ABSTRACT
To evaluate if early unclamping (EUC) of the renal pedicle compromises perioperative outcomes in minimally invasive partial nephrectomy (PN). The cohort study includes all robot-assisted PN performed between September 2012 and September 2015 by a single surgeon at the Lister Hospital, Stevenage, UK. The systematic review and meta-analysis was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines identifying studies comparing EUC and standard unclamping (SUC) in either laparoscopic or robot-assisted PN. The Lister cohort prospectively reported 84 cases of robot-assisted PN (SUC = 22, EUC = 62) with a mean age of 58 years (SD = 11). The operative time (OT), estimated blood loss (EBL) and warm ischaemia time (WIT) were 186.5 min (SD = 33.8), 125.5 mls (SD = 188.91) and 16.7 min (SD = 5.6), respectively. The data from the Lister cohort were included in the meta-analysis. The systematic review identified four studies, encompassing 666 cases (313 SUC, 353 EUC), for inclusion in the final analysis. There was a statistically significant difference in WIT in favour of the EUC group [-10.59 min (95% CI -16.58, -4.60)]. Specifically, the reduction in WIT was more pronounced in laparoscopic PN (-15.43 min (95% CI -19.05, -11.81)), when compared with the robotic PN [-5.60 min (95% CI -5.70, -5.50)]. There was no statistical difference in OT [-3.97 min (95% CI -14.22, 6.28)]. EBL was found to be increased in the EUC group [71.39 ml (95% CI -0.78, 143.56)]. There was no statistically significant difference in transfusion rates or complications between the two groups. The EUC technique for robot-assisted PN appears to offer a safe limited period of WIT without compromising perioperative outcomes and morbidity.
Subject(s)
Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures/methods , Nephrectomy/methods , Robotic Surgical Procedures/methods , Blood Loss, Surgical , Constriction , Humans , Operative TimeABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Odontogenic sinusitis and sinonasal complications of dental disease or treatment (SCDDT) play a relevant, often underappreciated role in paranasal sinus infections. Treating SCDDT patients requires tailored medical and surgical approaches in order to achieve acceptable success rates. These approaches differ from common rhinogenic sinusitis treatment protocols mostly because of the different etiopathogenesis. Our study comprehensively evaluated microbiology and antibiotic resistance in SCDDT patients and compared findings with a control group of patients affected by rhinogenic sinusitis. METHODS: We performed microbiological sampling during surgery on 28 patients with SCDDT and 16 patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). Colonies were isolated, Gram-stained, and the species identified using classic biochemical methods. These results were confirmed by DNA pyrosequencing, and then the resistance profile of each SCDDT isolate to various antibiotics was tested. RESULTS: Microbial growth was observed in all SCDDT patients, whereas samples from 60% of patients in the control group failed to yield any bacterial growth (p < 0.001). Anaerobes grew in 14% of SCDDT patients as compared to 7% of CRSwNP patients (p = 0.42). Of the isolates from SCDDT patients, 70% were susceptible to amoxicillin/clavulanate, whereas all isolates were susceptible to levofloxacin, teicoplanin, and vancomycin. Of the staphylococci identified, 80% were capable of producing beta-lactamase. CONCLUSION: Given the extent of microbiological contamination within the maxillary sinus of SCDDT patients, these infections should be regarded as a different class of conditions from rhinogenic sinusitis. Our findings support the need for different approaches in the treatment of SCDDT patients.
