European association for endoscopic surgery (EAES) consensus statement on single-incision endoscopic surgery

Laparoscopic surgery changed the management of numerous surgical conditions. It was associated with many advantages over open surgery, such as decreased postoperative pain, faster recovery, shorter hospital stay and excellent cosmesis. Since two decades single-incision endoscopic surgery (SIES) was introduced to the surgical community. SIES could possibly result in even better postoperative outcomes than multi-port laparoscopic surgery, especially concerning cosmetic outcomes and pain. However, the single-incision surgical procedure is associated with quite some challenges.This article is freely available via Open Access, click on the Publisher's URL to access the full-text.Publishe

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Prognostic score in patients with recurrent or metastatic carcinoma of the head and neck treated with cetuximab and chemotherapy.

Despite modern treatment approaches, survival of patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) remains low and it is difficult to identify patients who derive optimal benefit from treatment. We therefore analyzed which commonly available laboratory and clinical parameters may help improve the prognostication in this patient group. This retrospective monocenter analysis includes 128 patients with recurrent or metastatic SCCHN treated with cetuximab alone or in combination with polychemotherapy as first line therapy. Factors with independent prognostic power in the multivariate analysis were used to build up a score separating patient groups with different survival. Patients had a median age of 61 years and 103 patients were treated with polychemotherapy plus cetuximab. An ECOG score above 1, high CRP and leukocyte levels, less intensive treatment and a time below 12 months from primary diagnosis to relapse remained as independent negative prognostic factors in multivariate analysis. Patients with 0 to 1 risk factors had a median OS of 13.6 months compared to a median OS of less than one month for patients 4 to 5 risk factors (p<0.001). This study identifies 5 clinical and serum values that influence survival of patients with recurrent or metastatic SCCHN treated with cetuximab. By combining these factors to create a score for OS, it is possible to distinguish a group of patients with significantly improved survival and define those most likely to have no benefit from cetuximab treatment

The Shift from Multiport to Single Port Increases the Amount of Bleeding in Laparoscopic Major Hepatectomy

Background: Bleeding is a negative outcome predictor in liver surgery. Reduction in the abdominal wall trauma in major hepatectomy is challenging but might offer possible benefits for the patient. This study was conducted to assess hemostasis techniques in single-port major hepatectomies (SP-MajH) as compared to multiport major hepatectomies (MP-MajH). Methods: The non-randomized study comprised 34 SP-MajH in selected patients; 14 MP-MajH served as the control group. Intraoperative blood loss and number of blood units transfused served as the primary endpoints. Secondary endpoints were complications and oncologic five-year outcome. Results: All resections were completed without converting to open surgery. Time for hepatectomy did not differ between SP-MajH and MP-MajH. Blood loss and number of patients with blood loss > 25 mL were significantly larger in MP-MajH (p = 0.001). In contrast, bleeding control was more difficult in SP-MajH, resulting in more transfusions (p = 0.008). One intestinal laceration (SP-MajH) accounted for the only intraoperative complication; 90-day mortality was zero. Postoperative complications were noted in total in 20.6% and 21.4% of patients for SP-MajH and MP-MajH, respectively. No incisional hernia occurred. During a median oncologic follow-up at 61 and 56 months (SP-MajH and MP-MajH), no local tumor recurrence was observed. Conclusions: SP-MajH requires sophisticated techniques to ensure operative safety. Substantial blood loss requiring transfusion is more likely to occur in SP-MajH than in MP-MajH

Short- and Long-Term Outcome of Laparoscopic- versus Robotic-Assisted Right Colectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: There is a rapidly growing literature available on right hemicolectomy comparing the short- and long-term outcomes of robotic right colectomy (RRC) to that of laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC). The aim of this meta-analysis is to revise current comparative literature systematically. Methods: A systematic review of comparative studies published between 2000 to 2021 in PubMed, Scopus and Embase was performed. The primary endpoint was postoperative morbidity, mortality and long-term oncological results. Secondary endpoints consist of blood loss, conversion rates, complications, time to first flatus, hospital stay and incisional hernia rate. Results: 25 of 322 studies were considered for data extraction. A total of 16,099 individual patients who underwent RRC (n = 1842) or LRC (n = 14,257) between 2002 and 2020 were identified. Operative time was significantly shorter in the LRC group (LRC 165.31 min ± 43.08 vs. RRC 207.38 min ± 189.13, MD: −42.01 (95% CI: −51.06−32.96), p 0.001). Blood loss was significantly lower in the RRC group (LRC 63.57 ± 35.21 vs. RRC 53.62 ± 34.02, MD: 10.03 (95% CI: 1.61–18.45), p = 0.02) as well as conversion rate (LRC 1155/11,629 vs. RRC 94/1534, OR: 1.65 (1.28–2.13), p p = 0.003). Oncological long-term results did not differ between both groups. Conclusion: The advantages of robotic colorectal procedures were clearly demonstrated. RRC can be regarded as safe and feasible. Most of the included studies were retrospective with a limited level of evidence. Further randomized trials would be suitable

Is Robotic Assisted Colorectal Cancer Surgery Equivalent Compared to Laparoscopic Procedures during the Introduction of a Robotic Program? A Propensity-Score Matched Analysis

Background: Robotic surgery represents a novel approach for the treatment of colorectal cancers and has been established as an important and effective method over the last years. The aim of this work was to evaluate the effect of a robotic program on oncological findings compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery within the first three years after the introduction. Methods: All colorectal cancer patients from two centers that either received robotic-assisted or conventional laparoscopic surgery were included in a comparative study. A propensity-score-matched analysis was used to reduce confounding differences. Results: A laparoscopic resection (LR Group) was performed in 82 cases, and 93 patients were treated robotic-assisted surgery (RR Group). Patients’ characteristics did not differ between groups. In right-sided resections, an intracorporeal anastomosis was significantly more often performed in the RR Group (LR Group: 5 (26.31%) vs. RR Group: 10 (76.92%), p = 0.008). Operative time was shown to be significantly shorter in the LR Group (LR Group: 200 min (150–243) vs. 204 min (174–278), p = 0.045). Conversions to open surgery did occur more often in the LR Group (LR Group: 16 (19.51%) vs. RR Group: 5 (5.38%), p = 0.004). Postoperative morbidity, the number of harvested lymph nodes, quality of resection and postoperative tumor stage did not differ between groups. Conclusion: In this study, we could clearly demonstrate robotic-assisted colorectal cancer surgery as effective, feasible and safe regarding postoperative morbidity and oncological findings compared to conventional laparoscopy during the introduction of a robotic system

Progression free survival of cetuximab treated patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck cancer.

<p>Median progression free survival (PFS) of patients treated polychemotherapy plus cetuximab was 4.8 months compared to a median PFS of 3.0 months for patients treated with less therapy (<i>p = 0</i>.<i>103</i>).</p

Overall survival score for all patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck cancer.

<p>103 patients were treated with polychemotherapy and cetuximab and 25 patients were treated with cetuximab alone or in combination with single agent chemotherapy. An ECOG score above 1, high CRP and leukocyte levels, less intensive treatment and a time below 12 months from primary diagnosis to relapse were found to be independent prognostic factors for overall survival (OS). Patients with 0 to 1 risk factors had a median OS of 13.6 months compared to 6.1 and 0.7 months for patients with 2 to 3 and 4 to 5 risk factors, respectively (<i>p<0</i>.<i>001</i>).</p

Overall survival score for patients treated with polychemotherapy plus cetuximab.

<p>103 patients were treated with polychemotherapy and cetuximab. Among these patients, an ECOG score above 1, high CRP and leukocyte levels and a time below 12 months from primary diagnosis to relapse were found to be independent prognostic factors for overall survival (OS). Patients with 0 to 1 risk factors had a median OS of 13.8 months compared to 6.1 months for those with 2 to 4 risk factors (<i>p<0</i>.<i>001</i>).</p