Search

Background: The removal of common bile duct stones by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) shows excellent results with low complication rates and is therefore considered a gold standard. However, in case of stones non-removable by ERCP, surgical extraction is needed. The surgical approach is still controversial and clinical guidelines are missing. This study aims to analyze the outcomes of patients treated with choledochotomy or hepaticojejunostomy for common bile duct stones., Methods: All patients who underwent choledochotomy or hepaticojejunostomy for common bile duct stones at a tertiary referral hospital over 11 years were included. The analyzed data contains basic demographics, diagnostics, surgical parameters, length of hospitalization, and morbidity and mortality., Results: Over the study period, 4375 patients underwent cholecystectomy, and 655 received an ERCP with stone extraction, with 48 of these patients receiving subsequent surgical treatment. ERCP was attempted in 23/30 (77%) of the choledochotomy patients pre/intraoperatively and 11/18 (56%) in hepaticojejunostomy patients. The 30-day major complication rate (Clavien-Dindo > II) was 1/30 (3%) in the choledochotomy group and 2/18 (11%) in the hepaticojejunostomy group. Complications after 30 days occurred in 3/30 (10%) patients and 2/18 (11%), respectively, and no mortality occurred., Conclusion: ERCP should still be considered the gold standard, although due to low short- and long-term morbidity rates, choledochotomy and hepaticojejunostomy represent effective surgical solutions for common bile duct stones., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Laparoscopic (LSC) Heller myotomy (HM) is considered the standard procedure for the treatment of achalasia. Robotic platforms, established over the last years, provide important advantages to surgeons, such as binocular 3-dimensional vision and improvement of fine motor control. However, whether perioperative outcomes and long-term results of robotic-assisted laparoscopic (RAL) HM are similar or even superior to LSC technique, especially concerning long-term follow-up, is still debated. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to evaluate intra- and postoperative results as well as long-term quality of life after RAL compared to LSC surgery for achalasia in a single high-volume visceral surgery center., Methods: Between August 2007 and April 2020, 43 patients undergoing minimally invasive HM for achalasia in a single high-volume Swiss visceral surgery center, were included in the present study. Intra- and postoperative outcome parameters were collected and evaluated, and a long-term follow-up was performed using the gastroesophageal-reflux disease health-related quality of life (GERD-Hr-QuoL) questionnaire., Results: A total of 11 patients undergoing RAL and 32 undergoing LSC HM were analyzed. Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics were similar. A trend (p = 0.052) towards a higher number of patients with ASA III score treated with RAL was detectable. Operation time was marginally, but significantly, shorter in LSC (140 min, IQR: 136-150) than in RAL (150 min, IQR: 150-187, p = 0.047). Postoperative complications graded Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3 were only observed in one patient in each group. Length of hospital stay was similar in both groups (LSC: 11 days, IQR: 10-13 vs. RAL: 11 days, IQR: 10-14, p = 0.712). Long-term follow-up (LSC: median 89 months, vs. RAL: median 28 months, p = 0.001) showed comparable results and patients from both groups expressed similar levels of satisfaction (p = 0.181)., Conclusions: LSC and RAL HM show similar peri- and postoperative results and a high quality of life, even in long-term (> 24 months) follow-up. Prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter trials are needed to overcome difficulties associated to small sample sizes in a rare condition and to confirm the equality or demonstrate the superiority of robotic-assisted procedures for achalasia. Meanwhile, the choice of the treatment technique could be left to the operating surgeon's preferences., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Neoadjuvant chemo-radiotherapy (nCRT) of locally advanced rectal cancer is associated with challenging surgical treatment and increased postoperative morbidity. Robotic technology overcomes laparoscopy limitations by enlarged 3D view, improved anatomical transection accuracy, and physiologic tremor reduction. Patients with UICC stage II-III rectal cancer, consecutively referred to our institution between March 2015 and June 2020 (n = 102) were treated with robotic (Rob-G, n = 38) or laparoscopic (Lap-G, n = 64) low anterior resection (LAR) for total meso-rectal excision (TME) following highly standardized and successful nCRT treatment. Feasibility, conversion rates, stoma creation, morbidity and clinical/pathological outcome were comparatively analysed. Sex, age, BMI, ASA scores, cTN stages and tumour distance from dentate line were comparable in the two groups. Robotic resection was always feasible without conversion to open surgery, which was necessary in 11/64 (17%) Lap-G operations (p = 0.006). Primary or secondary stomata were created in 17/38 (45%) Rob-G and 52/64 (81%) Lap-G patients (p < 0.001). Major morbidity occurred in 7/38 (18.4%) Rob-G and 6/64 (9.3%) Lap-G patients (p = 0.225). Although median operation time was longer in Rob-G compared with Lap-G (376; IQR: 330-417 min vs. 300; IQR: 270-358 min; p < 0.001), the difference was not significant in patients (Rob-G, n = 6; Lap-G, n = 10) with ≥30 BMI (p = 0.106). Number of resected lymph nodes, ypTN staging and circumferential resection margins (CRM) were comparable. Resection was complete in 87% of Rob-G and 89% of Lap-G patients (p = 0.750). Robotic LAR is not inferior to laparoscopic LAR following nCRT. Larger, randomized studies are needed to confirm lower conversion in robotic, compared to laparoscopic resection., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Robotic-assisted colorectal surgery has gained more and more popularity over the last years. It seems to be advantageous to laparoscopic surgery in selected situations, especially in confined regions like a narrow male pelvis in rectal surgery. Whether robotic-assisted, left-sided colectomies can serve as safe training operations for less frequent, low anterior resections for rectal cancer is still under debate. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate intra- and postoperative results of robotic-assisted laparoscopy (RAL) compared to laparoscopic (LSC) surgery in left-sided colectomies., Methods: Between June 2015 and December 2019, 683 patients undergoing minimally invasive left-sided colectomies in two Swiss, high-volume colorectal centers were included. Intra- and postoperative outcome parameters were collected and analyzed., Results: A total of 179 patients undergoing RAL and 504 patients undergoing LSC were analyzed. Baseline characteristics showed similar results. Intraoperative complications occurred in 0.6% of RAL and 2.0% of LSC patients (p = 0.193). Differences in postoperative complications graded Dindo ≥ 3 were not statistically significant (RAL 3.9% vs. LSC 6.3%, p = 0.227). Occurrence of anastomotic leakages showed no statistically significant difference [RAL n = 2 (1.1%), LSC n = 8 (1.6%), p = 0.653]. Length of hospital stay was similar in both groups. Conversions to open surgery were significantly higher in the LSC group (6.2% vs.1.7%, p = 0.018), while stoma formation was similar in both groups [RAL n = 1 (0.6%), LSC n = 5 (1.0%), p = 0.594]. Operative time was longer in the RAL group (300 vs. 210.0 min, p < 0.001)., Conclusion: Robotic-assisted, left-sided colectomies are safe and feasible compared to laparoscopic resections. Intra- and postoperative complications are similar in both groups. Most notably, the rate of anastomotic leakages is similar. Compared to laparoscopic resections, the analyzed robotic-assisted resections have longer operative times but less conversion rates. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm the safety of robotic-assisted, left-sided colectomies as training procedures for low anterior resections., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Robotic-assisted procedures are increasingly used in esophageal cancer surgery. We compared postoperative complications and early oncological outcomes following hybrid robotic-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy (Rob-E) and open Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (Open-E), performed in a single mid-volume center, in the context of evolving preoperative patient and tumor characteristics over two decades., Methods: We evaluated prospectively collected data from a single center from 1999 to 2020 including 321 patients that underwent Ivor Lewis esophagectomy, 76 underwent Rob-E, and 245 Open-E. To compare perioperative outcomes, a 1:1 case-matched analysis was performed. Endpoints included postoperative morbidity and 30-day mortality., Results: Preoperative characteristics revealed increased rates of adenocarcinomas and wider use of neoadjuvant treatment over time. A larger number of patients with higher ASA grades were operated with Rob-E. In case-matched cohorts, there were no differences in the overall morbidity (69.7% in Rob-E, 60.5% in Open-E, p value 0.307), highest Clavien-Dindo grade per patient (43.4% vs. 38.2% grade I or II, p value 0.321), comprehensive complication index (median 20.9 in both groups, p value 0.401), and 30-day mortality (2.6% in Rob-E, 3.9% in Open-E, p value 1.000). Similar median numbers of lymph nodes were harvested (24.5 in Rob-E, 23 in Open-E, p value 0.204), and comparable rates of R0-status (96.1% vs. 93.4%, p value 0.463) and distribution of postoperative UICC stages (overall p value 0.616) were observed., Conclusions: Our study demonstrates similar postoperative complications and early oncological outcomes after Rob-E and Open-E. However, the selection criteria for Rob-E appeared to be less restrictive than those of Open-E surgery., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Complete upside-down stomach (cUDS) hernias are a subgroup of large hiatal hernias characterized by high risk of life-threatening complications and technically challenging surgical repair including complex mediastinal dissection. In a prospective, comparative clinical study, we evaluated intra- and postoperative outcomes, quality of life and symptomatic recurrence rates in patients with cUDS undergoing robot-assisted, as compared to standard laparoscopic repair (the RATHER-study)., Methods: All patients with cUDS herniation requiring elective surgery in our institution between July 2015 and June 2019 were evaluated. Patients undergoing primary open surgery or additional associated procedures were not considered. Primary endpoints were intra- and postoperative complications, 30-day morbidity, and mortality. During the 8-53 months follow-up period, patients were contacted by telephone to assess symptoms associated to recurrence, whereas quality of life was evaluated utilizing the Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease-Health-Related Quality of Life (GERD-HRQL) questionnaire., Results: A total of 55 patients were included. 36 operations were performed with robot-assisted (Rob-G), and 19 with standard laparoscopic (Lap-G) technique. Patients characteristics were similar in both groups. Median operation time was 232 min. (IQR: 145-420) in robot-assisted vs. 163 min. (IQR:112-280) in laparoscopic surgery (p < 0.001). Intraoperative complications occurred in 5/36 (12.5%) cases in the Rob-G group and in 5/19 (26%) cases in the Lap-G group (p = 0.28). No conversion was necessary in either group. Minor postoperative complications occurred in 13/36 (36%) Rob-G patients and 4/19 (21%) Lap-G patients (p = 0.36). Mortality or major complications did not occur in either group. Two asymptomatic recurrences were observed in the Rob-G group only. No patient required revision surgery. Finally, all patients expressed satisfaction for treatment outcome, as indicated by similar GERD-HRQL scores., Conclusion: While robot-assisted surgery provides additional precision, enhanced visualization, and greater feasibility in cUDS hiatal hernia repair, its clinical outcome is at least equal to that obtained by standard laparoscopic surgery., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC part of Springer Nature.)

Principles: Since 1994 we have been removing most non-malignant classified pathologies of the adrenal gland laparoscopically. Does this minimal invasive procedure involve advantages over the conventional approach?, Methods: Retrospective analysis of 22 all-consecutive laparoscopic adrenalectomies in 21 patients (10 women, 11 men, age 26-70 years, mean 43 years, 11 right, 9 left, one bilateral in MEN IIa syndrome). These procedures were performed between 1994 and 2001 transperitoneally in the lateral decubitus position, recently by use of the Ultracision device and once with a handport. These results are compared with 20 consecutive open transperitoneal unilateral adrenalectomies with similar pathologies (13 women, 7 men, age 28-77 years, median 51.5 years, 8 right, 12 left) carried out between 1988 and 1993., Results: The mean operating times were 150 and 115 minutes with the laparoscopic and the open procedure respectively (p <0.011). On the other hand, mean hospital stay (6 versus 15 days, p <0.00001), intraoperative blood loss (200 versus 300 ml, p <0.04) and postoperative need for analgesics were significantly shorter or lower. Two out of the first five laparoscopic operations had to be converted into open adrenalectomy due to intraabdominal adhesions and a diaphragmatic injury with pneumothorax. In both groups three complications occurred (14% and 15%)., Conclusion: Laparoscopic adrenalectomy is a safe, effective and useful procedure involving a shorter hospital stay, lower intraoperative blood loss and a lower postoperative analgesics requirement compared with the open approach. The laparoscopic approach is the procedure of choice for all benign adrenal pathologies.