RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy has emerged as an alternative to conventional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). Technical difficulty, prolonged surgical times and increased complication rates have been reported in single-incision laparoscopic surgery. One of the concerns is lack of triangulation of instruments. The SPIDER® surgical system is a single-incision laparoscopic device that utilizes flexible instruments with the purpose of achieving adequate triangulation. The purpose of this study is to compare the outcomes of SPIDER versus LC. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of patients who underwent LC and SPIDER cholecystectomy by a single surgeon during a concurrent 44-month period at Baptist Health South Florida hospitals was performed focusing on demographics, indication for surgery, complications and incisional hernia rates. Exclusion criteria were concomitant surgery and hernia repair at the time of surgery. RESULTS: A total of 612 patients underwent minimally invasive cholecystectomy: 279 cases for SPIDER cholecystectomy and 333 for multiport LC. Baseline differences in patient characteristics between the SPIDER and LC groups were statistically significant. The SPIDER group had younger and healthier patients (lower ASA classification scores) with predominant diagnosis of cholelithiasis (69 %) compared to the LC group which had more complex cases. Total complications rate for both SPIDER and LC were 0.4 % (n = 1) and 3 % (n = 10), respectively. Conversion to open cholecystectomy occurred in one patient from the LC group (0.3 %). Conversion rate from SPIDER to additional ports or LC was performed in 5 cases (1.8 %) with no conversions to open surgery. Hemoperitoneum was reported in 2 cases, one for each approach, requiring reoperation. CONCLUSION: Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy with SPIDER is a safe and feasible technique with similar outcomes to multiport LC. However, statistical significant difference was reported in baseline characteristics of both groups. No incisional hernias were reported in this case series for either technique.

Asunto(s)

Colecistectomía Laparoscópica/métodos , Colecistitis/cirugía , Colelitiasis/cirugía , Adulto , Anciano , Animales , Discinesia Biliar/cirugía , Estudios de Casos y Controles , Colecistectomía Laparoscópica/instrumentación , Conversión a Cirugía Abierta , Femenino , Florida , Hemoperitoneo/epidemiología , Humanos , Laparoscopía , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Tempo Operativo , Pancreatitis/cirugía , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/epidemiología , Reoperación , Estudios Retrospectivos , Cirujanos

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Many series have shown the feasibility and safety of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC), but this technique still has limitations such as instrument collisions and lack of triangulation. Recently, two single-incision platforms, robotic and SPIDER, have attempted to ameliorate such problems. This study aimed to compare three different techniques of single-incision cholecystectomy: standard laparoscopic, robotic, and SPIDER approaches. METHODS: The authors retrospectively collected data from their first 166 single-incision robotic cholecystectomies (SIRCs) and compared the findings with the data from their first 166 SILCs and the first 166 s-generation SPIDER procedures. All the SILCs were performed with three trocars placed in one umbilical incision and with gallbladder retraction using a Prolene stitch on the right upper quadrant. All the robotic cases were managed using the da Vinci Single-Site Surgical System, and all the SPIDER procedures were performed using the SPIDER Surgical System. RESULTS: The SILC, SIRC, and SPIDER groups consisted respectively of 129 (76.3%), 131 (78.9%), and 136 (81.9%) women with the respective mean ages of 44.5 ± 14.3, 51.6 ± 15.9, and 46.4 ± 15.2 years. The mean body mass indexes (BMIs) were respectively 29.1 ± 5.6, 29.4 ± 6.2, and 27.5 ± 4.8 kg/m(2), and the mean surgical times were 37.1 ± 13.3, 63.0 ± 25.2, and 52.8 ± 18.7 min. The total hospital stays were respectively 1.3 ± 5.3, 1.2 ± 2.2, and 1.5 ± 2.6 days, and complications were seen respectively in three SILC cases (1.8%), three SIRC cases (1.8%), and two SPIDER cases (1.2%). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study demonstrate similar results among the three platforms for most of the parameters measured. The SILC procedure appears to be superior to SIRC and SPIDER in terms of surgical time, but selection bias could be the cause. The SILS, SIRC, and SPIDER procedures all are similar in terms of complication profile. It can be concluded that SILC, SIRC, and SPIDER all are feasible and safe alternatives when used for single-incision cholecystectomy.

Asunto(s)

Colecistectomía Laparoscópica/métodos , Enfermedades de la Vesícula Biliar/cirugía , Robótica/instrumentación , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Colecistectomía Laparoscópica/normas , Diseño de Equipo , Estudios de Factibilidad , Femenino , Humanos , Tiempo de Internación/tendencias , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Tempo Operativo , Estudios Retrospectivos , Robótica/normas , Resultado del Tratamiento , Adulto Joven

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Giant paraesophageal hernia accounts for 5% of all hiatal hernias, and it is commonly seen in elderly patients with comorbidities. Some series report complication rates up to 28%, recurrence rates between 10% and 25%, and a mortality rate close to 2%. Recently, the da Vinci Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) has shown equivocal benefits when used for elective surgeries, whereas for complex procedures, the benefits appear to be clearer. The purpose of this study is to present our preliminary experience in robotic giant paraesophageal hernia repair. METHODS: We retrospectively collected data from patients who had a diagnosis of giant paraesophageal hernia and underwent a paraesophageal hernia repair with the da Vinci Surgical System. RESULTS: Nineteen patients (12 women [63.1%]) underwent surgery for giant paraesophageal hernia at our center. The mean age was 70.4 ± 13.9 years (range, 40-97 years). The mean American Society of Anesthesiologists score was 2.15. The mean surgical time and hospital length of stay were 184.5 ± 96.2 minutes (range, 96-395 minutes) and 4.3 days (range, 2-22 days), respectively. Nissen fundoplications were performed in 3 cases (15.7%), and 16 patients (84.2%) had mesh placed. Six patients (31.5%) presented with gastric volvulus, and 2 patients had other herniated viscera (colon and duodenum). There were 2 surgery-related complications (10.5%) (1 dysphagia that required dilatation and 1 pleural injury) and 1 conversion to open repair (partial gastric resection). No recurrences or deaths were observed in this series. CONCLUSION: In our experience robotic giant paraesophageal hernia repair is not different from the laparoscopic approach in terms of complications and mortality rate, but it may be associated with lower recurrence rates. However, larger series with longer follow-up are necessary to further substantiate our results.

Asunto(s)

Hernia Hiatal/cirugía , Herniorrafia/métodos , Robótica , Adulto , Anciano , Femenino , Hernia Hiatal/patología , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Recurrencia , Estudios Retrospectivos

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare in human cadavers the applicability of a commonly used stapling device, the CONTOUR® curved cutter (CC) (Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Cincinnati, OH) to a newly released, curved stapler, the Endo GIA™ Radial Reload with Tri-Staple™ Technology (RR) (Covidien, New Haven, CT) METHODS: Four experienced surgeons performed deep pelvic dissection with total mesorectal excision (TME) of the rectum in twelve randomized male cadavers. Both stapling devices were applied to the ultra-low rectum in coronal and sagittal configurations. Extensive measurements were recorded of anatomic landmarks for each cadaver pelvis along with various aspects of access, visibility, and ease of placement for each device. RESULTS: The RR reached significantly lower into the pelvis in both the coronal and sagittal positions compared to the CC. The median distance from the pelvic floor was 1.0 cm compared to 2.0 cm in the coronal position, and 1.0 cm versus 3.3 cm placed sagitally, p < 0.0001. Surgeons gave a higher visibility rating with less visual impediment in the sagittal plane using the RR Stapler. Impediment of visibility occurred in only 10% (5/48) of RR applications in the coronal position, compared to a rate of 48% (23/48) using the CC, p = 0.0002. CONCLUSIONS: The RR device performed significantly better when compared to the CC stapler in regards to placing the stapler further into the deep pelvis and closer to the pelvic floor, while causing less obstructing of visualization.

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: Distal rectal stapling is often challenging because of limited space and visibility. We compared two stapling devices in the distal rectum in a cadaver study: the iDrive™ right angle linear cutter (RALC) (Covidien, New Haven, CT) and the CONTOUR® curved cutter (CC) (Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Cincinnati, OH). METHODS: Twelve male cadavers underwent pelvic dissection by 4 surgeons. After rectal mobilization as in a total mesorectal excision, the staplers were applied to the rectum as deep as possible in both the coronal and sagittal positions. The distance from the pelvic floor was measured for each application. A questionnaire rated the visibility and access of the stapling devices. Measurements were taken between pelvic landmarks to see what anatomic factors hinder the placement of a distal rectal stapler. RESULTS: The median (range) distance of the stapler from the pelvic floor in the coronal position for the RALC was 1.0 cm (0-4.0) vs. 2.0 cm (0-5.0) for the CC, p = 0.003. In the sagittal position, the median distance was 1.6 cm (0-3.5) for the RALC and 3.3 cm (0-5.0) for the CC, p < 0.0001. The RALC scored better than the CC in respect to: 1. interference by the symphysis pubis, 2. number of stapler readjustments, 3. ease of placement in the pelvis, 4. impediment of visibility, 5. ability to hold and retain tissue, 6. visibility rating, and 7. access in the pelvis. A shorter distance between the tip of the coccyx and the pubic symphysis correlated with a longer distance of the stapler from the pelvic floor (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: The RALC is superior to the CC in terms of access, visibility, and ease of placement in the deep pelvis. This could provide important clinical benefit to both patient and surgeon during difficult rectal surgery.