Surgical and medical outcomes in robotic compared to laparoscopic colectomy global prospective cohort from the American college of surgeons national surgical quality improvement program.

BACKGROUND: Evidence regarding the outcomes benefits of robotic approach, when compared to a laparoscopic approach, in colectomy remain limited. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to analyze the value of robotic approach compared to laparoscopic approach in minimally invasive colectomy. DESIGN: Cohort study of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP). SETTING: This study included data from the NSQIP from 1/2016 to 12/2021. PATIENT: Adult patients undergoing minimally invasive (laparoscopic or robotic) colorectal surgery. INTERVENTION: Robotic versus laparoscopic colectomy. OUTCOME MEASURES: Risk ratios for the incidence of medical and surgical morbidity and overall mortality. RESULTS: Compared to laparoscopic, robotic colectomy was associated with a significant decrease in postoperative morbidity [RR 0.84 (95%CI 0.72-0.96), P < 0.001], a significant reduction in postoperative mortality [RR 0.83 (95%CI 0.79-0.90), P 0.010)], and in post operative ileus [RR: 0.80 (95%CI 0.75-0.84), P < 0.001]. Yet, robotic approach was associated with a significant increase in total operative time despite a significant decrease in total length of stay. No benefit was observed regarding anastomotic leak. LIMITATIONS: Observational nature of the study cannot exclude residual bias. CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective cohort from the NSQIP, robotic colectomy was associated with a significant reduction in postoperative ileus, unplanned conversion to open surgery, morbidity, and overall mortality when compared to laparoscopic colectomy.

Effect of Plastic Bag Extraction in Minimally Invasive Appendectomy.

BACKGROUND: Evidence regarding the effects of plastic bag use for appendix removal during minimally invasive appendectomy remains scarce and conflicting. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to analyze the effects of plastic bag use during minimally invasive appendectomy on preoperative infection risk, morbidity and mortality. DESIGN: This retrospective analysis of the prospective National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) cohort program. SETTING: This study included data from the NSQIP database between the years of 2016 and 2019. PATIENT: Adult patients undergoing minimally invasive (laparoscopic or robotic) without unplanned conversion to open surgery. INTERVENTION: Use of plastic bag for specimen removal during appendectomy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Risk ratios for the incidence of superficial surgical site infection, intra-abdominal abscess, overall medical morbidity, and overall mortality. RESULTS: There were 43 783 cases of minimally invasive appendectomy in the NSQIP database between the years of 2016 and 2019. Among those who reported information regarding use of plastic bag, 28 589 (91.87%) reported use of plastic bag for specimen removal. Use of plastic bag was associated with a significant decrease in superficial surgical site infection (RR .39 (95% CI: .31-.49), P < .001), and in the risk of postoperative intra-abdominal abscess (RR: 0.66 (.57-.77), P < .001)). We also observed a robust reduction in overall medical-related morbidity and overall mortality, even after adjusting for multiple confounders. LIMITATIONS: Observational nature of the study cannot exclude residual bias. Also, there was a significant rate of missing values for plastic bag use, which may bias results. CONCLUSIONS: In this global prospective cohort using NSQIP database, use of plastic bag for appendix removal during minimally invasive appendectomy was associated with a significant improvement in surgical related outcomes and reduction in morbidity and overall mortality.

Nonoperative vs Operative Management of Uncomplicated Acute Appendicitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Appendectomy remains the standard of care for uncomplicated acute appendicitis despite several randomized clinical trials pointing to the safety and efficacy of nonoperative management of this disease. A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials may contribute to the body of evidence and help surgeons select which patients may benefit from surgical and nonsurgical treatment. Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of nonoperative management vs appendectomy for acute uncomplicated appendicitis. Data Sources: A systematic review was conducted using indexed sources (Embase and PubMed) to search for published randomized clinical trials in English comparing nonoperative management with appendectomy in adult patients presenting with uncomplicated acute appendicitis. To increase sensitivity, no limits were set for outcomes reported, sex, or year of publication. All nonrandomized or quasi-randomized trials were excluded, and validated primers were used. Study Selection: Among 1504 studies imported for screening, 805 were duplicates, and 595 were excluded for irrelevancy. A further 96 were excluded after full-text review, mainly owing to wrong study design or inclusion of pediatric populations. Eight studies met the inclusion criteria and were selected for the meta-analysis. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Meta-extraction was conducted with independent extraction by multiple reviewers using the Covidence platform for systematic reviews and in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Data were pooled by a random-effects model. Main Outcomes and Measures: Treatment success and major adverse effects at 30 days' follow-up. Results: The main outcome (treatment success proportion at 30 days of follow-up) was not significantly different in the operative and nonoperative management cohorts (risk ratio [RR], 0.85; 95% CI, 0.66-1.11). Likewise, the percentage of major adverse effects was similar in both cohorts (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.29-1.79). However, in the nonoperative management group, length of stay was significantly longer (RR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.26-1.70), and a median cumulative incidence of 18% of recurrent appendicitis was observed. Conclusions and Relevance: These results point to the general safety and efficacy of nonoperative management of uncomplicated acute appendicitis. However, this strategy may be associated with an increase in duration of hospital stay and a higher rate of recurrent appendicitis. This meta-analysis may help inform decision-making in nonoperative management of uncomplicated acute appendicitis.

Delayed Operative Management in Complicated Acute Appendicitis-Is Avoiding Extended Resection Worth the Wait ? Results from a Global Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The optimal management of complicated acute appendicitis remains undefined. According to current guidelines, a trial of non-operative management with delayed appendectomy may be associated with better outcomes for patients, including a reduced rate of extended resection appendectomy. METHODS: We conducted an analysis of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement program to analyze the outcomes of hemodynamically stable patients presenting with complicated (abscess, perforation, or both) appendicitis submitted to early (less than 24 h) or delayed (24 h or more) operative management. RESULTS: Delayed operative management was associated with a significant reduction of the rate of extended resection appendectomy (RR: 2.15, 95% CI: 1.59 - 2.81, p < 0.001). Delayed operative management was associated with a non-significant trend towards reduced mortality (RR: 2.17; 95% CI: 0.98-2.85, p = 0.05). Delayed operative management was also associated with a significant decrease in total operative time and a significant reduction in the rate of postoperative abscess. There was no association between delayed intervention and medical related morbidity (RR: 1.01; 95% CI 0.91-1.11, p 0.811). However, delayed operative management was associated with a significant increase in total length of stay (coefficient 1.10; 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.18, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Delayed operative management may be associated with a reduction in the need of extended resection appendectomy, shorter operative time, and a trend towards reduced mortality. On the other hand, it may also be associated with an increased length of in-hospital stay and short-term morbidity.