Goal-directed therapy in intraoperative fluid and hemodynamic management.

Intraoperative fluid management is pivotal to the outcome and success of surgery, especially in high-risk procedures. Empirical formula and invasive static monitoring have been traditionally used to guide intraoperative fluid management and assess volume status. With the awareness of the potential complications of invasive procedures and the poor reliability of these methods as indicators of volume status, we present a case scenario of a patient who underwent major abdominal surgery as an example to discuss how the use of minimally invasive dynamic monitoring may guide intraoperative fluid therapy

Comparative evaluation of instrument segmentation and tracking methods in minimally invasive surgery

Intraoperative segmentation and tracking of minimally invasive instruments is a prerequisite for computer- and robotic-assisted surgery. Since additional hardware like tracking systems or the robot encoders are cumbersome and lack accuracy, surgical vision is evolving as promising techniques to segment and track the instruments using only the endoscopic images. However, what is missing so far are common image data sets for consistent evaluation and benchmarking of algorithms against each other. The paper presents a comparative validation study of different vision-based methods for instrument segmentation and tracking in the context of robotic as well as conventional laparoscopic surgery. The contribution of the paper is twofold: we introduce a comprehensive validation data set that was provided to the study participants and present the results of the comparative validation study. Based on the results of the validation study, we arrive at the conclusion that modern deep learning approaches outperform other methods in instrument segmentation tasks, but the results are still not perfect. Furthermore, we show that merging results from different methods actually significantly increases accuracy in comparison to the best stand-alone method. On the other hand, the results of the instrument tracking task show that this is still an open challenge, especially during challenging scenarios in conventional laparoscopic surgery

A standardized comparison of peri-operative complications after minimally invasive esophagectomy: Ivor Lewis versus McKeown.

BACKGROUND: While our institutional approach to esophageal resection for cancer has traditionally favored a minimally invasive (MI) 3-hole, McKeown esophagectomy (MIE 3-hole) during the last five years several factors has determined a shift in our practice with an increasing number of minimally invasive Ivor Lewis (MIE IL) resections being performed. We compared peri-operative outcomes of the two procedures, hypothesizing that MIE IL would be less morbid in the peri-operative setting compared to MIE 3-hole. METHODS: Our institution\u27s IRB-approved esophageal database was queried to identify all patients who underwent totally MI esophagectomy (MIE IL vs. MIE 3-hole) from June 2011 to May 2016. Patient demographics, preoperative and peri-operative data, as well as post-operative complications were compared between the two groups. Post-operative complications were analyzed using the Clavien-Dindo classification system. RESULTS: There were 110 patients who underwent totally MI esophagectomy (MIE IL n = 49 [45%], MIE 3-hole n = 61 [55%]). The majority of patients were men (n = 91, 83%) with a median age of 62.5 (range 31-83). Preoperative risk stratifiers such as ECOG score, ASA, and Charlson Comorbidity Index were not significantly different between groups. Anastomotic leak rate was 2.0% in the MIE IL group compared to 6.6% in the MIE 3-hole group (p = 0.379). The rate of serious (Clavien-Dindo 3, 4, or 5) post-operative complications was significantly less in the MIE IL group (34.7 vs. 59.0%, p = 0.013). Serious pulmonary complications were not significantly different (16.3 vs. 26.2%, p = 0.251) between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort, totally MIE IL showed significantly less severe peri-operative morbidity than MIE 3-hole, but similar rates of serious pulmonary complications and anastomotic leaks. These findings confirm the safety of minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomies for esophageal cancer when oncologically and clinically appropriate. Minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy remains a satisfactory and appropriate option when clinically indicated

Non-invasive or minimally invasive autopsy compared to conventional autopsy of suspected natural deaths in adults: a systematic review

Objectives: Autopsies are used for healthcare quality control and improving medical knowledge. Because autopsy rates are declining worldwide, various non-invasive or minimally invasive autopsy methods are now being developed. To investigate whether these might replace the invasive autopsies conventionally performed in naturally deceased adults, we systematically reviewed original prospective validation studies. Materials and methods: We searched six databases. Two reviewers independently selected articles and extracted data. Methods and patient groups were too heterogeneous for meaningful meta-analysis of outcomes. Results: Sixteen of 1538 articles met our inclusion criteria. Eight studies used a blinded comparison; ten included less than 30 appropriate cases. Thirteen studies used radiological imaging (seven dealt solely with non-invasive procedures), two thoracoscopy and laparoscopy, and one sampling without imaging. Combining CT and MR was the best non-invasive method (agreement for cause of death: 70 %, 95%CI: 62.6; 76.4), but minimally invasive methods surpassed non-invasive methods. The highest sensitivity for cause of death (90.9 %, 95%CI: 74.5; 97.6, suspected duplicates excluded) was achieved in recent studies combining CT, CT-angiography and biopsies. Conclusion: Minimally invasive autopsies including biopsies performed best. To establish a feasible alternative to conventional autopsy and to increase consent to post-mortem investigations, further research in larger study groups is needed. Key points: • Health care quality control benefits from clinical feedback provided by (alternative) autopsies. • So far, sixteen studies investigated alternative autopsy methods for naturally deceased adults. • Thirteen studies used radiological imaging modalities, eight tissue biopsies, and three CT-angiography. • Combined CT, CT-angiography and biopsies were most sensitive diagnosing cause of death

Liver Abscesses: a 10-year Vinnytsya University Study

According to MEDLINE database there were about 1278 papers on liver abscess published in a period from 2001 to 2015.The aim of the study is to improve liver abscess treatment results comparing minimally invasive and traditional operative techniques.Materials and methods. 137 patients were included in the study and divided on two comparison groups. Traditional methods were used for the treatment of 66 participants of the control group (48.2 %). For 71 patients (51.8 %) of the general group the mini-invasive drainages were predominating.Results. Cholangiogenic causes of liver abscesses were found in 41 patients (29.93±3.91 %), cryptogenic ones – in 37 (27.01±3.79 %), haematogenous causes – in 29 (21.17±3.49 %), contact ones – in 16 (11.68±2.75 %), posttraumatic ones – in 11 (8.03±2.32 %) and purulent destruction of metastases – in 3 (2.19±1.25 %).Single abscesses occurred more often – in 117 (85.40±3.02 %), multiple once – in 20 (14.60±3.02 %). Mostly 3, 6 and 7 liver segments were damaged – 19 (13.88±2.95 %), 35 (25.55±3.73 %), 44 (32.12±3.99 %).In control group, the abscess drainage via laparotomy was performed on 58 patients (87.88±4.02 % of 66 ones) versus 21 (29.58±5.42 % of 71 ones) in general group. Percutaneous drainage was used in 8 (12.12±4.02 %) and in 44 (61.97±5.76 %) cases respectively. 6 or 8.45±3.30 % laparoscopic interventions were used only in the general group. Finally, mini-invasive drainages were applied in the greater part of general group - 50 (70.42±5.42 %) versus 8 ones (12.12±4.02 %) in control group.Conclusions. Minimally invasive liver abscess drainages showed a significant reduction of postoperative complications from 24.24±5.27 % in the control group to 12.66±3.95 % in the general group, shortening of hospital terms from 14.6±1 in control to 5.2±0.8 days and decreasing of mortality from 7.58±3.26 % to 2.82±1.96 %

Interventions for necrotising pancreatitis

BACKGROUND: Acute necrotising pancreatitis carries significant mortality, morbidity, and resource use. There is considerable uncertainty as to how people with necrotising pancreatitis should be treated. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of different interventions in people with acute necrotising pancreatitis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2015, Issue 4), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and trials registers to April 2015 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCT). We also searched the references of included trials to identify further trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered only RCTs performed in people with necrotising pancreatitis, irrespective of aetiology, presence of infection, language, blinding, or publication status for inclusion in the review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently identified trials and extracted data. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) and mean difference with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using Review Manager 5 based on an available-case analysis using fixed-effect and random-effects models. We planned a network meta-analysis using Bayesian methods, but due to sparse data and uncertainty about the transitivity assumption, performed only indirect comparisons and used Frequentist methods. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight RCTs with 311 participants in this review. After exclusion of five participants, we included 306 participants in one or more outcomes. Five trials (240 participants) investigated the three main treatments: open necrosectomy (121 participants), minimally invasive step-up approach (80 participants), and peritoneal lavage (39 participants) and were included in the network meta-analysis. Three trials (66 participants) investigated the variations in the main treatments: early open necrosectomy (25 participants), delayed open necrosectomy (11 participants), video-assisted minimally invasive step-up approach (12 participants), endoscopic minimally invasive step-up approach (10 participants), minimally invasive step-up approach (planned surgery) (four participants), and minimally invasive step-up approach (continued percutaneous drainage) (four participants). The trials included infected or sterile necrotising pancreatitis of varied aetiology.All the trials were at unclear or high risk of bias and the overall quality of evidence was low or very low for all the outcomes. Overall, short-term mortality was 30% and serious adverse events rate was 139 serious adverse events per 100 participants. The differences in short-term mortality and proportion of people with serious adverse events were imprecise in all the comparisons. The number of serious adverse events and adverse events were fewer in the minimally invasive step-up approach compared to open necrosectomy (serious adverse events: rate ratio 0.41, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.68; 88 participants; 1 study; adverse events: rate ratio 0.41, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.68; 88 participants; 1 study). The proportion of people with organ failure and the mean costs were lower in the minimally invasive step-up approach compared to open necrosectomy (organ failure: OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.60; 88 participants; 1 study; mean difference in costs: USD -11,922; P value < 0.05; 88 participants; 1 studies). There were more adverse events with video-assisted minimally invasive step-up approach group compared to endoscopic-assisted minimally invasive step-up approach group (rate ratio 11.70, 95% CI 1.52 to 89.87; 22 participants; 1 study), but the number of interventions per participant was less with video-assisted minimally invasive step-up approach group compared to endoscopic minimally invasive step-up approach group (difference in medians: 2 procedures; P value < 0.05; 20 participants; 1 study). The differences in any of the other comparisons for number of serious adverse events, proportion of people with organ failure, number of adverse events, length of hospital stay, and intensive therapy unit stay were either imprecise or were not consistent. None of the trials reported long-term mortality, infected pancreatic necrosis (trials that included participants with sterile necrosis), health-related quality of life at any time frame, proportion of people with adverse events, requirement for additional invasive intervention, time to return to normal activity, and time to return to work. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low to very low quality evidence suggested that the minimally invasive step-up approach resulted in fewer adverse events, serious adverse events, less organ failure, and lower costs compared to open necrosectomy. Very low quality evidence suggested that the endoscopic minimally invasive step-up approach resulted in fewer adverse events than the video-assisted minimally invasive step-up approach but increased the number of procedures required for treatment. There is currently no evidence to suggest that early open necrosectomy is superior or inferior to peritoneal lavage or delayed open necrosectomy. However, the CIs were wide and significant benefits or harms of different treatments cannot be ruled out. The TENSION trial currently underway in Netherlands is assessing the optimal way to perform the minimally invasive step-up approach (endoscopic drainage followed by endoscopic necrosectomy if necessary versus percutaneous drainage followed by video-assisted necrosectomy if necessary) and is assessing important clinical outcomes of interest for this review. Implications for further research on this topic will be determined after the results of this RCT are available

Comparing open and minimally invasive surgical procedures for oesophagectomy in the treatment of cancer: the ROMIO (Randomised Oesophagectomy: Minimally Invasive or Open) feasibility study and pilot trial

Localised oesophageal cancer can be curatively treated with surgery (oesophagectomy) but the procedure is complex with a risk of complications, negative effects on quality of life and a recovery period of 6-9 months. Minimal-access surgery may accelerate recovery.The ROMIO (Randomised Oesophagectomy: Minimally Invasive or Open) study aimed to establish the feasibility of, and methodology for, a definitive trial comparing minimally invasive and open surgery for oesophagectomy. Objectives were to quantify the number of eligible patients in a pilot trial; develop surgical manuals as the basis for quality assurance; standardise pathological processing; establish a method to blind patients to their allocation in the first week post surgery; identify measures of postsurgical outcome of importance to patients and clinicians; and establish the main cost differences between the surgical approaches.Pilot parallel three-arm randomised controlled trial nested within feasibility work.Two UK NHS departments of upper gastrointestinal surgery.Patients aged ≥ 18 years with histopathological evidence of oesophageal or oesophagogastric junctional adenocarcinoma, squamous cell cancer or high-grade dysplasia, referred for oesophagectomy or oesophagectomy following neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy.Oesophagectomy, with patients randomised to open surgery, a hybrid open chest and minimally invasive abdomen or totally minimally invasive access.The primary outcome measure for the pilot trial was the number of patients recruited per month, with the main trial considered feasible if at least 2.5 patients per month were recruited.During 21 months of recruitment, 263 patients were assessed for eligibility; of these, 135 (51%) were found to be eligible and 104 (77%) agreed to participate, an average of five patients per month. In total, 41 patients were allocated to open surgery, 43 to the hybrid procedure and 20 to totally minimally invasive surgery. Recruitment is continuing, allowing a seamless transition into the definitive trial. Consequently, the database is unlocked at the time of writing and data presented here are for patients recruited by 31 August 2014. Random allocation achieved a good balance between the arms of the study, which, as a high proportion of patients underwent their allocated surgery (69/79, 87%), ensured a fair comparison between the interventions. Dressing patients with large bandages, covering all possible incisions, was successful in keeping patients blind while pain was assessed during the first week post surgery. Postsurgical length of stay and risk of adverse events were within the typical range for this group of patients, with one death occurring within 30 days among 76 patients. There were good completion rates for the assessment of pain at 6 days post surgery (88%) and of the patient-reported outcomes at 6 weeks post randomisation (74%).Rapid recruitment to the pilot trial and the successful refinement of methodology indicated the feasibility of a definitive trial comparing different approaches to oesophagectomy. Although we have shown a full trial of open compared with minimally invasive oesophagectomy to be feasible, this is necessarily based on our findings from the two clinical centres that we could include in this small preliminary study.Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN59036820.This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 48. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Transanal minimally invasive surgery for rectal lesions

Background and Objectives: Transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) has emerged as an alternative to transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM). The authors report their experience with TAMIS for the treatment of mid and high rectal tumors. Methods: From November 2011 through May 2016, 31 patients (21 females, 68%), with a median age of 65 years who underwent single-port TAMIS were prospectively enrolled. Mean distance from the anal verge of the rectal tumors was 9.5 cm. Seventeen patients presented with T1 cancer, 10 with large adenoma, 2 with gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) and 2 with carcinoid tumor. Data concerning demographics, operative procedure and pathologic results were analyzed. Results: TAMIS was successfully completed in all cases. In 4 (13%) TAMIS was converted to standard Park’s transanal technique. Median postoperative stay was 3 days. The overall complication rate was 9.6%, including 1 urinary tract infection, 1 subcutaneous emphysema, and 1 hemorrhoidal thrombosis. TAMIS allowed an R0 resection in 96.8% of cases (30/31 cases) and a single case of local recurrence after a large adenoma resection was encountered. Conclusion: TAMIS is a safe technique, with a short learning curve for laparoscopic surgeons already proficient in single-port procedures, and provides effective oncological outcomes compared to other techniques

Minimally Invasive Mitral Valve Surgery II: Surgical Technique and Postoperative Management.

Techniques for minimally invasive mitral valve repair and replacement continue to evolve. This expert opinion, the second of a 3-part series, outlines current best practices for nonrobotic, minimally invasive mitral valve procedures, and for postoperative care after minimally invasive mitral valve surgery

Patient-reported outcomes measures and patient preferences for minimally invasive glaucoma surgical devices.

BackgroundMany therapeutic options are available to glaucoma patients. One recent therapeutic option is minimally invasive glaucoma surgical (MIGS) devices. It is unclear how patients view different treatments and which patient-reported outcomes would be most relevant in patients with mild to moderate glaucoma. We developed a questionnaire for patients eligible for MIGS devices and a patient preference study to examine the value patients place on certain outcomes associated with glaucoma and its therapies.ObjectivesTo summarize the progress to date.MethodsQuestionnaire development: We drafted the questionnaire items based on input from one physician and four patient focus groups, and a review of the literature. We tested item clarity with six cognitive interviews. These items were further refined. Patient preference study: We identified important benefit and risk outcomes qualitatively using semi-structured, one-on-one interviews with patients who were eligible for MIGS devices. We then prioritized these outcomes quantitatively using best-worst scaling methods.ResultsQuestionnaire testing: Three concepts were deemed relevant for the questionnaire: functional limitations, symptoms, and psychosocial factors. We will evaluate the reliability and validity of the 52-item draft questionnaire in an upcoming field test. Patient preference study: We identified 13 outcomes that participants perceived as important. Outcomes with the largest relative importance weights were "adequate IOP control" and "drive a car during the day."ConclusionsPatients have the potential to steer clinical research towards outcomes that are important to them. Incorporating patients' perspectives into the MIGS device development and evaluation process may expedite innovation and availability of these devices