A Comparative Analysis of Laparoscopic Gastrectomy Versus Laparoscopic-Assisted Gastrectomy: The Overall and Disease-Free Survival.

Gastric cancer remains a significant global health challenge with varied survival rates, emphasizing the need for research into effective surgical treatments. In this retrospective study, we compared the 72-month overall and disease-free survival between laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) and laparoscopic-assisted gastrectomy (AG) in a cohort of 139 patients treated for gastric cancer. The analysis revealed that patients undergoing LG exhibited a significantly higher overall survival rate at 72 months compared to those undergoing AG. Although disease-free survival rates were comparable between the two groups, LG showed a marginal advantage. Subgroup analyses based on the type of gastrectomy and anastomosis demonstrated varied survival probabilities, with laparoscopic-assisted partial gastrectomy yielding the most favorable outcomes. These results highlight the importance of the choice of surgical technique in influencing survival outcomes in gastric cancer.

Comparative Analysis of Laparoscopic Gastrectomy Versus Laparoscopic-Assisted Gastrectomy: Postoperative Complications.

The evolution of laparoscopic surgery in gastric cancer has advanced significantly, with benefits over open surgery initially demonstrated in early gastric cancer and later in advanced stages. This study aims to evaluate postoperative complications, surgical outcomes, and anastomosis safety by comparing laparoscopic gastrectomy and laparoscopic-assisted gastrectomy. This retrospective, observational, analytical study included patients diagnosed with gastric cancer who underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy at a university hospital from January 2006 to February 2018. Patients were initially divided into two groups based on the type of anastomosis: laparoscopic gastrectomy (intracorporeal anastomosis) and laparoscopic-assisted gastrectomy (extracorporeal anastomosis). Further secondary analysis was done with subgroups based on the type of gastrectomy and anastomosis performed. A total of 139 patients were analyzed, showing significant differences in postoperative complications between the two surgical approaches. The laparoscopic-assisted group exhibited a higher rate of complications. The laparoscopic approach (with intracorporeal anastomosis) was found to have a lower risk of complications and morbidity/mortality compared to the laparoscopic-assisted approach. Laparoscopic gastrectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis resulted in lower morbidity and mortality than laparoscopic-assisted gastrectomy. The technique of partial gastrectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis was associated with the lowest rate of postoperative complications.

Physical Bases, Indications, and Results of the Use of Magnets in Digestive Surgery: A Narrative Review.

Background: The use of magnetic devices in digestive surgery has been a matter of debate in recent years. The aim of this review was to describe the physical bases, indications, and results of the use of magnets in digestive surgery. Methods: A review of the literature was performed using Scopus, PubMed, ScienceDirect, and SciELO databases considering as inclusion criteria all articles published since 2007 to date, describing the physical basis of magnetic assisted surgery and those that describe the surgical procedure, including case reports, as well as, articles on humans and experimental animals. Results: Sixty-four studies were included, 15 detailing aspects on the physical basis and 49 about indications and results. Magnets are currently used to perform fixed traction, mobilizing structures, and anastomosis in humans and experimental animals. Conclusions: The use of magnets in digestive surgery has shown good results, and no complications arising from their use have been reported. However, more prospective and randomized studies that compare magnetic surgery and conventional techniques are needed.

Outcomes of Laparoscopic Splenectomy for Treatment of Splenomegaly: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To review the evidence regarding the outcomes of laparoscopic techniques in cases of splenomegaly. BACKGROUND: Endoscopic approaches such as laparoscopic, hand-assisted laparoscopic, and robotic surgery are commonly used for splenectomy, but the advantages in cases of splenomegaly are controversial. REVIEW METHODS: We conducted a systematic review using PRISMA guidelines. PubMed/MEDLINE, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched up to February 2020. RESULTS: Nineteen studies were included for meta-analysis. In relation to laparoscopic splenectomy (LS) versus open splenectomy (OS), 12 studies revealed a significant reduction in length of hospital stay (LOS) of 3.3 days (p = <0.01) in the LS subgroup. Operative time was higher by 44.4 min (p < 0.01) in the LS group. Blood loss was higher in OS 146.2 cc (p = <0.01). No differences were found regarding morbimortality. The global conversion rate was 19.56%. Five studies compared LS and hand-assisted laparosocpic splenectomy (HALS), but no differences were observed in LOS, blood loss, or complications. HALS had a significantly reduced conversion rate (p < 0.01). In two studies that compared HALS and OS (n = 66), HALS showed a decrease in LOS of 4.5 days (p < 0.01) and increase of 44 min in operative time (p < 0.01), while OS had a significantly higher blood loss of 448 cc (p = 0.01). No differences were found in the complication rate. CONCLUSION: LS is a safe approach for splenomegaly, with clear clinical benefits. HALS has a lower conversion rate. Higher-quality confirmatory trials with standardized splenomegaly grading are needed before definitive recommendations can be provided. Prospero registration number: CRD42019125251.

Single-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Assisted with Neodymium Magnets: Initial Prospective Experience with 60 Cases.

Introduction: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the gold standard performed by the majority of surgeons worldwide, and the use of single-port cholecystectomy remains a matter of debate. Single-port magnetic-assisted cholecystectomy (SPMAC) was described as an alternative because of its ability for proper triangulation and the advantage of reducing port surgery. The objective of this study is to describe the initial experience of SPMAC and evaluate the surgical learning curve. Materials and Methods: A prospective cohort was conducted between February 2017 and August 2018; 60 patients completed the inclusion criteria. Variables analyzed were gender, age, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) classification, operative time, hospital stay, intraoperative bleeding, and conversion rate. Postoperative pain was measured with a visual analogue scale (VAS). Aesthetic perception was measured by the cosmetic visual analogue scale (CVAS). The postoperative complications were graded according to Clavien-Dindo classification, and the cumulative sum (CUSUM) model was used for evaluating the learning curve. Results: The mean operatory time was 56.1 minutes. With regard to the postoperative pain variable, the VAS value was 2 out of 10 in 78.33% of patients. With regard to aesthetic satisfaction, CVAS was reported to be 10 out of 10 in 96.67% of patients. Conversion rate was 0%. The learning curve of operative time was reached at the 22nd patient, according to the CUSUM chart. Conclusions: SPMAC is feasible and effective; in our consideration, an acceptable learning curve considering benign gallbladder pathology is one of the most prevalent in general surgery. Further comparative studies with conventional LC and SPMAC need to be performed to conduct a proper comparison.

Colectomía y nefrectomía simultánea en tumores sincrónicos / Simultaneous colectomy and nephectomy in synchronic tumours

No disponible

La influencia del tipo de abordaje torácico sobre el desarrollo de complicaciones respiratorias tras la esofagectomía / Influence of the type of thoracic access on postesophagectomy respiratory complications

INTRODUCCIÓN: Revisión sistemática de la literatura con el objetivo de determinar diferencias entre el abordaje torácico mínimamente invasivo y por toracotomía tradicional para la esofagectomía por cáncer de esófago, en términos de complicaciones respiratorias. MÉTODOS: La búsqueda se ha realizado a través de las bases de datos Medline y Cochrane Library, identificando los estudios que comparaban las 2 variantes técnicas mencionadas, independientemente del tipo de abordaje a nivel abdominal (laparotomía/laparoscopia). Se seleccionaron aquellos estudios que describían las complicaciones respiratorias desglosadas por categorías y en datos absolutos. Se excluyeron los estudios en que se consideraba la minitoracotomía en el grupo de abordaje torácico mínimamente invasivo. Los criterios de selección fueron: consideramos los estudios en los que se describieron las complicaciones respiratorias desglosadas (9 en total) y analizamos las complicaciones más frecuentes (infecciones respiratorias, insuficiencia respiratoria y derrame pleural). RESULTADOS: Seleccionamos 9 estudios (un ensayo clínico prospectivo y aleatorizado, y 8 estudios de casos y controles) totalizando 1.190 pacientes, de los cuales 1.167 fueron intervenidos por cáncer de esófago, 482 pacientes por toracotomía y 708 por toracoscopia. En 3 estudios se encontraron definiciones de las infecciones respiratorias y la estratificación por gravedad de las complicaciones descritas se encontró en un estudio. Las complicaciones más frecuentes y que permitieron realizar un metaanálisis fueron: las infecciones respiratorias, el derrame pleural y la insuficiencia respiratoria. No se identificaron diferencias estadísticas significativas entre los 2 abordajes en el análisis global en cuanto a la tasa de complicaciones respiratorias mencionadas. DISCUSIÓN: El tipo de abordaje torácico (toracotomía o toracoscopia) no parece influir de forma significativa en el desarrollo de complicaciones respiratorias postesofagectomía por cáncer. Sin embargo, el diseño de los estudios analizados, los criterios de definición heterogéneos y la ausencia de una estratificación adecuada de las complicaciones hacen cuestionable esta constatación. Se necesitan más ensayos clínicos prospectivos y aleatorizados y un consenso en cuanto a la forma de definir las complicaciones respiratorias postoperatorias postesofagectomía

INTRODUCTION: A systematic review of the literature was performed with the aim to determine differences in the rate of respiratory complications after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer using minimally invasive access vs traditional thoracic access. METHODS: A literature search was performed using Medline and Cochrane Library, identifying studies that compared the 2 types of thoracic access, regardless of the type of abdominal access (laparotomy/laparoscopy). The studies selected described respiratory complications in absolute numbers and different categories. Studies that considered minithoracotomy as a minimally invasive technique were excluded. Inclusion criteria were: studies decribing the different types of respiratory complications (9 in total), and analysing the most common complications: respiratory infection, respiratory failure and pleural effusion. RESULTS: Nine studies were selected (one prospective randomized trial and 8 case control studies) including 1,190 patients, 1,167 of which were operated on for esophageal cancer: 482 patients by thoracotomy and 708 by thoracoscopy. Three studies included definitions of respiratory complications, and one stratified them. The more frequent complications that allowed a meta-analysis were: respiratory infections, pleural effusion, and respiratory failure. No significant differences were found between the 2 types of access in the global analysis. DISCUSSION: The type of thoracic access (thoracotomy or thoracoscopy) does not seem to influence the development of respiratory complications after esophagectomy for cancer. However, the design of the studies analysed, the absence of clear definitions and stratification of the complications makes this conclusion questionable. A consensus on the definition of complications and further prospective randomized clinical trials are necessary

[Influence of the type of thoracic access on postesophagectomy respiratory complications]. / La influencia del tipo de abordaje torácico sobre el desarrollo de complicaciones respiratorias tras la esofagectomía.

INTRODUCTION: A systematic review of the literature was performed with the aim to determine differences in the rate of respiratory complications after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer using minimally invasive access vs traditional thoracic access. METHODS: A literature search was performed using Medline and Cochrane Library, identifying studies that compared the 2 types of thoracic access, regardless of the type of abdominal access (laparotomy/laparoscopy). The studies selected described respiratory complications in absolute numbers and different categories. Studies that considered minithoracotomy as a minimally invasive technique were excluded. Inclusion criteria were: studies decribing the different types of respiratory complications (9 in total), and analysing the most common complications: respiratory infection, respiratory failure and pleural effusion. RESULTS: Nine studies were selected (one prospective randomized trial and 8 case control studies) including 1,190 patients, 1,167 of which were operated on for esophageal cancer: 482 patients by thoracotomy and 708 by thoracoscopy. Three studies included definitions of respiratory complications, and one stratified them. The more frequent complications that allowed a meta-analysis were: respiratory infections, pleural effusion, and respiratory failure. No significant differences were found between the 2 types of access in the global analysis. DISCUSSION: The type of thoracic access (thoracotomy or thoracoscopy) does not seem to influence the development of respiratory complications after esophagectomy for cancer. However, the design of the studies analysed, the absence of clear definitions and stratification of the complications makes this conclusion questionable. A consensus on the definition of complications and further prospective randomized clinical trials are necessary.