Kesslerdonaldson0474
To compare the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LCBDE + LC) with intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (IO-ERCP + LC) for the treatment of gallbladder and common bile duct (CBD) stones.
We searched PubMed, Ovid, and Cochrane Library from their inception dates to April 2020, for studies that compared the efficacy and safety of LCBDE + LC with those of IO-ERCP + LC in patients with gallbladder and CBD stones. The technical success, morbidity, major morbidity, biliary leak, postoperative pancreatitis, conversion, retained stones, operative time, and postoperative hospital stay were compared between these two approaches.
Five randomized controlled trials involving 860 patients were evaluated. Overall, no significant difference was found between LCBDE + LC and IO-ERCP + LC regarding technical success, morbidity, major morbidity, and the conversion rate. Biliary leak and retained stones were significantly more prevalent in the LCBDE + LC group, while postoperative pancreatitis was significantly more prevalent in the IO-ERCP + LC group.
LCBDE + LC and IO-ERCP + LC have similar efficacy and safety in terms of technical success, morbidity, major morbidity, and conversion rate. However, LCBDE + LC is associated with a higher biliary leak rate, lower postoperative pancreatitis rate, and higher rate of retained stones.
LCBDE + LC and IO-ERCP + LC have similar efficacy and safety in terms of technical success, morbidity, major morbidity, and conversion rate. However, LCBDE + LC is associated with a higher biliary leak rate, lower postoperative pancreatitis rate, and higher rate of retained stones.
Gastroparesis (GP) is hallmarked by nausea, vomiting, and early satiety. While dietary and medical therapy are the mainstay of treatment, surgery has been used to palliate symptoms. Two established first-line surgical options are gastric electrostimulation (GES) and pyloric procedures (PP) including pyloroplasty or pyloromyotomy. We sought to compare these modalities' improvement in Gastroparesis cardinal symptom index (GCSI) subscores and potential predictors of therapy failure.
All patients undergoing surgery at a single institution were prospectively identified and separated by surgery GES, PP, or combined GESPP. GCSI was collected preoperatively, at 6weeks and 1 year. Postoperative GCSI score over 2.5 or receipt of another gastroparesis operation were considered treatment failures. Groups were compared using Pearson's chi-squared and Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA.
Eighty-two patients were included 18 GES, 51 PP, and 13 GESPP. Mean age was 44, BMI was 26.7, and 80% were female. Preoperative GCSI was 3nfer an advantage over GES or PP alone.
Both gastric electrical stimulation and pyloric surgery are successful gastroparesis treatments, with durable improvement in nausea and vomiting. Choice of operation should be guided by patient characteristics and discussion of surgical risks and benefits. Combination GESPP does not appear to confer an advantage over GES or PP alone.
Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is an underutilized therapy for choledocholithiasis. The driving factors of this practice gap are poorly defined. We sought to evaluate the attitudes and practice patterns of surgeons who underwent training courses using an LCBDE simulator.
Surgeons completed a half-day simulator-based LCBDE curriculum at national courses, including the American College of Surgeons Advanced Skills Training for Rural Surgeons and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons annual meeting. Attitudes were assessed with Likert surveys immediately before and after curriculum completion. Follow-up surveys were distributed electronically.
159 surgeons completed training during six courses. Surgeon attitudes regarding the overall superiority of LCBDE vs. ERCP shifted towards favoring LCBDE after course participation (4.0 vs 3.3; Likert scale 1-5, p < 0.001). 44% of surgeons completed follow-up surveys at a mean of 3years post-course. Surgeons remained conrs should be addressed in future curricula to improve procedural adoption.
Surgeons trained at an LCBDE course retained long-term confidence in their procedural ability. Practice implementation was hindered by deficiencies in OR staff knowledge and instrument availability. Surgeons with knowledgeable operating room staff performed significantly more LCBDEs than those with less capable assistance. CC-90011 cost These barriers should be addressed in future curricula to improve procedural adoption.
The treatment of the pancreatic stump is a critical step of pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). Robot-assisted surgery (RAS) can facilitate minimally invasive challenging abdominal procedures, including pancreatojejunostomy. However, one of the major limitations of RAS stems from its lack of tactile feedback that can lead to pancreatic parenchyma laceration during knot tying or during traction on the suture. Moreover, a Wirsung-jejunostomy is not always easy to execute, especially in cases with small diameter duct. Herein, we describe and video-report the technical details of a robotic modified end-to-side invaginated robotic pancreatojejunostomy (RmPJ) with the use of barbed suture instead of the "classical" Wirsung-jejunostomy.
The RmPJ technique consists of a double layer of absorbable monofilament running barbed suture (3-0V-Loc), the outer layer is used to invaginate the pancreatic stump. Thereafter, a small enterotomy is made in the jejunum exactly opposite to the location of the pancreatic duct for stent ieconstructive phase of the operation.
RmPJ is feasible and reproducible irrespective of pancreatic duct size and parenchyma, and can enhance the surgical workflow of this operation. Specifically, the use of barbed sutures allows the exploitation of the potential advantages of the RAS, while minimizing the negative effect caused by the main disadvantage of the robotic approach, its absence of tactile feedback, by ensuring uniform tension on the continuous suture lines used, especially during the reconstructive phase of the operation.
