Side-to-side choledochoduodenostomy for common bile duct stones

International audienc

Ressecção laparoscópica dos cistoadenomas pancreáticos Laparoscopic resection of pancreatic cystadenomas

RACIONAL: As ressecções pancreáticas por laparoscopia tem se tornado cada vez mais frequentes, com bons resultados relatados por vários centros. Entretanto, poucos estudos se concentraram no tratamento laparoscópico das lesões císticas pancreáticas. OBJETIVO: Analisar os resultados do tratamento minimamente invasivo das lesões císticas pancreáticas. MÉTODOS: Análise retrospectiva de um banco de dados prospectivo multicêntrico brasileiro. Foram incluídas todas as ressecções pancreáticas laparoscópicas realizadas em três centros. Os procedimentos cirúrgicos incluíram enucleações e ressecções do pâncreas esquerdo (com ou sem esplenectomia associada). As complicações pos-operatórias foram classificadas de acordo com a classificação proposta por Clavien e Dindo6. O diagnóstico de fístula pancreática foi confirmado se a dosagem de amilase do líquido de drenagem no 3o dia pós-operatório era superior a três vezes o valor da amilase sérica. RESULTADOS: Foram realizadas 44 ressecções pancreáticas por laparoscopia. Quinze pacientes foram operados com suspeita de cistoadenoma pancreático e 13 tiveram o diagnóstico confirmado. Foram operadas 12 mulheres (92%), e a idade média foi de 50 anos. Seis pacientes tiveram complicações pós-operatórias leves. Ocorreram cinco (38%) fístulas pancreáticas, nenhuma considerada grave (C) e apenas um paciente necessitou re-internação hospitalar e drenagem radiológica. Nesta série não houve conversões, re-operações ou mortalidade. CONCLUSÕES: O acesso videolaparoscópico é opção segura e eficaz para o tratamento das lesões císticas pancreáticas. As fístulas pancreáticas são quase sempre de evolução favorável e não diminuem os benefícios do acesso minimamente invasivo.<br>BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic pancreatic resections have become increasingly frequent with good results reported by several centers. However, few studies have focused on laparoscopic treatment of pancreatic cystic lesions. AIM: To analyze the results of minimally invasive treatment of pancreatic cystic lesions. METHODS: Were included all laparoscopic pancreatic resections performed at three centers. Surgical procedures included resection of the pancreas and left enucleations (with or without splenectomy). The post-operative complications were classified according to the classification proposed by Clavien and Dindo6. The diagnosis of pancreatic fistula was confirmed if the amylase dosage of the drainage liquid in the third postoperative day was more than three times the amount of serum amylase. RESULTS: Were performed 44 laparoscopic pancreatic resections. Fifteen patients underwent surgery for suspected pancreatic cystadenoma and 13 had this diagnosis confirmed. There were 12 women (92%), and the average age of patients was 50 years. Six patients had minor postoperative complications. There were five (38%) pancreatic fistulas, neither considered as severe (C), and only one patient required hospital readmission and radiological drainage. In this series, there were no conversions, reoperations, or mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The laparoscopic approach is a safe and effective option for the treatment of pancreatic cystic lesions. The incidence of pancreatic fistula has good evolution and not diminishes the benefits of minimally invasive surgery

Robotic-assisted right colectomy. Official expert recommendations delivered under the aegis of the French Association of Surgery (AFC)

: Twenty-seven experts under the aegis of the French Association of Surgery (AFC) offer this reference system with formalized recommendations concerning the performance of right colectomy by robotic approach (RRC). For RRC, experts suggest patient installation in the so-called "classic" or "suprapubic" setup. For patients undergoing right colectomy for a benign pathology or cancer, RRC provides no significant benefit in terms of intra-operative blood loss, intra-operative complications or conversion rate to laparotomy compared to laparoscopy. At the same time, RRC is associated with significantly longer operating times. Data from the literature are insufficient to define whether the robot facilitates the performance of an intra-abdominal anastomosis, but the robotic approach is more frequently associated with an intra-abdominal anastomosis than the laparoscopic approach. Experts also suggest that RRC offers a benefit in terms of post-operative morbidity compared to right colectomy by laparotomy. No benefit is retained in terms of mortality, duration of hospital stay, histological results, overall survival or disease-free survival in RRC performed for cancer. In addition, RRC should not be performed based on the cost/benefit ratio, since RRC is associated with significantly higher costs than laparoscopy and laparotomy. Future research in the field of RRC should consider the evaluation of patient-targeted parameters such as pain or quality of life and the technical advantages of the robot for complex procedural steps, as well as surgical and oncological results

Colectomie droite par abord robotique. Recommandations formalisées d’experts sous l’égide de l’Association française de chirurgie (AFC)

Twenty-seven experts under the aegis of the French Association of Surgery (AFC) offer this reference system with formalized recommendations concerning the performance of right colectomy by robotic approach (RRC). For RRC, experts suggest patient installation in the so-called “classic” or “suprapubic” setup. For patients undergoing right colectomy for a benign pathology or cancer, RRC provides no significant benefit in terms of intra-operative blood loss, intra-operative complications or conversion rate to open laparotomy compared to laparoscopy. At the same time, RRC is associated with significantly longer operating times. Data from the literature are insufficient to define whether the robot facilitates the performance of an intra-abdominal anastomosis, but the robotic approach is more frequently associated with an intra-abdominal anastomosis than the laparoscopic approach. Experts also suggest that RRC offers a benefit in terms of post-operative morbidity compared to right colectomy by laparotomy. No benefit is retained in terms of mortality, duration of hospital stay, histological results, overall survival or recurrence-free survival in RRC performed for cancer. In addition, RRC should not be performed based on the cost/benefit ratio, since RRC is associated with significantly higher costs than laparoscopy and laparotomy. Future research in the field of RRC should consider the evaluation of patient-targeted parameters such as pain or quality of life and the technical advantages of the robot for complex procedural steps, as well as surgical and oncological results

Practice patterns in complex ventral hernia repair and place of biological grafts: a national survey among French digestive academic surgeons

International audienceBACKGROUND: Despite the prevalence of complex ventral hernias, there is little agreement on the most appropriate technique or prosthetic to repair these defects, especially in contaminated fields. Our objective was to determine French surgical practice patterns among academic surgeons in complex ventral hernia repair (CVHR) with regard to indications, most appropriate techniques, choice of prosthesis, and experience with complications.METHODS: A survey consisting of 21 questions and 6 case-scenarios was e-mailed to French practicing academic surgeons performing CVHR, representing all French University Hospitals.RESULTS: Forty over 54 surgeons (74%) responded to the survey, representing 29 French University Hospitals. Regarding the techniques used for CVHR, primary closure without reinforcement was provided in 31.6% of cases, primary closure using the component separation technique without mesh use in 43.7% of cases, mesh positioned as a bridge in 16.5% of cases, size reduction of the defect by using aponeurotomy incisions without mesh use in 8.2% of cases. Among the 40 respondents, 36 had experience with biologic mesh. There was a strong consensus among surveyed surgeons for not using synthetic mesh in contaminated or dirty fields (100%), but for using it in clean settings (100%). There was also a strong consensus between respondents for using biologic mesh in contaminated (82.5%) or infected (77.5%) fields and for not using it in clean setting (95%). In clean-contaminated surgery, there was no consensus for defining the optimal therapeutic strategy in CVHR. Infection was the most common complication reported after biologic mesh used (58%). The most commonly reported influences for the use of biologic grafts included literature, conferences and discussion with colleagues (85.0%), personal experience (45.0%) and cost (40.0%).CONCLUSIONS: Despite a lack of level I evidence, biologic meshes are being used by 90% of surveyed surgeons for CVHR. Importantly, there was a strong consensus for using them in contaminated or infected fields and for not using them in clean setting. To better guide surgeons, prospective, randomized trials should be undertaken to evaluate the short- and long-term outcomes associated with these materials in various surgical wound classifications.</p

Impact of operation duration on postoperative outcomes of minimally-invasive right colectomy

Aim: Operation time (OT) is a key operational factor influencing surgical outcomes. The present study aimed to analyse whether OT impacts on short-term outcomes of minimally-invasive right colectomies by assessing the role of surgical approach (robotic [RRC] or laparoscopic right colectomy [LRC]), and type of ileocolic anastomosis (i.e., intracorporal [IA] or extra-corporal anastomosis [EA]). Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of the Minimally-invasivE surgery for oncological Right ColectomY (MERCY) Study Group database, which included adult patients with nonmetastatic right colon adenocarcinoma operated on by oncological RRC or LRC between January 2014 and December 2020. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used. Results: The study sample was composed of 1549 patients who were divided into three groups according to the OT quartiles: (1) First quartile, &lt;135 min (n&nbsp;=&nbsp;386); (2) Second and third quartiles, 135–199 min (n&nbsp;=&nbsp;731); and (3) Fourth quartile ≥200 min (n&nbsp;=&nbsp;432). The majority (62.7%) were LRC-EA, followed by LRC-IA (24.3%), RRC-IA (11.1%), and RRC-EA (1.9%). Independent predictors of an OT ≥ 200 min included male gender, age, obesity, diabetes, use of indocyanine green fluorescence, and IA confection. An OT ≥ 200 min was significantly associated with an increased risk of postoperative noninfective complications (AOR: 1.56; 95% CI: 1.15–2.13; p&nbsp;=&nbsp;0.004), whereas the surgical approach and the type of anastomosis had no impact on postoperative morbidity. Conclusion: Prolonged OT is independently associated with increased odds of postoperative noninfective complications in oncological minimally-invasive right colectomy

Right Colectomy with Intracorporeal Anastomosis: A European Multicenter Propensity Score Matching Retrospective Study of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Procedures

Background: This study aimed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of robotic (RRC-IA) versus laparoscopic (LRC-IA) right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis using a propensity score matching (PSM) analysis based on a large European multicentric cohort of patients with nonmetastatic right colon cancer. Methods: Elective curative-intent RRC-IA and LRC-IA performed between 2014 and 2020 were selected from the MERCY Study Group database. The two PSM-groups were compared for operative and postoperative outcomes, and survival rates. Results: Initially, 596 patients were selected, including 194 RRC-IA and 402 LRC-IA patients. After PSM, 298 patients (149 per group) were compared. There was no statistically significant difference between RRC-IA and LRC-IA in terms of operative time, intraoperative complication rate, conversion to open surgery, postoperative morbidity (19.5% in RRC-IA vs. 26.8% in LRC-IA; p = 0.17), or 5-yr survival (80.5% for RRC-IA and 74.7% for LRC-IA; p = 0.94). R0 resection was obtained in all patients, and &gt; 12 lymph nodes were harvested in 92.3% of patients, without group-related differences. RRC-IA procedures were associated with a significantly higher use of indocyanine green fluorescence than LRC-IA (36.9% vs. 14.1%; OR: 3.56; 95%CI 2.02–6.29; p &lt; 0.0001). Conclusion: Within the limitation of the present analyses, there is no statistically significant difference between RRC-IA and LRC-IA performed for right colon cancer in terms of short- and long-term outcomes