Role of lateral suspension for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse: a Delphi survey of expert panel.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Lateral suspension is an abdominal prosthetic surgical procedure used to correct apical prolapse. The procedure involves the placement of a T-shaped mesh on the anterior vaginal wall and on the isthmus or uterine cervix that is suspended laterally and posteriorly to the abdominal wall. Since its description in the late 90s, modifications of the technique have been described. So far, no consensus on the correct indications, safety, advantages, and disadvantages of this emerging procedure has been reached. METHODS: A modified Delphi process was used to build consensus within a group of 21 international surgeons who are experts in the performance of laparoscopic lateral suspension (LLS). The process was held with a first online round, where the experts expressed their level of agreement on 64 statements on indications, technical features, and other aspects of LLS. A subsequent re-discussion of statements where a threshold of agreement was not reached was held in presence. RESULTS: The Delphi process allowed the identification of several aspects of LLS that represented areas of agreement by the experts. The experts agreed that LLS is a safe and effective technique to correct apical and anterior prolapse. The experts highlighted several key technical aspects of the procedure, including clinical indications and surgical steps. CONCLUSIONS: This Delphi consensus provides valuable guidance and criteria for the use of LLS in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse, based on expert opinion by large volume surgeons' experts in the performance of this innovative procedure.

Robot-assisted pelvic floor reconstructive surgery: an international Delphi study of expert users.

BACKGROUND: Robotic surgery has gained popularity for the reconstruction of pelvic floor defects. Nonetheless, there is no evidence that robot-assisted reconstructive surgery is either appropriate or superior to standard laparoscopy for the performance of pelvic floor reconstructive procedures or that it is sustainable. The aim of this project was to address the proper role of robotic pelvic floor reconstructive procedures using expert opinion. METHODS: We set up an international, multidisciplinary group of 26 experts to participate in a Delphi process on robotics as applied to pelvic floor reconstructive surgery. The group comprised urogynecologists, urologists, and colorectal surgeons with long-term experience in the performance of pelvic floor reconstructive procedures and with the use of the robot, who were identified primarily based on peer-reviewed publications. Two rounds of the Delphi process were conducted. The first included 63 statements pertaining to surgeons' characteristics, general questions, indications, surgical technique, and future-oriented questions. A second round including 20 statements was used to reassess those statements where borderline agreement was obtained during the first round. The final step consisted of a face-to-face meeting with all participants to present and discuss the results of the analysis. RESULTS: The 26 experts agreed that robotics is a suitable indication for pelvic floor reconstructive surgery because of the significant technical advantages that it confers relative to standard laparoscopy. Experts considered these advantages particularly important for the execution of complex reconstructive procedures, although the benefits can be found also during less challenging cases. The experts considered the robot safe and effective for pelvic floor reconstruction and generally thought that the additional costs are offset by the increased surgical efficacy. CONCLUSION: Robotics is a suitable choice for pelvic reconstruction, but this Delphi initiative calls for more research to objectively assess the specific settings where robotic surgery would provide the most benefit.

Patterns of Recurrence and Clinical Outcome of Patients With Stage IIIC to Stage IV Epithelial Ovarian Cancer in Complete Response After Primary Debulking Surgery Plus Chemotherapy or Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Followed by Interval Debulking Surgery: An Italian Multicenter Retrospective Study.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this retrospective study was to assess the clinical outcome of patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer in complete response after primary debulking surgery (PDS) or neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking surgery (IDS]). METHODS: The authors reviewed the hospital records of 384 patients who underwent PDS (n = 322) or IDS (n = 62) and who were in complete response after primary treatment. RESULTS: Optimal (residual disease [RD] < 1 cm) and complete (no gross RD) cytoreduction rates were higher after IDS than after PDS (71.0% vs 55.9%; P = 0.001 and 51.6% vs 35.7%, respectively; P = 0.02). Tumor recurred in 73.0% of the 322 complete responders after PDS versus 87.1% of the 62 complete responders after IDS (P = 0.01). The IDS group showed a higher recurrence rate within 6 months (11.3% vs 3.1%: P = 0.01) and a trend to higher recurrence rate between 6 and 12 months (30.6% vs 19.9%). Tumor recurred in 57.4% of the 115 completely cytoreduced patients after PDS versus 87.5% of the 32 completely cytoreduced patients after IDS (P = 0.001). The IDS group showed a trend to higher recurrence rate within 6 months (6.2% vs 1.7%) and a higher recurrence rate between 6 and 12 months (37.5% vs 15.6%; P = 0.01). Two-year, 5-year, and 7-year progression-free survival were 65.8%, 40.8%, and 39.3% for completely cytoreduced patients after PDS versus 43.8%, 12.5%, and 12.5% for completely cytoreduced patients after IDS (P = 0.001); and 2-year, 5-year, and 7-year overall survival were 96.4%, 69.3%, and 50.4% for the former versus 87.1%, 41.8%, and 32.6% for the latter (P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The clinical outcome of completely cytoreduced patients was significantly better for PDS group than for IDS group, and therefore, the achievement of no gross RD after surgery seemed to have a different prognostic relevance for the 2 groups.

Perioperative outcomes of the first five cases of surgeries for endometrial endometrioid cancer using the new integrated table motion for da Vinci Xi®.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate feasibility of integrated table motion (ITM), comparing perioperative outcomes of patients with diagnosed endometrial endometrioid cancer who underwent total robotic hysterectomies (TRHs) and case-related staging procedures with and without ITM. METHODS: Five patients underwent surgery with da Vinci Xi system and ITM technology. ITM feasibility, efficacy and safety was compared with a second group of 56 patients, reduced to 10 with propensity score method, who underwent same procedures with da Vinci Xi System without ITM system. RESULTS: We report safety of robotic surgery with new ITM even in a preliminary experience of oncologic procedures. No significance in any analysed data between groups TRH with ITM and TRH without ITM are described. CONCLUSION: This preliminary study demonstrated the feasibility of ITM in performing da Vinci Xi TRH even in the first cases of surgery for malignancy such as early stage endometrial endometrioid cancer.

Antibiotic treatment to prevent postextraction complications: a monocentric, randomized clinical trial. Preliminary outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Tooth extraction is a very common procedure in oral surgery. Despite this, very little information is available in the literature as to the antibiotic management of the patient. The aim of this study is to evaluate whether the antibiotic prophylaxis could be beneficial in preventing postextraction local complications and whether the use of a probiotic could help reduce the antibiotic gastro-intestinal side effects. METHODS: One hundred eleven patients meeting the inclusion criteria were initially included in this randomized clinical trial and randomly allocated to one of the three experimental groups according to a computer-generated randomization list. Patients allocated to the group 1 were given amoxicillin+clavulanic acid (2 g/day for 6 days), patients allocated to the group 2 received antibiotic + probiotic (Bifidobacterium longum+lactoferrin) and patients allocated to the group 3 received no antibiotic therapy after the extraction. To evaluate post-extractive complications, controls were performed at days 7, 14 and 21 after the extraction. RESULTS: At T1 pain at the surgical site was present in the 48%, 30% and 71.4% of the patients belonging respectively to the antibiotic alone group, to the antibiotic+probiotic group and to the control group. The mean Numeric Rating Score (NRS) score was 1.56±1.91, 1.08±1.93, 2.02±2.27 respectively (P=0.0498). Two patients belonging to the control group experienced dry socket. In addition, 9 patients (33.3%) in the antibiotic-alone group and 1 patient (2.7%) in the antibiotic+probiotic group reported intestinal distension (P=0.0012), 7 days after surgery. Finally, diarrhea was recorded in 5 patients of the antibiotic alone group (18.5%), on the other hand, no patients of the antibiotic+probiotic group and the control group reported diarrhea. CONCLUSIONS: Postextractive complications observed in each group have been mild and fast to resolve. The antibiotic administration showed a decrease in pain suffered by patients but a higher incidence of gastrointestinal side effects, such as abdominal distension and diarrhea, which seemed to be relieved by the concomitant use of the probiotic.