomy under endotracheal anesthesia. Protocol included informing, no premedication, glucose infusion prior to surgery, antibiotics administration, mesoappendix excision, limited deployment of drainage tubes, intraabdominal prolonged anesthesia, minimal pneumoperitoneum, limited irrigation, minimum power monopolar electrocautery, antiemetics, early activation and eating (2 and 6 hours after surgery). Pain was evaluated by visual-analogue scale. Auscultative peristalsis was considered every 2 hours after surgery. Cortisol level was assessed preoperatively, in 6 and 12-24 hours after surgery in 11 (29%) and 15 (31%) patients of the main and control groups respectively. Discharge criteria: no leukocytosis, fever and pain syndrome requiring anesthesia, no signs of complications and patient's consent. RESULTS: Terms of disease, gender, age and comorbidities were similar in all patients. Duration of surgery under minimal pneumoperitoneum and standard pressure was also similar: 69.2±3.98 and 70.9±3.89 min (p=0.762). Pain syndrome grade and need for analgesics were significantly lower in the main group within entire follow-up. Pain syndrome was absent at the 1st postoperative day in 16 (42%) and 2 (4.1%) patients of both groups, respectively (score 0-1). Phrenic nerve syndrome was observed in 36.8% of the main group and 60.4% of the control group (p=0.05). Incidence of dyspepsia and terms of peristalsis onset were similar. Length of hospital-stay was 1.45 days in the main group and 3.15 days in the control group (p=0.002). In the main group 18 (47%) patients were discharged on the first day after surgery. There were only 4 (8.3%) patients with similar hospital-stay in the control group (p<0.001). There were no repeated hospitalizations. Postoperative cortisol concentration was similar in both groups as well as in complicated and uneventful postoperative period. In the main group postoperative intestinal paresis (Clavien-Dindo grade 2) occurred in 1 patient. In the control group 7 patients had postoperative infiltrate and 1 patient - intestinal paresis (Clavien-Dindo grade 2). Postoperative drainage tube was deployed in 3 out of 7 patients with postoperative infiltrates and 6 of them received antibiotic therapy. Medication was successfully applied in all patients with complications. CONCLUSION: There are some advantages of FTR for AA including reduced pain syndrome, morbidity and less length of hospital-stay. Issue of cortisol concentration requires further trials.