Intravenous acetaminophen in bariatric surgery: effects on opioid requirements.

BACKGROUND: Opioids are commonly used after bariatric surgery for pain control because of their potent analgesic effects. Nevertheless, the morbidly obese patient has increased risk for developing adverse effects produced by opioids (such as sedation, apnea, hypoxemia, ileus, and vomiting). Intravenous acetaminophen (IVA) has been evaluated in some specialties showing a reduction in opioid consumption. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect on opioid consumption when IVA is administered in bariatric surgery patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective study was performed in patients who underwent bariatric surgery. Group A included those patients who received IVA perioperatively and group B those who did not. The amount of opioids administered was calculated and compared for each group. RESULTS: Group A included 38 cases (44.7%) and group B included 47 cases (55.3%). A comparison was performed in terms of age (P = 0.349), body mass index (P = 0.311), gender (P = 0.890), American Society of Anesthesiologist score (P = 0.438), total surgical time (P = 0.497), perioperative complications (P = 0.786), number of procedures per surgeon (P = 0.08), and type of surgical procedure (P ≤ 0.01). Group A had a mean 24-h total opioid dose of 99.5 mg, whereas group B of 164.6 mg (P = 0.018). Group A received 39.5% less opioids than group B. A post hoc analysis determined a statistical power of 0.74. CONCLUSIONS: IVA used perioperatively can decrease opioid consumption in patients after bariatric surgery. Randomized trials are needed to corroborate these results.

Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair with primary closure versus no primary closure of the defect: potential benefits of the robotic technology.

BACKGROUND: Some authors recommend primary closure of the defect before placement of the mesh. The purpose of this study is to compare laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (LVHR) without primary closure of the defect (NPCD) versus LVHR with primary closure of the defect (PCD). METHODS: A retrospective review of 134 LVHR was performed. Each group included 67 cases. For the PCD group the robotic platform was used. RESULTS: Groups were similar in terms of demographics and comorbidities. For NPCD and PCD groups mean surgical time was 87.9±53.1 and 107.6±33.9 minutes (p = 0.012); conversion to open surgery was seen in 3(4.5%) and 1(1.5%) (p = 0.310); complications were 7(10.4%) and 2(3%) (p = 0.084); and finally, recurrences were seen in 5(7.5%) and 1(1.5%) (p = 0.095). CONCLUSIONS: PCD has longer surgical time, however, a tendency in terms of complications and recurrences was found favoring the PCD group. The robotic assistance is a good alternative when primary closure of the defect is attempted.

A comparative retrospective study of robotic sleeve gastrectomy vs robotic gastric bypass.

BACKGROUND: The introduction of the robotic platform to bariatric surgery has brought forth a novel approach, with modifications to the standard laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and laparoscopic gastric bypass (LGB). The purpose of this study was to match robotic gastric bypass (RGB) vs robotic sleeve gastrectomy (RSG) and compare them to those observed with the laparoscopic platform. METHODS: A retrospective data collection of RSGs and RGBs from a single institution was performed. Groups were compared. RESULTS: This study included 134 RSG and 165 RGB patients. RGB has a longer surgical time (p < 0.001) and a higher incidence of long-term complications (p = 0.005) but similar lengths of hospital stay (p = 0.093), rate of perioperative complications (p = 0.487) and EWL% at 1 year of follow-up compared to RSG. CONCLUSIONS: RSGs had shorter surgical times and a lower incidence of long-term complications when compared with RGBs. These results appear to be similar to those studies reporting the laparoscopic approach. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Robotic sleeve gastrectomy: experience of 134 cases and comparison with a systematic review of the laparoscopic approach.

BACKGROUND: Robotic technology has recently emerged in different surgical specialties, but the experience with robotic sleeve gastrectomy (RSG) is scarce in the literature. The purpose of this study is to compare our preliminary experience with RSG versus the descriptive results of a systematic review of the laparoscopic approach. METHODS: Data from our RSG experience were retrospectively collected. Two surgeons performed all the cases in one single surgery center. Such information was compared with a systematic review of 22 selected studies that included 3,148 laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) cases. RSG were performed using the daVinci Surgical System. RESULTS: This study included 134 RSG vs. 3,148 LSG. Mean age and mean BMI was 43 ± 12.6 vs. 40.7 ± 11.6 (p = 0.022), and 45 ± 7.1 vs. 43.6 ± 8.1 (p = 0.043), respectively. Leaks were found in 0 RSG vs. 1.97% LSG (p = 0.101); strictures in 0 vs. 0.43% (p = 0.447); bleeding in 0.7 vs. 1.21% (p = 0.594); and mortality in 0 vs. 0.1% (p = 0.714), respectively. Mean surgical time was calculated in 106.6 ± 48.8 vs. 94.5 ± 39.9 min (p = 0.006); and mean hospital length of stay was 2.2 ± 0.6 vs. 3.3 ± 1.7 days (p = <0.005), respectively. Four (2.9%) complications were found in our robotic series. CONCLUSIONS: Our series shows that RSG is a safe alternative when used in bariatric surgery, showing similar results as the laparoscopic approach. Surgical time is longer in the robotic approach, while hospital length of stay is lower. No leaks or strictures were found in the robotic cases. However, further studies with larger sample size and randomization are warranted.

Single-incision cholecystectomy: a comparative study of standard laparoscopic, robotic, and SPIDER platforms.

BACKGROUND: Many series have shown the feasibility and safety of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC), but this technique still has limitations such as instrument collisions and lack of triangulation. Recently, two single-incision platforms, robotic and SPIDER, have attempted to ameliorate such problems. This study aimed to compare three different techniques of single-incision cholecystectomy: standard laparoscopic, robotic, and SPIDER approaches. METHODS: The authors retrospectively collected data from their first 166 single-incision robotic cholecystectomies (SIRCs) and compared the findings with the data from their first 166 SILCs and the first 166 s-generation SPIDER procedures. All the SILCs were performed with three trocars placed in one umbilical incision and with gallbladder retraction using a Prolene stitch on the right upper quadrant. All the robotic cases were managed using the da Vinci Single-Site Surgical System, and all the SPIDER procedures were performed using the SPIDER Surgical System. RESULTS: The SILC, SIRC, and SPIDER groups consisted respectively of 129 (76.3%), 131 (78.9%), and 136 (81.9%) women with the respective mean ages of 44.5 ± 14.3, 51.6 ± 15.9, and 46.4 ± 15.2 years. The mean body mass indexes (BMIs) were respectively 29.1 ± 5.6, 29.4 ± 6.2, and 27.5 ± 4.8 kg/m(2), and the mean surgical times were 37.1 ± 13.3, 63.0 ± 25.2, and 52.8 ± 18.7 min. The total hospital stays were respectively 1.3 ± 5.3, 1.2 ± 2.2, and 1.5 ± 2.6 days, and complications were seen respectively in three SILC cases (1.8%), three SIRC cases (1.8%), and two SPIDER cases (1.2%). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study demonstrate similar results among the three platforms for most of the parameters measured. The SILC procedure appears to be superior to SIRC and SPIDER in terms of surgical time, but selection bias could be the cause. The SILS, SIRC, and SPIDER procedures all are similar in terms of complication profile. It can be concluded that SILC, SIRC, and SPIDER all are feasible and safe alternatives when used for single-incision cholecystectomy.