| 1. |
- Abu Hilal, Mohammed, et al.
(författare)
-
Assessment of the financial implications for laparoscopic liver surgery : a single-centre UK cost analysis for minor and major hepatectomy.
- 2013
-
Ingår i: Surgical Endoscopy. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0930-2794 .- 1432-2218. ; 27:7, s. 2542-50
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic hepatectomy is progressively gaining popularity. However, it is still unclear whether the laparoscopic approach offers cost advantages compared with the open approach, especially when major hepatectomies are required. Data providing useful insights into the costs of the laparoscopic approach for clinicians and hospitals are needed. The aim of this study is to assess the financial implications of the laparoscopic approach for two standardized minor and major hepatectomies: left lateral sectionectomy and right hepatectomy.METHODS: A cost comparison analysis of patients undergoing laparoscopic right hepatectomy (LRH) and laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (LLLS) versus the open counterparts was performed. Data considered for the comparison analysis were operative costs (theatre cost, consumables and surgeon/anaesthetic labour cost), postoperative costs (hospital stay, complication management and readmissions) and overall costs.RESULTS: A total of 149 patients were included: 38 patients underwent LRH and 46 open right hepatectomy (ORH); 46 patients underwent LLLS and 19 open left lateral sectionectomy (OLLS). For LRH the mean operative, postoperative and overall costs were £10,181, £4,037 and £14,218; for ORH the mean operative, postoperative and overall costs were £6,483 (p < 0.0001), £10,304 (p < 0.0001) and £16,787 (p = 0.886). Regarding LLLS, the mean operative, postoperative and overall costs were £5,460, £2,599 and £8,059; for OLLS the mean operative, postoperative and overall costs were £5,841 (p = 0.874), £5,796 (p < 0.0001) and £11,637 (p = 0.0001).CONCLUSION: Our data support the cost advantage of the laparoscopic approach for left lateral sectionectomy and the cost neutrality for right hepatectomy.
|
|
| 2. |
- Abu Hilal, M, et al.
(författare)
-
Laparoscopic radical 'no-touch' left pancreatosplenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma : technique and results.
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Surgical Endoscopy. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0930-2794 .- 1432-2218. ; 30:9, s. 3830-8
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic left pancreatectomy has been well described for benign pancreatic lesions, but its role in pancreatic adenocarcinoma remains open to debate. We report our results adopting a laparoscopic technique that obeys established oncologic principles of open distal pancreatosplenectomy.METHODS: This is a post hoc analysis of a prospectively kept database of 135 consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic left pancreatectomy, performed across two sites in the UK and the Netherlands (07/2007-07/2015 Southampton and 10/2013-07/2015 Amsterdam). Primary outcomes were resection margin and lymph node retrieval. Secondary endpoints were other perioperative outcomes, including post-operative pancreatic fistula. Definition of radical resection was distance tumour to resection margin >1 mm. All patients underwent 'laparoscopic radical left pancreatosplenectomy' (LRLP) which involves 'hanging' the pancreas including Gerota's fascia, followed by clockwise dissection, including formal lymphadenectomy.RESULTS: LRLP for pancreatic adenocarcinoma was performed in 25 patients. Seven of the 25 patients (28 %) had extended resections, including the adrenal gland (n = 3), duodenojejunal flexure (n = 2) or transverse mesocolon (n = 3). Mean age was 68 years (54-81). Conversion rate was 0 %, mean operative time 240 min and mean blood loss 340 ml. Median intensive/high care and hospital stay were 1 and 5 days, respectively. Clavien-Dindo score 3+ complication rate was 12 % and ISGPF grade B/C pancreatic fistula rate 28 %; 90-day (or in-hospital) mortality was 0 %. The pancreatic resection margin was clear in all patients, and the posterior margin was involved (<1 mm) in 6 patients, meaning an overall R0 resection rate of 76 %. No resection margin was microscopically involved. Median nodal sample was 15 nodes (3-26). With an average follow-up of 17.2 months, 1-year survival was 88 %.CONCLUSIONS: A standardised laparoscopic approach to pancreatic adenocarcinoma in the left pancreas can be adopted safely. Our study shows that these results can be reproduced across multiple sites using the same technique.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Ahlqvist, Sandra, et al.
(författare)
-
Trocar site hernia after gastric sleeve
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Surgical Endoscopy. - : Springer. - 0930-2794 .- 1432-2218. ; 36:6, s. 4386-4391
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Laparoscopy is common in abdominal surgery. Trocar site hernia (TSH) is a most likely underestimated complication. Among risk factors, obesity, the use of larger trocars and the umbilical trocar site has been described. In a previous study, CT scan in the prone position was found to be a reliable method for the detection of TSH following gastric bypass (LRYGB). In the present study, our aim was to examine the incidence of TSH after gastric sleeve, and further to investigate the proportion of symptomatic trocar site hernias.Methods: Seventy-nine patients subjected to laparoscopic gastric sleeve in 2011–2016 were examined using CT in the prone position upon a ring. Symptoms of TSH were assessed using a digital survey.Results: The incidence of trocar site hernia was 17 out of 79 (21.5%), all at the umbilical trocar site. The mean follow-up time was 37 months. There was no significant correlation between patient symptoms and a TSH.Conclusions: The incidence of TSH is high after laparoscopic gastric sleeve, a finding in line with several recent studies as well as with our first trial on trocar site hernia after LRYGB. Up to follow-up, none of the patients had been subjected to hernia repair. Although the consequence of a trocar site hernia can be serious, the proportion of symptomatic TSH needs to be more clarified.
|
|
| 5. |
- Antoniou, Stavros A., et al.
(författare)
-
EAES rapid guideline : appendicitis in the elderly
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Surgical Endoscopy. - : Springer. - 0930-2794 .- 1432-2218. ; 35:7, s. 3233-3243
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: There is a lack of trustworthy evidence-informed guidelines on the diagnosis and management of acute appendicitis in elderly patients.Methods: We developed a rapid guideline in accordance with GRADE and AGREE II standards. The steering group consisted of general surgeons, members of the EAES Research Committee/Guidelines Subcommittee with expertise and experience in guideline development, advanced medical statistics and evidence synthesis, biostatisticians, and a guideline methodologist. The guideline panel consisted of three general surgeons, an intensive care physician, a geriatrician and a patient advocate. We conducted systematic reviews and the results of evidence synthesis were summarized in evidence tables. Recommendations were authored and published through an online authoring and publication platform (MAGICapp), with the guideline panel making use of an evidence-to-decision framework and a Delphi process to arrive at consensus.Results: This rapid guideline provides a weak recommendation against the use of clinical scoring systems to replace cross-sectional imaging in the diagnostic approach of suspected appendicitis in elderly patients. It provides a weak recommendation against the use of antibiotics alone over surgical treatment in patients who are deemed fit for surgery, and a weak recommendation for laparoscopic over open surgery. Furthermore, it provides a summary of surgery-associated risks in elderly patients. The guidelines, with recommendations, evidence summaries and decision aids in user-friendly formats can also be accessed in MAGICapp: https://app.magicapp.org/#/guideline/4494.Conclusions: This rapid guideline provides evidence-informed trustworthy recommendations on the diagnosis and management of acute appendicitis in elderly patients.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- Arezzo, Alberto, et al.
(författare)
-
EAES Recommendations for Recovery Plan in Minimally Invasive Surgery Amid COVID-19 Pandemic
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Surgical Endoscopy. - : SPRINGER. - 0930-2794 .- 1432-2218. ; 35, s. 1-17
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background COVID-19 pandemic presented an unexpected challenge for the surgical community in general and Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS) specialists in particular. This document aims to summarize recent evidence and experts opinion and formulate recommendations to guide the surgical community on how to best organize the recovery plan for surgical activity across different sub-specialities after the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods Recommendations were developed through a Delphi process for establishment of expert consensus. Domain topics were formulated and subsequently subdivided into questions pertinent to different surgical specialities following the COVID-19 crisis. Sixty-five experts from 24 countries, representing the entire EAES board, were invited. Fifty clinicians and six engineers accepted the invitation and drafted statements based on specific key questions. Anonymous voting on the statements was performed until consensus was achieved, defined by at least 70% agreement. Results A total of 92 consensus statements were formulated with regard to safe resumption of surgery across eight domains, addressing general surgery, upper GI, lower GI, bariatrics, endocrine, HPB, abdominal wall and technology/research. The statements addressed elective and emergency services across all subspecialties with specific attention to the role of MIS during the recovery plan. Eighty-four of the statements were approved during the first round of Delphi voting (91.3%) and another 8 during the following round after substantial modification, resulting in a 100% consensus. Conclusion The recommendations formulated by the EAES board establish a framework for resumption of surgery following COVID-19 pandemic with particular focus on the role of MIS across surgical specialities. The statements have the potential for wide application in the clinical setting, education activities and research work across different healthcare systems.
|
|
| 9. |
- Arroyo Vázquez, Jorge Alberto, 1979, et al.
(författare)
-
Stent treatment or surgical closure for perforated duodenal ulcers: a prospective randomized study.
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Surgical endoscopy. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1432-2218 .- 0930-2794. ; 35, s. 7183-7190
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Perforated peptic ulcer is a life-threatening condition. Traditional treatment is surgery. Esophageal perforations and anastomotic leakages can be treated with endoscopically placed covered stents and drainage. We have treated selected patients with a perforated duodenal ulcer with a partially covered stent. The aim of this study was to compare surgery with stent treatment for perforated duodenal ulcers in a multicenter randomized controlled trial.All patients presenting at the ER with abdominal pain, clinical signs of an upper G-I perforation, and free air on CT were approached for inclusion and randomized between surgical closure and stent treatment. Age, ASA score, operation time, complications, and hospital stay were recorded. Laparoscopy was performed in all patients to establish diagnosis. Surgical closure was performed using open or laparoscopic techniques. For stent treatment, a per-operative gastroscopy was performed and a partially covered stent was placed through the scope. Abdominal lavage was performed in all patients, and a drain was placed. All patients received antibiotics and intravenous PPI. Stents were endoscopically removed after 2-3weeks. Complications were recorded and classified according to Clavien-Dindo (C-D).43 patients were included, 28 had a verified perforated duodenal ulcer, 15 were randomized to surgery, and 13 to stent. Median age was 77.5years (23-91) with no difference between groups. ASA score was unevenly distributed between the groups (p=0.069). Operation time was significantly shorter in the stent group, 68min (48-107) versus 92min (68-154) (p=0.001). Stents were removed after a median of 21days (11-37 days) without complications. Six patients in the surgical group had a complication and seven patients in the stent group (C-D 2-5) (n.s.).Stent treatment together with laparoscopic lavage and drainage offers a safe alternative to traditional surgical closure in perforated duodenal ulcer. A larger sample size would be necessary to show non-inferiority regarding stent treatment.
|
|
| 10. |
- Asklid, Daniel, et al.
(författare)
-
Short-term outcome in robotic vs laparoscopic and open rectal tumor surgery within an ERAS protocol : a retrospective cohort study from the Swedish ERAS database
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Surgical Endoscopy. - : Springer. - 0930-2794 .- 1432-2218. ; 36:3, s. 2006-2017
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Advantages of robotic technique over laparoscopic technique in rectal tumor surgery have yet to be proven. Large multicenter, register-based cohort studies within an optimized perioperative care protocol are lacking. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to compare short-term outcomes in robotic, laparoscopic and open rectal tumor resections, while also determining compliance to the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS)®Society Guidelines.METHODS: All patients scheduled for rectal tumor resection and consecutively recorded in the Swedish part of the international ERAS® Interactive Audit System between January 1, 2010 to February 27, 2020, were included (N = 3125). Primary outcomes were postoperative complications and length of stay (LOS) and secondary outcomes compliance to the ERAS protocol, conversion to open surgery, symptoms delaying discharge and reoperations. Uni- and multivariate comparisons were used.RESULTS: Robotic surgery (N = 827) had a similar rate of postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo grades 1-5), 35.9% compared to open surgery (N = 1429) 40.9% (OR 1.15, 95% CI (0.93, 1.41)) and laparoscopic surgery (N = 869) 31.2% (OR 0.88, 95% CI (0.71, 1.08)). LOS was longer in the open group, median 9 days (IRR 1.35, 95% CI (1.27, 1.44)) and laparoscopic group, 7 days (IRR 1.14, 95% CI (1.07, 1.21)) compared to the robotic group, 6 days. Pre- and intraoperative compliance to the ERAS protocol were similar between groups.CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter cohort study, robotic surgery was associated with shorter LOS compared to both laparoscopic and open surgery and had lower conversion rates vs laparoscopic surgery. The rate of complications was similar between groups.
|
|
