Machine learning in pancreas surgery, what is new? literature review.

Background: Machine learning (ML) is an inquiry domain that aims to establish methodologies that leverage information to enhance performance of various applications. In the healthcare domain, the ML concept has gained prominence over the years. As a result, the adoption of ML algorithms has become expansive. The aim of this scoping review is to evaluate the application of ML in pancreatic surgery. Methods: We integrated the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses for scoping reviews. Articles that contained relevant data specializing in ML in pancreas surgery were included. Results: A search of the following four databases PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE, and IEEE and files adopted from Google and Google Scholar was 21. The main features of included studies revolved around the year of publication, the country, and the type of article. Additionally, all the included articles were published within January 2019 to May 2022. Conclusion: The integration of ML in pancreas surgery has gained much attention in previous years. The outcomes derived from this study indicate an extensive literature gap on the topic despite efforts by various researchers. Hence, future studies exploring how pancreas surgeons can apply different learning algorithms to perform essential practices may ultimately improve patient outcomes.

Continuous transversus abdominis plane blocks in patients undergoing minimally invasive colorectal surgery: a randomized pilot study.

PURPOSE: Transversus abdominis plane (TAP) blocks are used in an attempt to decrease narcotic use and its subsequent consequences. The primary goal of this study was to see if TAP blocks decreased narcotic use in patients undergoing minimally invasive colorectal surgery. METHODS: A randomized pilot study was conducted. The amount of narcotic used examined in morphine milligram equivalents (MME) was collected for the first 4 post-operative days (PODs). Demographic data, length of stay (LOS), readmission rate, and 90-day mortality was also examined. Statistical analysis of the data was performed with a p < 0.05 determined to be significant. RESULTS: Eighty-eight patients were included. Forty-seven were randomized to the TAP group and 41 to the no TAP group. There was no difference in age, race, gender, indication for operation, or Charlson Comorbidity Index (p > 0.05). The median MME for each POD was similar for POD 1 (22.5 vs 37.5; p = 0.054), POD 3 (15 vs 22.5; p = 0.48), and POD 4 (22.5 vs 10.5; p = 0.42) on bivariate analysis. On POD 2, the TAP group had significantly less narcotic intake than the no TAP group (17.5 vs 30; p = 0.047). However, on multivariate analysis when controlling for other variables, there was no statistical difference between the groups. Median LOS was 3 days for both groups. Readmissions, post-operative complications, and mortality were also similar between the two groups (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that continuous TAP blocks do not decrease the amount of MME used during the first 4 post-operative days compared to patient receiving traditional pain control measures.

Rate of conversion to an open procedure is reduced in patients undergoing robotic colorectal surgery: A single-institution experience.

BACKGROUND: Robotic-assisted surgery is becoming increasingly used in colorectal operations. It has many advantages over laparoscopic surgery including three-dimensional viewing, motion scaling, improved dexterity and ergonomics as well as increased precision. However, there are also disadvantages to robotic surgery such as lack of tactile feedback, cost as well as limitations on multi-quadrant surgeries. The purpose of this study was to compare the rate of conversion to an open surgery in patients undergoing robotic-assisted colorectal surgery and traditional laparoscopic surgery. METHODS: Patients undergoing minimally invasive colorectal surgery for neoplastic and dysplastic disease from 2009 to 2016 were identified and examined retrospectively. The statistical software SAS, manufactured by SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina. Continuous variables were analysed using analysis of variance test. Chi-square test was used to analyse categorical variables. P <0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Two hundred and thirty-five patients were identified that underwent minimally invasive colorectal surgery. One hundred and sixty-four underwent laparoscopic resection and 71 underwent robotic-assisted resection. There was no statistical difference in gender or race between the two groups (both P > 0.05). Patients that underwent robotic-assisted resection were slightly younger than patients that underwent laparoscopic resection (61.6 years vs. 65.6 years; P= 0.02). When examining conversion to an open procedure, patients that underwent robotic-assisted resection had a significantly lower chance of conversion than did the patients undergoing a laparoscopic approach (11.27% vs. 29.78%; P= 0.0018). CONCLUSION: Conversion rates from a minimally invasive procedure to an open procedure appear to be lower with robotic-assisted surgery compared to laparoscopic surgery.

Can robotic surgery be done efficiently while training residents?

INTRODUCTION: Robotic surgery is a rapidly growing area in surgery. In an era of emphasis on cost reduction, the question becomes how do you train residents in robotic surgery? The aim of this study was to determine if there was a difference in operative time and complications when comparing general surgery residents learning robotic cholecystectomies to those learning standard laparoscopic cholecystectomies. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of adult patients undergoing robotic and laparoscopic cholecystectomy by surgical residents between March 2013 and February 2014 was conducted. Demographic data, operative factors, length of stay (LOS), and complications were examined. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. The significance was set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 58 patients were included in the study (18 in the robotic cholecystectomy group and 40 in the laparoscopic group). Age, diagnosis, and American Society of Anesthesiologists score were not significantly different between groups. There was only 1 complication in the standard laparoscopic group in which a patient had to be taken back to surgery because of an incarcerated port site. LOS was significantly higher in the standard laparoscopic group (mean = 2.28) than in the robotic group (mean = 0.56; p < 0.0001). Operating room (OR) time was not statistically different between the standard laparoscopic group (mean = 90.98 minutes) and the robotic group (mean = 97.00 minutes; p = 0.4455). When intraoperative cholangiogram was evaluated, OR time was shorter in the robotic group. CONCLUSION: Robotic training in general surgery residency does not amount to extra OR time. LOS in our study was significantly longer in the standard laparoscopic group.

Fecal diversion for the treatment of fulminant cytomegalovirus colitis: report of a case.

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) colitis in the immunosuppressed patient is common and is usually self-limited by treatment consisting of intravenous anti-viral medications. However, in the immunocompetent patient, CMV colitis is extremely rare and is associated with a high mortality rate that approaches 32 % (Galiatsatos et al. in Dig Dis Sci 50:609-616, 2005). We herein present the case of a 45-year-old immunocompetent male who developed fulminant CMV colitis. He was initially started on anti-viral agents but the disease continued to progress. After a surgical consultation was obtained, he underwent diverting loop ileostomy in an attempt to avoid a total abdominal colectomy. He responded well and had successful resolution of his disease. Approximately nine months later, he underwent successful ileostomy takedown. Diversion may be an alternative to total abdominal colectomy for CMV colitis or other causes of fulminant colitis. Given the rare nature of fulminant CMV colitis, further randomized studies will be difficult; however, this does appear to be a treatment option as an alternative to total abdominal colectomy.