Sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis for perforated diverticulitis with peritonitis: To divert or not to divert-A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The role of proximal diversion in patients undergoing sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis for diverticulitis with generalized peritonitis is unclear. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis and sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis with a proximal diversion in perforated diverticulitis with diffuse peritonitis. METHOD: A systematic literature search on sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis and sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis with proximal diversion for diverticulitis with diffuse peritonitis was conducted in the Medline and EMBASE databases. Randomized clinical trials and observational studies reporting the primary outcome of interest (30-day mortality) were included. Secondary outcomes were major morbidity, anastomotic leak, reoperation, stoma nonreversal rates, and length of hospital stay. A meta-analysis of proportions and linear regression models were used to assess the effect of each procedure on the different outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 17 studies involving 544 patients (sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis: 287 versus sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis with proximal diversion: 257) were included. Thirty-day mortality (odds ratio 1.12, 95% confidence interval 0.53-2.40, P = .76), major morbidity (odds ratio 1.40, 95% confidence interval 0.80-2.44, P = .24), anastomotic leak (odds ratio 0.34, 95% confidence interval 0.099-1.20, P = .10), reoperation (odds ratio 0.49, 95% confidence interval 0.17-1.46, P = .20), and length of stay (sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis: 12.1 vs resection and primary anastomosis with diverting ileostomy: 15 days, P = .44) were similar between groups. The risk of definitive stoma was significantly lower after sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis (odds ratio 0.05, 95% confidence interval 0.006-0.35, P = .003). CONCLUSION: Sigmoid resection and primary anastomosis with or without proximal diversion have similar postoperative outcomes in selected patients with diverticulitis and diffuse peritonitis. However, further randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these results.

Outcomes of same-day discharge sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Length of stay after bariatric surgery has progressively shortened. Same-day discharge (SDD) has been reported for the 2 most common bariatric procedures, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG). The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety and success of SDD following SG and RYGB. Systematic literature search on SDD after bariatric surgery was conducted in Medline, Cochrane library, Google Scholar, and Embase. SDD was defined as discharging the patient during the day of the bariatric operation, without an overnight stay. The primary outcomes of interest were successful SDD, readmission, and morbidity rates. The secondary endpoints included reoperation and mortality rates. A proportion meta-analysis was performed to assess the outcomes of interest. A total of 14 studies with 33,403 patients who underwent SDD SG (32,165) or RYGB (1238) were included in the qualitative synthesis. Seven studies with 5000 patients who underwent SDD SG were included in the quantitative analysis, and pooled proportions (PPs) were calculated for the outcomes of interest. The SDD success rate was 63%-100% (PP: 99%) after SG and 88%-98.1% after RYGB. The readmission rate ranged from .6% to 20.8% (PP: 4%) after SDD SG and 2.4%-4% after SDD RYGB. Overall morbidity, reoperation, and mortality were 1.1%-10% (PP:4%), .3%-2.1% (PP: 1%), and 0%-.1% (PP: 0%), respectively, for SDD SG, and 2.5%-4%,1.9%-2.5%, and 0%-.9%, respectively, for SDD RYGB. SDD after SG seems feasible and safe. The outcomes of SDDRYGB seem promising, but the evidenceis stilllimitedto draw definitive conclusions. Selection criteria and perioperative protocolsmust be standardized to adequately introduce this practice.

Second Laparoscopic Colorectal Resection: Safety and Feasibility.

BACKGROUND: As laparoscopic colorectal surgery continues increasing worldwide, the need of having a second laparoscopic colorectal resection (SLCR) might increase as well. Experience with this challenging procedure is scarce. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of SLCR. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database of patients undergoing colorectal surgery who needed an SLCR during the period 2008-2020 was performed. Demographics, operative variables, and postoperative outcomes were analyzed. A propensity score matching with a control population undergoing a first elective colorectal resection was performed. RESULTS: A total of 1918 patients underwent colorectal surgery and 32 patients (1.7%) who required a SLCR were included for analysis; 17 (53.1%) were male, and the mean age was 71 (39 to 89) years. The median time between the first and second operations was 69 (6 to 230) months. At the second resection: The median operative time was 170 (90 to 380) minutes, there were 3 (9%) intraoperative complications and 2 (6%) conversions. Overall postoperative morbidity and major morbidity rates were 34% and 19%, respectively. Four patients (12.5%) required reoperation and 1 (3.1%) died of septic shock after an anastomotic leak. After propensity score matching, SLCR was more frequently performed by colorectal surgeons, and no differences in perioperative variables were observed compared with the control group. CONCLUSIONS: SLCR can be safely performed without jeopardizing perioperative outcomes. Further studies are needed to confirm the benefits of the minimally invasive approach in colorectal second resection and to elucidate the long-term outcomes.

Conversion from Laparoscopic to Open Appendectomy: Trends, Risk Factors and Outcomes. A 15-Year Single-Center Analysis of 2193 Adult Patients.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) has become the standard of care for the management of acute appendicitis in adult patients. Despite the increasing experience in laparoscopy, conversion to open surgery might still occur. We aimed to identify preoperative and intraoperative risk factors for conversion and determine surgical outcomes in this population. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of a consecutive series of patients undergoing LA during the period 2006-2020. The cohort was divided into two groups: patients who underwent a fully laparoscopic appendectomy (FLA) and patients who were converted to open appendectomy (CA). Demographics, perioperative variables and postoperative outcomes were compared between both groups. Independent risk factors for conversion were determined by logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 2193 patients were included for analysis; 2141 (98%) underwent FLA and 52 (2%) CA. Conversion rates decreased significantly over time (p = 0.006). Patients with CA had significantly higher overall postoperative morbidity rates (FLA 14.9% vs. CA 48.0%, p < 0.0001) and longer mean length of hospital stay (FLA 1.7 vs. CA 5 days). In the multivariate analysis, obesity (p < 0.001), previous abdominal operations (p = 0.013), peritonitis (p = 0.003) and complicated appendicitis (p < 0.001) were independent risk factor for conversion. CONCLUSIONS: Although conversion from laparoscopic to open appendectomy is infrequent and has decreased over time, it is associated with significantly higher postoperative morbidity. Patients with previous abdominal operations, obesity and complicated appendicitis should be thoroughly advised about the higher risk of conversion.

Transthoracic Esophagectomy: Hand-sewn Versus Side-to-side Linear-stapled Versus Circular-stapled Anastomosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Three anastomotic techniques are mostly used to create an esophagogastric anastomosis in a transthoracic esophagectomy: hand-sewn (HS), side-to-side linear-stapled (SSLS), and circular-stapled (CS). The aim of this study was to compare surgical outcomes after HS, SSLS, and CS intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review using the MEDLINE database was performed to identify original articles analyzing outcomes after HS, SSLS, and CS esophagogastric anastomosis. The main outcome was an anastomotic leakage rate. Secondary outcomes included overall morbidity, major morbidity, and mortality. A meta-analysis of proportions and linear regression models were used to assess the effect of each anastomotic technique on the different outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 101 studies comprising 12,595 patients were included; 8835 (70.1%) with CS, 2532 (20.1%) with HS, and 1228 (9.8%) with SSLS anastomosis. Anastomotic leak occurred in 10% [95% confidence interval (CI), 6%-15%], 9% (95% CI, 6%-13%), and 6% (95% CI, 5%-7%) of patients after HS, SSLS, and CS anastomosis, respectively. Risk of anastomotic leakage was significantly higher with HS anastomosis (odds ratio=1.73, 95% CI: 1.47-2.03, P<0.0001) and SSLS (odds ratio=1.68, 95% CI: 1.36-2.08, P<0.0001), as compared with CS. Overall morbidity (HS: 52% vs. SLSS: 39% vs. CS: 35%) and major morbidity (HS: 33% vs. CS: 19%) rates were significantly lower with CS anastomosis. Mortality rate was 4% (95% CI, 3%-6%), 2% (95% CI, 2%-3%), and 3% (95% CI, 3%-4%) after HS, SSLS, and CS anastomosis, respectively. CONCLUSION: HS and SSLS intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomoses are associated with significantly higher rates of an anastomotic leak than CS anastomosis.

Re-laparoscopy to Treat Early Complications After Colorectal Surgery: Is There a Learning Curve?

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopy for treating complications after laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LCS) is still controversial. Moreover, its learning curve has not been evaluated yet. The aim of this study was to analyze whether operative outcomes were influenced by the learning curve of re-laparoscopy. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients undergoing LCS and reoperated by a laparoscopic approach during the period 2000-2019 was performed. A cumulative sum analysis was done to determine the number of operations that must be performed to achieve a stable operative time. Based on this analysis, the cohort was divided in 3 groups. Demographics and operative variables were compared between groups. RESULTS: From a total of 1911 patients undergoing LCS, 132 (7%) were included. Based on the cumulative sum analysis, the cohort was divided into the first 50 (G1), the following 52 (G2), and the last 30 (G3) patients. Less computed tomography scans were performed in G3 (G1: 72% vs. G2: 63% vs. G3: 43%; P=0.03). There were no differences in the type of operation performed between the groups. The conversion rate (G1: 18% vs. G2: 4% vs. G3: 3%; P=0.02) and the mean operative time (G1: 104 min vs. G2: 80 min vs. G3: 78 min; P=0.003) were higher in G1. Overall morbidity was lower in G3 (G1: 46% vs. G2: 63% vs. G3: 33%; P=0.01). Major morbidity, mortality, and mean length of stay remained similar in all groups. CONCLUSIONS: A total of 50 laparoscopic reoperations might be needed to achieve an appropriate learning curve with reduced operative time and lower conversion rates. Further research is needed to determine the learning process of re-laparoscopy for treating complications after colorectal surgery.

Consecutive Laparoscopic Colorectal Resections in a Single Workday by the Same Surgeon: Efficient or Risky?

Background: As laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LCS) continues increasing worldwide, surgeons may need to perform more than one LCS per day to accommodate this higher demand. We aimed to determine the safety of performing consecutive LCSs by the same surgeon in a single workday. Materials and Methods: Consecutive LCSs performed by the same surgeon from 2006 to 2019 were included. The sample was divided into two groups: patients who underwent the first (G1) and those who underwent the second and the third (G2) colorectal resections in a single workday. LCSs were stratified into level I (low complexity), level II (medium complexity), and level III (high complexity). Demographics, operative variables, and postoperative outcomes were compared between groups. Results: From a total of 1433 LCSs, 142 (10%) were included in G1 and 158 (11%) in G2. There was a higher rate of complexity level III LCS (G1: 23% versus G2: 6%, P < .0001) and a longer operative time (G1: 160 minutes versus G2: 139 minutes, P = .002) in G1. There were no differences in anastomotic leak, overall morbidity, or mortality rates. Mean length of hospital stay and readmission rates were similar between groups. Conclusion: Multiple consecutive laparoscopic colorectal resections can be safely performed by the same surgeon in a single workday. This efficient strategy should be encouraged at high-volume centers with experienced colorectal surgeons.

Open versus hybrid versus totally minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hybrid and minimally invasive approaches have emerged as less invasive alternatives to open Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. The aim of this study was to compare surgical outcomes between open (OE), hybrid (HE), and totally minimally invasive esophagectomy (TMIE). METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed to analyze outcomes after OE, HE, and TMIE with intrathoracic anastomosis. Main outcomes included anastomotic leak rate, overall morbidity, and 30-day mortality. A meta-analysis of proportions was used to assess the effect of each approach on different outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 130 studies comprising 16,053 patients were included for analysis; 8081 (50.3%) underwent OE, 1524 (9.5%) HE, and 6448 (40.2%) TMIE. The risk of anastomotic leak was lower after OE (odds ratio [OR], 0.71; 95% CI, 0.62-0.81; P < .0001). Overall morbidity rate was 45% (95% CI, 38%-52%) after OE, 40% (95% CI, 25%-59%) after HE, and 37% (95% CI, 32%-43%) after TMIE. Risk estimation showed higher odds of postoperative mortality after OE (OR, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.76-2.81; P < .0001) and HE (OR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.32-2.81; P < .001), compared with TMIE. Median length of hospital stay (LOS) was 14.1 (range, 8-28), 12.5 (range, 8-18), and 11.9 (range, 7-30) days after OE, HE and TMIE, respectively (P = .003). CONCLUSIONS: HE and TMIE are associated with lower rates of overall morbidity, reduced postoperative mortality, and shorter LOS, compared with OE. TMIE is associated with lower mortality rates and shorter LOS than HE. Further efforts are needed to widely embrace TMIE in a safe manner.

Rectus sheath hematoma: conservative, endovascular or surgical treatment? A single-center artificial neural network analysis.

PURPOSE: Rectum sheath hematoma (RSH) is a rare and often misdiagnosed disease. We aimed to determine outcomes of patients affected by RSH and identify variables associated with the need of prompt intervention. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with RSH during the period 2012-2020 were retrospectively identified. Demographics, diagnostic, and therapeutic variables were evaluated. RSH was classified with computed tomography (CT) according to the Berna system. An artificial neural network (ANN) model including 12 variables was used to identify patients that might require a prompt endovascular or surgical treatment. RESULTS: A total of 20 patients were included for analysis; mean age was 69 (35-98) years and 14 (70%) were females. Iatrogenic injury and forceful contraction of the abdominal wall were the leading causes of RSH. Eleven (55%) patients were anticoagulated or antiaggregated. There were 3 (15%) grade 1, 5 (25%) grade 2, and 12 (60%) grade 3 RSH; 6 (30%) were treated conservatively, 10 (50%) with artery embolization, and 4 (20%) with surgery. Overall morbidity was 45% and there was no mortality in the series. According to the ANN, patients at high risk of requiring an invasive treatment were those with active extravasation on CT angiography, Berna grade III, age ≥ 65 years, hemodynamic instability, chronic use of corticosteroids, hematoma volume ≥ 1000 mL, and/or transfusion of ≥ 4 units of red blood cells. CONCLUSION: Conservative treatment might be effective in selected patients with RSH. Our artificial neural network analysis might help selecting patients who require endovascular or surgical treatment.

Surgical outcomes after totally minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: A transthoracic esophagectomy is associated with high rates of morbidity. Minimally invasive esophagectomy has emerged to decrease such morbidity. The aim of this study was to accurately determine surgical outcomes after totally minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis Esophagectomy (TMIE). METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed to identify original articles analyzing patients who underwent TMIE. Main outcomes included overall morbidity, major morbidity, pneumonia, arrhythmia, anastomotic leak, chyle leak, and mortality. A meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the overall weighted proportion and its 95% confidence interval (CI) for each analyzed outcome. RESULTS: A total of 5619 patients were included for analysis; 4781 (85.1%) underwent a laparoscopic/thoracoscopic esophagectomy and 838 (14.9%) a robotic-assisted esophagectomy. Mean age of patients was 63.5 (55-67) years and 75.8% were male. Overall morbidity and major morbidity rates were 39% (95% CI, 33%-45%) and 20% (95% CI, 13%-28%), respectively. Postoperative pneumonia and arrhythmia rates were 10% (95% CI, 8%-13%) and 12% (95% CI, 8%-17%), respectively. Anastomotic leak rate across studies was 8% (95% CI, 6%-10%). Chyle leak rate was 3% (95% CI, 2%-5%). Mortality rate was 2% (95% CI, 2%-2%). Median ICU stay and length of hospital stay were 2 (1-4) and 11.2 (7-20) days, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Totally minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy is a challenging procedure with high morbidity rates. Strategies to enhance postoperative outcomes after this operation are still needed.

Laparoscopic Paraesophageal Hernia Repair: To Mesh or not to Mesh. Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare outcomes after laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair (LPEHR) with mesh or primary repair alone. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: High recurrence rates after LPEHR have been reported. Whether the use of mesh improves outcomes remains elusive. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LPEHR with mesh repair versus suture repair alone. Early (≤6 months) and late (>6 months) recurrence rates were used as primary endpoints to assess efficacy. Intraoperative complications, overall morbidity, and reoperation rates were used as secondary endpoints to assess safety. A meta-analysis was conducted using relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the analyzed outcomes. RESULTS: Seven RCTs comparing mesh (n = 383) versus suture only (n = 352) repair were included for analysis. Patients undergoing LPEHR with mesh reinforcement had similar early (RR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.26-2.07, P = 0.46) and late (RR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.27-2.08, P = 0.48) recurrence rates as those with primary repair. Similar recurrence rates were also found when stratifying the analysis by the type of mesh utilized (absorbable and nonabsorbable). Intraoperative complications (RR = 1.03, 95% CI = 0.33-3.28, P = 0.92) and reoperation rates (RR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.29-1.92, P = 0.45) were also similar in both groups. Overall morbidity, however, was higher after mesh repair with nonabsorbable mesh (RR = 1.45, 95% CI = 1.24-1.71, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing LPEHR have similar early and late recurrence rates with either mesh reinforcement or suture only repair, regardless of the type of mesh utilized. Overall morbidity, however, seems to be higher in patients repaired with nonabsorbable mesh.

Indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence imaging for prevention of anastomotic leak in totally minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence imaging is an emerging technology that might help decreasing anastomotic leakage (AL) rates. The aim of this study was to determine the usefulness of ICG fluorescence imaging for the prevention of AL after minimally invasive esophagectomy with intrathoracic anastomosis. METHODS: A systematic literature review of the MEDLINE and Cochrane databases was performed to identify all articles on totally minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. Studies were then divided into two groups based on the use or not of ICG for perfusion assessment. Primary outcome was anastomotic leak. Secondary outcomes included operative time, ICG-related adverse reactions, and mortality rate. A meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the overall weighted proportion and its 95% confidence interval (CI) for main outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 3,171 patients were included for analysis: 381 (12%) with intraoperative ICG fluorescence imaging and 2,790 (88%) without ICG. Mean patients' age and proportion of males were similar between groups. Mean operative time was also similar between both groups (ICG: 354.8 vs. No-ICG: 354.1 minutes, P = 0.52). Mean ICG dose was 12 mg (5-21 mg). No ICG-related adverse reactions were reported. AL rate was 9% (95% CI, 5-17%) and 9% (95% CI, 7-12%) in the ICG and No-ICG groups, respectively. The risk of AL was similar between groups (odds ratio 0.85, 95% CI 0.53-1.28, P = 0.45). Mortality was 3% (95% CI, 1-9%) in patients with ICG and 2% (95% CI, 2-3%) in those without ICG. Median length of hospital stay was also similar between groups (ICG: 13.6 vs. No-ICG: 11.2 days, P = 0.29). CONCLUSION: The use of ICG fluorescence imaging for perfusion assessment does not seem to reduce AL rates in patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy with intrathoracic anastomosis.

Synthetic Mesh in Contaminated Abdominal Wall Surgery: Friend or Foe? A Literature Review.

INTRODUCTION: The use of synthetic mesh in contaminated fields is controversial. In the last decade, published data have grown in this matter suggesting favorable outcomes. However, multiple variables and scenarios that influence the results still make difficult to obtain convincing recommendations. METHODS: We performed a review of relevant available data in English regarding the use of synthetic meshes in contaminated abdominal wall surgery using the Medline database. Articles including patients undergoing ventral hernia in contaminated fields were included for analysis. RESULTS: Most studies support the use of synthetic meshes for ventral hernia repair in contaminated fields, as they have shown lower recurrence rate and similar wound morbidity. Although no mesh seems ideal in this setting, most surgeons advocate for the use of reduced-in-weight polypropylene mesh. Sublay location of the prosthesis associated with complete fascial closure appears to offer better results in these patients. In addition, current evidence suggests that the use of prophylactic synthetic mesh when performing a stoma or for stoma reversal incisional hernias might be beneficial. CONCLUSION: A better understanding of surgical site occurrences and its prevention, as well as the introduction of new reduced-in-weight meshes have allowed using synthetic meshes in a contaminated field. Although the use of mesh has indeed shown promising results in these patients, the surgical team should still balance pros and cons at the time of placing synthetics in contaminated fields.

Surgical and obstetrical outcomes after laparoscopic appendectomy during pregnancy: a case-matched analysis.

PURPOSE: Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) for acute appendicitis (AA) remains controversial during pregnancy. We aimed to determine surgical and obstetrical outcomes of LA in pregnant women. METHODS: Pregnant women who underwent LA for AA (G1) between 2006 and 2019 were included and matched by gender, age, white blood cells, ASA score, and presence of peritonitis in a 1:2 ratio with non-pregnant women who had undergone LA (G2). Demographics and surgical outcomes were compared between groups. Preterm delivery and fetal loss rate were also analyzed. RESULTS: From a total of 2009 LA, 18 (0.9%) were included in G1 and 36 (1.8%) in G2. There were no intraoperative complications or converted surgeries. Length of hospital stay was longer in G1 (G1: 2.6 vs G2: 1.4 days, p < 0.01). There was no difference in overall morbidity and readmission rates. Fetal loss and preterm delivery rates were both 11%. CONCLUSION: LA in pregnant women has similar intraoperative and postoperative outcomes as those achieved in non-pregnant patients. In addition, the laparoscopic approach does not seem to jeopardize obstetrical outcomes.

"Early" Reoperation to Treat Complications Following Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery: The Sooner the Better.

BACKGROUND: Some postoperative complications after laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LCS) require reoperation to be treated. However, if the timing to perform this reoperation has some influence on outcome remains elusive. The aim of this study was to analyze if the timing to perform the reoperation has some influence in postoperative outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients undergoing LCS and required a reoperation during the period 2000 to 2019 were included. The cohort was divided into 2 groups: early reoperation (ER): ≤48 hours or delayed reoperation (DR): ≥48 hours based on the interval between the suspicion of a complication and reoperation. Demographics, operative variables, and postoperative outcomes were compared between groups. RESULTS: A total of 1843 LCS were performed, 68 (43%) were included in ER and 91 (57%) in DR. A computed tomography scan was less frequently performed in the ER (ER: 45% vs. DR: 70%; P=0.001). The rates of re-laparoscopy (ER: 86% vs. 73%; P=0.04) and negative findings in the reoperation (ER: 13% vs. DR: 1%, P=0.001) were higher in ER. There were no statistically significant differences in overall major morbidity (ER: 9% vs. DR: 21%; P=0.06) and mortality rate (ER: 4% vs. DR: 8.7%; P=0.28) between groups. The need of intensive care unit was significantly higher and the length of stay longer for patients in the DR group. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a greater risk of negative findings, ER within 48 hours after the suspicion of a complication after a LCS offers higher chances of using a laparoscopic approach and it could probably provide better postoperative outcomes.

Minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy: Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic-thoracoscopic technique. Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Evidence comparing conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (CMIE) via laparoscopy and thoracoscopy with robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) is scarce. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare surgical outcomes after CMIE and RAMIE with an intrathoracic anastomosis. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed to identify original articles analyzing outcomes after CMIE and RAMIE. Main surgical outcomes included operative time, intraoperative blood loss, anastomotic leak rates, pneumonia, overall morbidity, length of stay (LOS), and 30-day mortality. Oncologic outcomes included lymph node yield and R0 resections rates. A meta-analysis of proportions and linear regression models were used to assess the effect of each procedure on the different outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 6,249 patients were included for analysis; 5,275 (84%) underwent CMIE and 974 (16%) RAMIE. Robotic esophagectomy had longer operative time and less intraoperative blood loss. Anastomotic leakage rates were similar with both approaches. Patients undergoing RAMIE had significantly lower rates of postoperative pneumonia (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.35-0.61, P < .0001) and overall morbidity (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.58-0.79, P < .0001). Median LOS was similar in both procedures (RAMIE: 12.1 versus CMIE: 11.9 days, P = .64). Similar mortality rates were found after RAMIE and CMIE (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.34-1.38, P = .29). Lymph node yield was similar in both procedures, but RAMIE was associated with higher rates of R0 resection (OR 2.84, 95% CI 1.53-5.26, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing robotic esophagectomy have less intraoperative blood loss, lower rates of postoperative pneumonia, reduced overall morbidity, and higher rates of R0 resections, as compared with those undergoing a laparoscopic-thoracoscopic esophageal resection.