Single incision laparoscopic splenectomy, technical aspects and feasibility considerations

Minimally invasive techniques have been introduced to reduce morbidity related to standard laparoscopic procedures. One such approach is laparoendoscopic single-site surgery. The aim of the study was to present our initial clinical experience of using this technique for elective splenectomy. We carried out single access laparoscopic splenectomy (SALS) for an 8 cm cystic lesion of the spleen, involving the hilum, on a 38-year-old woman. The procedure was performed with a single-port device (4-channel) via a 2.5-cm umbilical incision. A flexible 5-mm optic and straight laparoscopic instruments were used. The operative time was 75 min. There was no blood loss. No complications were observed. The postoperative period was uneventful. Although substantial development of the instruments and skills is needed, this SALS technique appears to be feasible and safe. Nevertheless, further experience and observations are necessary

Primary omental torsion (POT): a review of literature and case report

Eitel first described omental torsion in 1899, since then, fewer than 250 cases have been reported. Although omental torsion is rarely diagnosed preoperatively, knowledge of this pathology is important to the surgeon because it mimics the common causes of acute surgical abdomen. For this reason, in the absence of diagnosed preexisting abdominal pathology, including cysts, tumors, foci of intra-abdominal inflammation, postsurgical wounds or scarring, and hernial sacs, omental torsion still can represent a surprise. Explorative laparotomy represents the diagnostic and definitive therapeutic procedure. Presently laparoscopy is the first choice procedure

Transumbilical laparoscopy for pneumoperitoneum establishment: a comprehensive multicentre evaluation affirming safety, feasibility, and a range of clinical benefits

IntroductionTransumbilical laparoscopy (TUL) has emerged as a promising technique for establishing pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopic cholecystectomy, offering potential safety, feasibility, and clinical benefits. This retrospective multicentre study aims to evaluate the efficacy and outcomes of TUL in the management of gallbladder diseases.MethodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on a cohort of 2,543 patients who underwent TUL between 2011 and 2021 across various medical institutions in Italy. Data collection included demographic, clinical, intraoperative, and postoperative parameters. Standardized protocols were followed for preoperative and postoperative management. The TUL technique involved precise anatomical incision and trocar placement.ResultsThe study demonstrated favorable outcomes associated with TUL, including a low conversion rate to open surgery (0.55%), minimal intraoperative complications (0.16%), and short hospital stays (average 2.4 days). The incidence of incisional hernias was notably low (0.4%). Comparison with existing literature revealed consistent findings and provided unique insights into the advantages of TUL.DiscussionDespite limitations, such as the absence of a control group and the retrospective nature of the study, the findings contribute valuable insights to the literature. They inform surgical decision-making and advance patient care in laparoscopic cholecystectomy for gallbladder diseases.ConclusionTransumbilical laparoscopy shows promise as a safe and feasible technique for establishing pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The study's findings support its clinical benefits, including low conversion rates, minimal complications, and short hospital stays. Further research, including prospective studies with control groups, is warranted to validate these results and optimize patient outcomes

Is robotic right colectomy economically sustainable? A multicentre retrospective comparative study and cost analysis

Background Following the Food and Drug Administration approval, robot-assisted colorectal surgery has gained more acceptance among surgeons. One of the open issues about robotic surgery is the economic sustainability. The aim of our study is to evaluate the economic sustainability of robotic as compared to laparoscopic right colectomy for the Italian National Health System. Methods We performed a retrospective multicentre case-matched study including 94 patients for each group from four different Italian surgical departments. An economic evaluation gathered from a real-world data was performed to assess the sustainability of the robotic approach for right colectomy in the Italian National Health System. In particular, a differential cost analysis between the two procedures was performed. Results No statistical differences were found between the two groups for postoperative outcomes. After a careful review of the literature on the cost assessment for the operative room, medical devices and hospital stay according with our data, we estimated the followings: (a) the mean operative room cost for robotic group was 2179 ± 476 € vs. 1376 ± 322 € for laparoscopic group; (b) the mean hospital stay cost for robotic group was 3143 ± 1435 € vs. 3292 ± 1123 € for laparoscopic group; and (c) the mean cost for instruments was 6280 € for robotic group vs. 1504 € for laparoscopic group. The total mean cost of robotic right colectomy was 11,576 ± 1915 € vs. 6196 ± 1444 € for laparoscopic right colectomy. Conclusion In conclusion, to date, robotic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis does not provide any significant clinical advantages, which may justify the additional costs, as compared to its laparoscopic counterpart. Further evolution of robotic technology and experience may lead to a reduction of costs, especially if the robotic platform is used in an appropriate healthcare setting

The role of RObotic surgery in EMergency setting (ROEM): protocol for a multicentre, observational, prospective international study on the use of robotic platform in emergency surgery

Background Robotic surgery has gained widespread acceptance in elective interventions, yet its role in emergency procedures remains underexplored. While the 2021 WSES position paper discussed limited studies on the application of robotics in emergency general surgery, it recommended strict patient selection, adequate training, and improved platform accessibility. This prospective study aims to define the role of robotic surgery in emergency settings, evaluating intraoperative and postoperative outcomes and assessing its feasibility and safety.Methods The ROEM study is an observational, prospective, multicentre, international analysis of clinically stable adult patients undergoing robotic surgery for emergency treatment of acute pathologies including diverticulitis, cholecystitis, and obstructed hernias. Data collection includes patient demographics and intervention details. Furthermore, data relating to the operating theatre team and the surgical instruments used will be collected in order to conduct a cost analysis. The study plans to enrol at least 500 patients from 50 participating centres, with each centre having a local lead and collaborators. All data will be collected and stored online through a secure server running the Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) web application. Ethical considerations and data governance will be paramount, requiring local ethical committee approvals from participating centres.Discussion Current literature and expert consensus suggest the feasibility of robotic surgery in emergencies with proper support. However, challenges include staff training, scheduling conflicts with elective surgeries, and increased costs. The ROEM study seeks to contribute valuable data on the safety, feasibility, and cost-effectiveness of robotic surgery in emergency settings, focusing on specific pathologies. Previous studies on cholecystitis, abdominal hernias, and diverticulitis provide insights into the benefits and challenges of robotic approaches. It is necessary to identify patient populations that benefit most from robotic emergency surgery to optimize outcomes and justify costs

Textbook outcome in urgent early cholecystectomy for acute calculous cholecystitis: results post hoc of the S.P.Ri.M.A.C.C study

Introduction: A textbook outcome patient is one in which the operative course passes uneventful, without complications, readmission or mortality. There is a lack of publications in terms of TO on acute cholecystitis. Objetive: The objective of this study is to analyze the achievement of TO in patients with urgent early cholecystectomy (UEC) for Acute Cholecystitis. and to identify which factors are related to achieving TO. Materials and methods: This is a post hoc study of the SPRiMACC study. It ́s a prospective multicenter observational study run by WSES. The criteria to define TO in urgent early cholecystectomy (TOUEC) were no 30-day mortality, no 30-day postoperative complications, no readmission within 30 days, and hospital stay ≤ 7 days (75th percentile), and full laparoscopic surgery. Patients who met all these conditions were taken as presenting a TOUEC. Outcomes: 1246 urgent early cholecystectomies for ACC were included. In all, 789 patients (63.3%) achieved all TOUEC parameters, while 457 (36.6%) failed to achieve one or more parameters and were considered non-TOUEC. The patients who achieved TOUEC were younger had significantly lower scores on all the risk scales analyzed. In the serological tests, TOUEC patients had lower values for in a lot of variables than non-TOUEC patients. The TOUEC group had lower rates of complicated cholecystitis. Considering operative time, a shorter duration was also associated with a higher probability of reaching TOUEC. Conclusion: Knowledge of the factors that influence the TOUEC can allow us to improve our results in terms of textbook outcome

How future surgery will benefit from SARS-COV-2-related measures: a SPIGC survey conveying the perspective of Italian surgeons

COVID-19 negatively affected surgical activity, but the potential benefits resulting from adopted measures remain unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the change in surgical activity and potential benefit from COVID-19 measures in perspective of Italian surgeons on behalf of SPIGC. A nationwide online survey on surgical practice before, during, and after COVID-19 pandemic was conducted in March-April 2022 (NCT:05323851). Effects of COVID-19 hospital-related measures on surgical patients' management and personal professional development across surgical specialties were explored. Data on demographics, pre-operative/peri-operative/post-operative management, and professional development were collected. Outcomes were matched with the corresponding volume. Four hundred and seventy-three respondents were included in final analysis across 14 surgical specialties. Since SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, application of telematic consultations (4.1% vs. 21.6%; p < 0.0001) and diagnostic evaluations (16.4% vs. 42.2%; p < 0.0001) increased. Elective surgical activities significantly reduced and surgeons opted more frequently for conservative management with a possible indication for elective (26.3% vs. 35.7%; p < 0.0001) or urgent (20.4% vs. 38.5%; p < 0.0001) surgery. All new COVID-related measures are perceived to be maintained in the future. Surgeons' personal education online increased from 12.6% (pre-COVID) to 86.6% (post-COVID; p < 0.0001). Online educational activities are considered a beneficial effect from COVID pandemic (56.4%). COVID-19 had a great impact on surgical specialties, with significant reduction of operation volume. However, some forced changes turned out to be benefits. Isolation measures pushed the use of telemedicine and telemetric devices for outpatient practice and favored communication for educational purposes and surgeon-patient/family communication. From the Italian surgeons' perspective, COVID-related measures will continue to influence future surgical clinical practice

Blood Transfusions and Adverse Events after Colorectal Surgery: A Propensity-Score-Matched Analysis of a Hen-Egg Issue

Blood transfusions are considered a risk factor for adverse outcomes after colorectal surgery. However, it is still unclear if they are the cause (the hen) or the consequence (the egg) of adverse events. A prospective database of 4529 colorectal resections gathered over a 12-month period in 76 Italian surgical units (the iCral3 study), reporting patient-, disease-, and procedure-related variables, together with 60-day adverse events, was retrospectively analyzed identifying a subgroup of 304 cases (6.7%) that received intra- and/or postoperative blood transfusions (IPBTs). The endpoints considered were overall and major morbidity (OM and MM, respectively), anastomotic leakage (AL), and mortality (M) rates. After the exclusion of 336 patients who underwent neo-adjuvant treatments, 4193 (92.6%) cases were analyzed through a 1:1 propensity score matching model including 22 covariates. Two well-balanced groups of 275 patients each were obtained: group A, presence of IPBT, and group B, absence of IPBT. Group A vs. group B showed a significantly higher risk of overall morbidity (154 (56%) vs. 84 (31%) events; OR 3.07; 95%CI 2.13-4.43; p = 0.001), major morbidity (59 (21%) vs. 13 (4.7%) events; OR 6.06; 95%CI 3.17-11.6; p = 0.001), and anastomotic leakage (31 (11.3%) vs. 8 (2.9%) events; OR 4.72; 95%CI 2.09-10.66; p = 0.0002). No significant difference was recorded between the two groups concerning the risk of mortality. The original subpopulation of 304 patients that received IPBT was further analyzed considering three variables: appropriateness of BT according to liberal transfusion thresholds, BT following any hemorrhagic and/or major adverse event, and major adverse event following BT without any previous hemorrhagic adverse event. Inappropriate BT was administered in more than a quarter of cases, without any significant influence on any endpoint. The majority of BT was administered after a hemorrhagic or a major adverse event, with significantly higher rates of MM and AL. Finally, a major adverse event followed BT in a minority (4.3%) of cases, with significantly higher MM, AL, and M rates. In conclusion, although the majority of IPBT was administered with the consequence of hemorrhage and/or major adverse events (the egg), after adjustment accounting for 22 covariates, IPBT still resulted in a definite source of a higher risk of major morbidity and anastomotic leakage rates after colorectal surgery (the hen), calling urgent attention to the implementation of patient blood management programs

Abdominal drainage after elective colorectal surgery: propensity score-matched retrospective analysis of an Italian cohort

background: In italy, surgeons continue to drain the abdominal cavity in more than 50 per cent of patients after colorectal resection. the aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of abdominal drain placement on early adverse events in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. methods: a database was retrospectively analysed through a 1:1 propensity score-matching model including 21 covariates. the primary endpoint was the postoperative duration of stay, and the secondary endpoints were surgical site infections, infectious morbidity rate defined as surgical site infections plus pulmonary infections plus urinary infections, anastomotic leakage, overall morbidity rate, major morbidity rate, reoperation and mortality rates. the results of multiple logistic regression analyses were presented as odds ratios (OR) and 95 per cent c.i. results: a total of 6157 patients were analysed to produce two well-balanced groups of 1802 patients: group (A), no abdominal drain(s) and group (B), abdominal drain(s). group a versus group B showed a significantly lower risk of postoperative duration of stay >6 days (OR 0.60; 95 per cent c.i. 0.51-0.70; P < 0.001). a mean postoperative duration of stay difference of 0.86 days was detected between groups. no difference was recorded between the two groups for all the other endpoints. conclusion: this study confirms that placement of abdominal drain(s) after elective colorectal surgery is associated with a non-clinically significant longer (0.86 days) postoperative duration of stay but has no impact on any other secondary outcomes, confirming that abdominal drains should not be used routinely in colorectal surgery

Bowel preparation for elective colorectal resection: multi-treatment machine learning analysis on 6241 cases from a prospective Italian cohort

background current evidence concerning bowel preparation before elective colorectal surgery is still controversial. this study aimed to compare the incidence of anastomotic leakage (AL), surgical site infections (SSIs), and overall morbidity (any adverse event, OM) after elective colorectal surgery using four different types of bowel preparation. methods a prospective database gathered among 78 Italian surgical centers in two prospective studies, including 6241 patients who underwent elective colorectal resection with anastomosis for malignant or benign disease, was re-analyzed through a multi-treatment machine-learning model considering no bowel preparation (NBP; No. = 3742; 60.0%) as the reference treatment arm, compared to oral antibiotics alone (oA; No. = 406; 6.5%), mechanical bowel preparation alone (MBP; No. = 1486; 23.8%), or in combination with oAB (MoABP; No. = 607; 9.7%). twenty covariates related to biometric data, surgical procedures, perioperative management, and hospital/center data potentially affecting outcomes were included and balanced into the model. the primary endpoints were AL, SSIs, and OM. all the results were reported as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). results compared to NBP, MBP showed significantly higher AL risk (OR 1.82; 95% CI 1.23-2.71; p = .003) and OM risk (OR 1.38; 95% CI 1.10-1.72; p = .005), no significant differences for all the endpoints were recorded in the oA group, whereas MoABP showed a significantly reduced SSI risk (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.25-0.79; p = .008). conclusions MoABP significantly reduced the SSI risk after elective colorectal surgery, therefore representing a valid alternative to NBP