Choledocoduodenal Biliary Bypass for Recurrent Choledocholithiasis in a Patient with Gastric Bypass: An Old Trick to Solve a Modern Problem.

Bariatric patients are at risk for developing biliary stones. Choledocholithiasis poses a significant challenge in Roux-en-Y gastric bypass patients due to anatomical changes, complicating the treatment. We present a case of a 71-year-old female with recurrent choledocholithiasis post-bariatric surgery. After failed endoscopic attempts, a biliodigestive bypass with choledocoduodenal anastomosis was performed successfully using the Da Vinci robotic platform. This technique offers a single anastomosis, excluding the duodenum from transit, preventing food reflux. The patient had an uneventful recovery with no recurrence after 1 year. The choledocoduodenal anastomosis is a viable option for biliary diversion in patients with challenging endoscopic access post-gastric bypass, offering favorable outcomes.

ROBOTIC ASSISTED VERSUS LAPAROSCOPIC DISTAL PANCREATECTOMY: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is associated with less blood loss and faster functional recovery. However, the benefits of robotic assisted distal pancreatectomy (RDP) over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) are unknown. AIMS: To compare RDP versus LDP for surgical treatment of benign lesions, pre-malignant and borderline malignant pancreatic neoplasias. METHODS: This is a retrospective study comparing LDP with RDP. Main outcomes were overall morbidity and overall costs. Secondary outcomes were pancreatic fistula (PF), infectious complications, readmission, operative time (OT) and length of hospital stay (LOS). RESULTS: Thirty patients submitted to LDP and 29 submitted to RDP were included in the study. There was no difference regarding preoperative characteristics. There was no difference regarding overall complications (RDP - 72,4% versus LDP - 80%, p=0,49). Costs were superior for patients submitted to RDP (RDP=US$ 6,688 versus LDP=US$ 6,149, p=0,02), mostly due to higher costs of surgical materials (RDP=US$ 2,364 versus LDP=1,421, p=0,00005). Twenty-one patients submitted to RDP and 24 to LDP developed pancreatic fistula (PF), but only 4 RDP and 7 LDP experienced infectious complications associated with PF. OT (RDP=224 min. versus LDP=213 min., p=0.36) was similar, as well as conversion to open procedure (1 RDP and 2 LDP). CONCLUSIONS: The postoperative morbidity of robotic distal pancreatectomy is comparable to laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. However, the costs of robotic distal pancreatectomy are slightly higher.

Robotic assisted versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a retrospective study / Pancreatectomia distal robótica versus laparoscópica: um estudo retrospectivo

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is associated with less blood loss and faster functional recovery. However, the benefits of robotic assisted distal pancreatectomy (RDP) over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) are unknown. AIMS: To compare RDP versus LDP for surgical treatment of benign lesions, pre-malignant and borderline malignant pancreatic neoplasias. METHODS: This is a retrospective study comparing LDP with RDP. Main outcomes were overall morbidity and overall costs. Secondary outcomes were pancreatic fistula (PF), infectious complications, readmission, operative time (OT) and length of hospital stay (LOS). RESULTS: Thirty patients submitted to LDP and 29 submitted to RDP were included in the study. There was no difference regarding preoperative characteristics. There was no difference regarding overall complications (RDP - 72,4% versus LDP - 80%, p=0,49). Costs were superior for patients submitted to RDP (RDP=US$ 6,688 versus LDP=US$ 6,149, p=0,02), mostly due to higher costs of surgical materials (RDP=US$ 2,364 versus LDP=1,421, p=0,00005). Twenty-one patients submitted to RDP and 24 to LDP developed pancreatic fistula (PF), but only 4 RDP and 7 LDP experienced infectious complications associated with PF. OT (RDP=224 min. versus LDP=213 min., p=0.36) was similar, as well as conversion to open procedure (1 RDP and 2 LDP). CONCLUSIONS: The postoperative morbidity of robotic distal pancreatectomy is comparable to laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. However, the costs of robotic distal pancreatectomy are slightly higher.

RESUMO RACIONAL: A pancreatectomia distal minimamente invasiva (PDMI) está associada a menos perda sanguínea e recuperação funcional mais rápida, no entanto, os benefícios da pancreatectomia distal robótica (PDR) são desconhecidos quando comparada a pancreatectomia distal laparoscópica (PDL). OBJETIVOS: Comparar PDR versus PDL no tratamento cirúrgico de lesões benignas, neoplasias pancreáticas malignas, pré-malignas e limítrofes. MÉTODOS: Estudo retrospectivo comparando PDL com PDR. Os desfechos primários avaliados foram morbidade e custos hospitalares. Os desfechos secundários foram fístula pancreática (FP), complicações infecciosas, readmissão, tempo cirúrgico e tempo de internação hospitalar (TIH). RESULTADOS: Trinta pacientes submetidos a PDL e 29 submetidos a PDR foram incluídos no estudo. Não houve diferença em relação às características pré-operatórias. Não houve diferença em relação às complicações gerais (PDL - 72,4% versus PRD - 80%, p=0,49). Os custos foram superiores para PDR (PDR=US$ 6688 versus PDL=US$ 6149, p=0,02), principalmente devido aos custos mais elevados de materiais cirúrgicos (PDR=US$ 2364 versus PDL=1421, p=0,00005). Vinte e um pacientes submetidos a PDR e 24 submetidos a PDL desenvolveram fístula pancreática (PF), no entanto, apenas 4 submetidos PDR e 7 a PDL apresentaram complicações infecciosas associadas a FP. O tempo cirúrgico (PDR=224 min. versus PDL=213 min., p=0,36) e a conversão para cirurgia aberta (1 PDR e 2 PDL) não tiveram diferença estatística. CONCLUSÕES: A morbidade pós operatória da pancreatectomia distal robótica é comparável à pancreatectomia distal laparoscópica. Entretando, os custos da pancreatectomia distal robótica são mais elevados.

Management of biliary stones in bariatric surgery.

Morbidly obese and post-bariatric surgery patients are at increased risk for biliary stones formation. The complications related to biliary stones may impose complexity on their management. This study aimed to review the management of biliary conditions in obese and bariatric patients. In this study, a narrative review was performed of the medical, surgical, and endoscopic procedures for the management of biliary stones and their related complications. Knowing the main prophylactic and therapeutic interventions options is essential for clinicians to properly manage the biliary stones in patients candidates or submitted to bariatric surgery. Plain Language Summary: Management of biliary stones in bariatric surgery The complications related to biliary stones may impose complexity on their management. Knowing the main prophylactic and therapeutic intervention options is essential for clinicians to properly manage the biliary stones in patient candidates or submitted to bariatric surgery. This study reviewed the main tools clinicians can handle to properly manage candidates for bariatric surgery or patients submitted to bariatric surgery.