RESUMO
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.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To assess the level of knowledge in electrosurgical safety among specialists in the Russian Federation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An Internet survey was devoted to the issues of electrosurgical safety. The questionnaire consisted of 15 questions in 5 items. Data were collected for 2 months. Data analysis included final assessment of respondents, correlation of results with their own assessment of knowledge and parameters of surgical experience, the fact of training and belonging to the department. Question design, survey and presentation of results were performed in accordance with the CHERRIES (Check list of Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys) criteria for Internet surveys. RESULTS: Survey enrolled 231 specialists. Excellent rating was given to 13 (5.6%) respondents, good - 66 (28.3%), satisfactory - 105 (45.1%) respondents. Forty-nine (21.03%) respondents did not overcome the passing score (7) and showed unsatisfactory knowledge of electrosurgical safety. Mean score among all participants was 8.6±2.6 (median 8 points, interquartile range [7-11]) or 53.3% of maximum value (15). In multivariate logistic model, significant factors were the completed course in electrosurgical safety (OR 2.26, 95% CI 1.30-3.97; p=0.004), experience of work (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01-1.05; p=0.011) and work in the department (OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.03-2.95; p=0.038). Respondents who did not take the course (positive significant correlation r=0.1629, p=0.02674) and non-departmental employees (r=0.1655, p=0.031) assess the level of knowledge more adequately with respect to real results. Respondents with completed course (r=0.1078, p=0.4659) and departmental staff (r=0.1411, p=0.2699) are prone to overestimate self-assessment (positive insignificant correlation of their own assessment and received points). CONCLUSION: We found significant knowledge gaps in electrosurgical safety among various practitioners. The main causes are no mandatory specialized courses on electrosurgical safety and insufficient motivation of specialists for self-education due to false ideas about their own level of knowledge.
Assuntos
Eletrocirurgia , Humanos , Eletrocirurgia/efeitos adversos , Eletrocirurgia/educação , Eletrocirurgia/métodos , Inquéritos e Questionários , Federação RussaRESUMO
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.
