ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Lumbar-peritoneal (LP) and ventriculo-peritoneal (VP) shunt placement is the treatment of choice for diversion of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) from the subarachnoid space into the peritoneal cavity. This invasive procedure has been associated with several complications, most commonly infection and obstruction. Perforation of the bowel is an extremely rare complication. CASE PRESENTATION: We report a case of a 72 old female patient with LP shunt for raised intracranial pressure, who presented with LP shunt catheter protruding from anus. This was due to bowel perforation in the recto-sigmoid junction by the distal tip of lumbar-peritoneal shunt. She was surgically treated with removal of the distal part of the shunt, external drainage of the proximal part and primary closure of the perforation. DISCUSSION: The mortality after perforation is relatively high, approaching 15-18%, and it is further increased when infection is present up to 22% with central nervous system (CNS) infection such as meningitis, encephalitis, or brain abscesses (Vinchon, 2006) and 33% with intra-abdominal infection. CONCLUSION: Clinical suspicion of abdominal complications by the LP should be raised when patient with hydrocephalus develops acute abdominal symptoms or infection with unusual positive CSF cultures.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is a complex operation with high perioperative morbidity and mortality, even in the highest volume centers. Since the development of the robotic platform, the number of reports on robotic-assisted pancreatic surgery has been on the rise. This article reviews the current state of completely robotic PD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed including studies published between January 2000 and July 2016 reporting PDs in which all procedural steps (dissection, resection and reconstruction) were performed robotically. RESULTS: Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria, including a total of 738 patients. Data regarding perioperative outcomes such as operative time, blood loss, mortality, morbidity, conversion and oncologic outcomes were analyzed. No major differences were observed in mortality, morbidity and oncologic parameters, between robotic and non-robotic approaches. However, operative time was longer in robotic PD, whereas the estimated blood loss was lower. The conversion rate to laparotomy was 6.5-7.8%. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic PD is feasible and safe in high-volume institutions, where surgeons are experienced and medical staff are appropriately trained. Randomized controlled trials are required to further investigate outcomes of robotic PD. Additionally, cost analysis and data on long-term oncologic outcomes are needed to evaluate cost-effectiveness of the robotic approach in comparison with the open technique.
