Is robotic better than laparoscopic approach for right colectomy? A cohort study from two Tuscany centers.

Robotic surgery is becoming more and more frequent. In colon surgery it can be used safely with similar results to laparoscopic surgery. The objective of our work is to retrospectively compare the short-term results (30 days) of robotic and laparoscopic right hemicolectomy. It will be helpful to understand if there are any advantages of robotic over laparoscopic surgery. METHODS: Data of miniinvasive (laparoscopic and robotic) right colectomy procedures performed from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2019 in two Tuscany hospitals were retrospectively collected and analyzed. The mean hospital stay, complication rate, flatus pass, operative time, conversion rate and the number of removed lymph nodes, between the two methods have been compared. RESULTS: The total number of the patients that underwent right miniinvasive colectomy was 211. Sixteen patients were excluded from the study. Of the 195 included patients, 143 were operated with the robotic approach, and 52 with the laparoscopic one. There was no significant difference between the mean hospital stay (7 days in both), canalization to gas (4 days in both), anastomotic dehiscence (2 in robotic and 1 in laparoscopy), and Clavien Dindo 3 - 5 grade complications. The operation time (215 vs 175 min) and the number of retrieved lymph nodes (19 vs 15) were significantly greater in the robotic approach. CONCLUSION: The robotic approach may be advantageous in terms of surgical radicality with the price of a greater operative time. KEY WORDS: Laparoscopic, Right colectomy, Robotic.

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 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.