Search

Objective: To study radiological and clinical differences between robotic-assisted pedicle screw fixation with and without real-time optical tracking.Methods: Patients who underwent lumbar internal fixation in our hospital from June 2017 to February 2020 were divided into Tinavi group (with optical tracking) and Renaissance group (without optical tracking) according to assisted technology. The imaging data of the patients were collected, and the accuracy of screw implantation was measured according to Rampersaud A-D grade. Clinical outcomes such as operative time, fluoroscopic time and radiations dose were also collected.Results: A total of 376 patients were included, including 201 patients in the Tinavi group with 968 screws implanted and 175 patients in the Renaissance group with 822 screws implanted. The accuracy of "perfect" and "clinically acceptable" pedicle screw implantation in the Tinavi group was 94.9%-98.7%, respectively, while in the Renaissance group was 91.2%-94.5%, respectively. There was significant difference between the two groups (P < 0.05). The operative time and operative time per screw in the Tinavi group were lower than those in the Renaissance group. However, fluoroscopic time per screw and radiations dose of the Tinavi group were significantly higher than those of the Renaissance group.Conclusion: Optical tracking in robotic system appears to increase accuracy because of the ability to detect the real-time position of the patient. Although there are still many problems to be solved, robot with optical tracking system shows its great potential in clinical application. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: LigaSure has been reported as a safe and effective approach for parenchymal transection in open hepatectomy; however, its roles in laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) with liver cirrhosis have not been evaluated. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of LigaSure vs. Cavitron Ultrasonic Surgical Aspirator (CUSA) for LH in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients with cirrhosis.Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 135 HCC patients with background cirrhosis who underwent pure LH using CUSA (n = 55) or LigaSure (n = 80) for parenchymal transection between January 2015 and May 2017 at West China Hospital of Sichuan University. We performed 1:1 propensity score matching between the LigaSure and CUSA groups. Subsequently, 48 patients were included in each group.Results: The mean parenchymal transection time (74.3 ± 23.6 vs. 86.3 ± 25.8 min, P = 0.019) in the LigaSure group was obviously shorter than that in the CUSA group. The LigaSure did not increase the intraoperative blood loss or blood transfusion requirement when compared with CUSA. Moreover, the degree of postoperative reperfusion injury and complications were not significantly different between the two groups. Furthermore, there were no significant differences between the two groups regarding 2-year overall survival rate or disease-free survival rate. In addition, the total hospitalization costs (P = 0.032) and intraoperative costs (P = 0.006) per case were significantly lower in the LigaSure group than those in the CUSA group.Conclusion: The two devices were safe and effective for LH in patients with cirrhosis. The LigaSure method may be a simple, feasible, and cost-effective surgical technique for LH in selected HCC patients with cirrhosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) has been demonstrated to be a promising therapy for symptomatic large hepatic hemangioma. However, there is a lack of studies to demonstrate the benefits and disadvantages of RFA as compared with surgical resection for managing hepatic hemangioma. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of RFA compared with conventional open resection (ORES) for the treatment of symptomatic-enlarging hepatic hemangiomas.Methods: A total of 66 patients with symptomatic-enlarging hepatic hemangiomas (4 cm ≤ diameter < 10 cm) who required surgical treatment were divided into two groups: 32 patients underwent laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation (LRFA) and the other 34 patients underwent ORES. We compared the two groups in terms of radiologic response, clinical response, operative time, estimated blood loss, postoperative pain score and analgesic requirement, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications and hospital cost.Results: The radiologic and clinical responses were comparable between groups. LRFA had significantly shorter operative time (138 vs. 201 min, P < 0.001) and less blood loss (P < 0.001) than ORES. Patients after LRFA experienced significantly less pain and required less analgesia use. Moreover, patients underwent LRFA had significantly shorter length of hospital stay (P < 0.001) and lower hospital cost (P = 0.017). No severe morbidities or mortality was observed, and the overall morbidity rate was similar between groups.Conclusions: As a new minimal invasive treatment option, laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation is as safe and effective a procedure as open resection for patients with symptomatic-enlarging hepatic hemangiomas smaller than 10 cm. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]