Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: a multicenter propensity score-matched study

Background: The role of laparoscopy in the treatment of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) remains unclear. This multicenter study examined the outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection for ICC. Methods: Patients with ICC who had undergone laparoscopic or open liver resection between 2012 and 2019 at four European expert centers were included in the study. Laparoscopic and open approaches were compared in terms of surgical and oncological outcomes. Propensity score matching was used for minimizing treatment selection bias and adjusting for confounders (age, ASA grade, tumor size, location, number of tumors and underlying liver disease). Results: Of 136 patients, 50 (36.7%) underwent laparoscopic resection, whereas 86 (63.3%) had open surgery. Median tumor size was larger (73.6 vs 55.1 mm, p¼ 0.01) and the incidence of bi-lobar tumors was higher (36.6 vs 6%, p< 0.01) in patients undergoing open surgery. After propensity score matching baseline characteristics were comparable although open surgery was associated with a larger fraction of major liver resections (74 vs 38%, p< 0.01), lymphadenectomy (60 vs 20%, p< 0.01) and longer operative time (294 vs 209 min, p< 0.01). Tumor characteristics were similar. Laparoscopic resection resulted in less complications (30 vs 52%, p¼ 0.025), fewer reoperations (4 vs 16%, p¼ 0.046) and shorter hospital stay (5 vs 8 days, p< 0.01). No differences were found in terms of recurrence, recurrence-free and overall survival. Conclusion: Laparoscopic resection seems to be associated with improved short-term and with similar long-term outcomes compared with open surgery in patients with ICC. However, possible selection criteria for laparoscopic surgery are yet to be defined

Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy:a pan-European multicenter propensity-matched study

Background: The use of robot-assisted and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy is increasing, yet large adjusted analyses that can be generalized internationally are lacking. This study aimed to compare outcomes after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy in a pan-European cohort. Methods: An international multicenter retrospective study including patients after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy from 50 centers in 12 European countries (2009–2020). Propensity score matching was performed in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was major morbidity (Clavien–Dindo ≥III). Results: Among 2,082 patients undergoing minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy, 1,006 underwent robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and 1,076 laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy. After matching 812 versus 812 patients, the rates of major morbidity (31.9% vs 29.6%; P = .347) and 30-day/in-hospital mortality (4.3% vs 4.6%; P = .904) did not differ significantly between robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy, respectively. Robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower conversion rate (6.7% vs 18.0%; P &lt; .001) and higher lymph node retrieval (16 vs 14; P = .003). Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with shorter operation time (446 minutes versus 400 minutes; P &lt; .001), and lower rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C (19.0% vs 11.7%; P &lt; .001), delayed gastric emptying grade B/C (21.4% vs 7.4%; P &lt; .001), and a higher R0-resection rate (73.2% vs 84.4%; P &lt; .001). Conclusion: This European multicenter study found no differences in overall major morbidity and 30-day/in-hospital mortality after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy compared with laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy. Further, laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, wound infection, shorter length of stay, and a higher R0 resection rate than robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy. In contrast, robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower conversion rate and a higher number of retrieved lymph nodes as compared with laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy.</p

Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy:a pan-European multicenter propensity-matched study

Background: The use of robot-assisted and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy is increasing, yet large adjusted analyses that can be generalized internationally are lacking. This study aimed to compare outcomes after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy in a pan-European cohort. Methods: An international multicenter retrospective study including patients after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy from 50 centers in 12 European countries (2009–2020). Propensity score matching was performed in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was major morbidity (Clavien–Dindo ≥III). Results: Among 2,082 patients undergoing minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy, 1,006 underwent robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and 1,076 laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy. After matching 812 versus 812 patients, the rates of major morbidity (31.9% vs 29.6%; P = .347) and 30-day/in-hospital mortality (4.3% vs 4.6%; P = .904) did not differ significantly between robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy, respectively. Robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower conversion rate (6.7% vs 18.0%; P &lt; .001) and higher lymph node retrieval (16 vs 14; P = .003). Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with shorter operation time (446 minutes versus 400 minutes; P &lt; .001), and lower rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C (19.0% vs 11.7%; P &lt; .001), delayed gastric emptying grade B/C (21.4% vs 7.4%; P &lt; .001), and a higher R0-resection rate (73.2% vs 84.4%; P &lt; .001). Conclusion: This European multicenter study found no differences in overall major morbidity and 30-day/in-hospital mortality after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy compared with laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy. Further, laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, wound infection, shorter length of stay, and a higher R0 resection rate than robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy. In contrast, robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower conversion rate and a higher number of retrieved lymph nodes as compared with laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy.</p

The Brescia Internationally Validated European Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery (EGUMIPS)

Objective: To develop and update evidence-based and consensus-based guidelines on laparoscopic and robotic pancreatic surgery. Summary Background Data: Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS), including laparoscopic and robotic surgery, is complex and technically demanding. Minimizing the risk for patients requires stringent, evidence-based guidelines. Since the International Miami Guidelines on MIPS in 2019, new developments and key publications have been reported, necessitating an update. Methods: Evidence-based guidelines on 22 topics in 8 domains were proposed: terminology, indications, patients, procedures, surgical techniques and instrumentation, assessment tools, implementation and training, and artificial intelligence. The Brescia Internationally Validated European Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery (EGUMIPS, September 2022) used the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology to assess the evidence and develop guideline recommendations, the Delphi method to establish consensus on the recommendations among the Expert Committee, and the AGREE II-GRS tool for guideline quality assessment and external validation by a Validation Committee. Results: Overall, 27 European experts, 6 international experts, 22 international Validation Committee members, 11 Jury Committee members, 18 Research Committee members, and 121 registered attendees of the 2-day meeting were involved in the development and validation of the guidelines. In total, 98 recommendations were developed, including 33 on laparoscopic, 34 on robotic, and 31 on general MIPS, covering 22 topics in 8 domains. Out of 98 recommendations, 97 reached at least 80% consensus among the experts and congress attendees, and all recommendations were externally validated by the Validation Committee. Conclusions: The EGUMIPS evidence-based guidelines on laparoscopic and robotic MIPS can be applied in current clinical practice to provide guidance to patients, surgeons, policy-makers, and medical societies.</p

Antenna Array with TEM-Horn for Radiation of High-Power Ultra Short Electromagnetic Pulses

An antenna array with short shielded transverse electromagnetic horns (S-TEM-horns) for emitting high-power radiation of ultra-short electromagnetic pulses (USEMP) has been created and researched. The antenna unit consists of an ultra-wideband antenna array with four S-TEM horns, with each connected to a two-wire HF transmission line, and these four lines are connected to an antenna feeder. This feeder is connected to a semiconductor generator with the following parameters: a 50 Ohm connector, 10–100 kV high-voltage monopolar pulses, a rise time of about 0.1 ns, FWHM = 0.2–1 ns, and pulse repetition rates of 1–100 kHz. The antenna array was designed and optimized to achieve a high efficiency of about 100% for the antenna aperture by using a 2 × 2 array with S-TEM-horns, with shielding rectangular plates for the return current. The transient responses were studied by simulation using the electromagnetic 3D code “KARAT” at the time domain and experimentally with the use of our stripline sensor for measurement of the impulse electrical field with a 0.03 ns rise time and a 7 ns duration at the traveling wave. The radiators were emitting USEMP waves with a hyperband frequency spectrum of 0.1–6 GHz. The radiation with an amplitude of 5–30 kV/m of the E-field strength at a distance of up to 20 m was successfully applied to test the electronics for immunity to electromagnetic interference