Adhesiolysis is Facilitated by Robotic Technology in Reoperative Cardiac Surgery

Advances and safe use of energy devices in lung cancer surgery

Objectives

A clear understanding of energy devices would help achieve high effectiveness and safety and guide the selection of devices. The present review aimed to elucidate the efficacy and adverse events of energy devices in lung cancer to guide the selection of appropriate devices depending on the situation.

Methods

Four major databases were searched electronically for relevant articles published until 16 April 2021. The reference lists of the identified papers were examined. We excluded (1) irrelevant studies, (2) manuscripts published in languages other than English and Japanese, (3) duplicates, and (4) studies for which the full text was not available in the databases. The results and key information obtained were summarized by means of a narrative approach.

Results

A total of 78 papers were included in the review and these were categorized according to the main topic of investigation as follows: (1) electrosurgery-related injuries, (2) fundamentals of electrosurgery, (3) monopolar devices, (4) bipolar electrosurgical devices, (5) ultrasonic energy devices, (6) energy devices in lung cancer surgery, (7) operating room fire risks, and (8) basic principles of surgery.

Conclusions

Understanding energy devices could help us use them in a more effective and safer manner. Knowledge of their selection criteria (suitability), merits, risks, and safety precautions relevant to each process of lung cancer surgery could guide appropriate selection.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11748-022-01775-w.

Use, Cost, Complications, and Mortality of Robotic versus Nonrobotic General Surgery Procedures Based on a Nationwide Database

Since its introduction in 1997, robotic surgery has overcome many limitations, including setup costs and surgeon training. The use of robotics in general surgery remains unknown. This study evaluates robotic-assisted procedures in general surgery by comparing characteristics with its nonrobotic (laparoscopic and open) counterparts. Weighted Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Nationwide Inpatient Sample data (2008, 2009) were used to identify the top 12 procedures for robotic general surgery. Robotic cases were identified by Current Procedural Terminology codes 17.41 and 17.42. Procedures were grouped: esophagogastric, colorectal, adrenalectomy, lysis of adhesion, and cholecystectomy. Analyses were descriptive, t tests, χ2s, and logistic regression. Charges and length of stay were adjusted for gender, age, race, payer, hospital bed size, hospital location, hospital region, median household income, Charlson score, and procedure type. There were 1,389,235 (97.4%) nonrobotic and 37,270 (2.6%) robotic cases. Robotic cases increased from 0.8 per cent (2008) to 4.3 per cent (2009, P < 0.001). In all subgroups, robotic surgery had significantly shorter lengths of stay (4.9 days) than open surgery (6.1 days) and lower charges (median $30,540) than laparoscopic ($34,537) and open ($46,704) surgery. Fewer complications were seen in robotic-assisted colorectal, adrenalectomy and lysis of adhesion; however, robotic cholecystectomy and esophagogastric procedures had higher complications than nonrobotic surgery ( P < 0.05). Overall robotic surgery had a lower mortality rate (0.097%) than nonrobotic surgeries per 10,000 procedures (laparoscopic 0.48%, open 0.92%; P < 0.001). The cost of robotic surgery is generally considered a prohibitive factor. In the present study, when overall cost was considered, including length of stay, robotic surgery appeared to be cost-effective and as safe as nonrobotic surgery except in cholecystectomy and esophagogastric procedures. Further study is needed to fully understand the long-term implications of this new technology.

Robotic-assisted surgery for colorectal liver metastasis: A single-centre experience

Background:

Although minimally invasive surgery (MIS) of the liver is increasingly widespread, its role in the treatment of colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM) remains uncertain. In this setting, the role of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) has not been significantly evaluated yet. The aim of this study was to report our experience with RAS for treatment of CRLM.

Material and Methods:

Prospectively collected surgical and oncologic data on all of the robotic-assisted liver resections for CRLM performed at our centre were retrieved from the institutional database and retrospectively analysed. Intra-operative ultrasound (US) was obtained with a dedicated robotic probe using the TilePro™ function.

Results:

Twenty patients underwent robotic-assisted resection of CRLM between May 2012 and April 2018. Six patients (30%) had multiple synchronous CRLM resections (median = 2; range 2–4). The tumour size averaged 3.0 ± 1.8 cm. All of the lesions were removed using a parenchymal-sparing approach, with R0 resection margins. Mean hospital stay was 4.7 ± 1.8 days. The mean follow-up was 22.5 ± 19.5 months. During the study period, there were no local recurrences, while 9 patients (45%) developed new systemic metastasis. All patients are still alive as of September 2018 with 1- and 3-year disease-free survival of 89.5% and 35.8%, respectively.

Conclusions:

In our experience, RAS for CRLM surgical treatment was feasible and played a positive role even in patients with multiple metastases and previous or synchronous surgery. RAS seemed to be oncologically effective in this setting, as no patients experienced local relapse in the treated area.

Is resternotomy a risk for continuous-flow left ventricular assist device outcomes?

BACKGROUND

The number of patients undergoing resternotomy continues to rise. Although catastrophic hemorrhage remains a dreaded complication, most published data suggest that sternal reentrance is safe, with negligible postoperative morbidity and mortality. A significant proportion of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantations are reoperative cardiac procedures. The aim of our study was to compare outcomes between first time sternotomy and resternotomy patients receiving continuous-flow LVADs, as a bridge to transplantation or destination therapy.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

From March 2006 through February 2012, 100 patients underwent implantation of a HeartMate II or HeartWare LVAD at our institution. Patients were stratified into two groups, primary sternotomy and resternotomy. Variables were compared using two-sided t-tests, chi-square tests, Cox proportional hazards models, and log-rank tests to determine whether there was a difference between the two groups and if resternotomy was a significant independent predictor of outcome.

RESULTS

We identified 29 patients (29%) who had resternotomy and 71 patients (71%) who had first time sternotomy. The resternotomy group was significantly older (56 years vs. 51 years, p = 0.05), was more likely to have ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) (69% vs. 30%, p < 0.001), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (31% vs. 14%, p = 0.05) and had longer cardiopulmonary bypass times (135 min vs. 100 min, p = 0.011). Survival rates at 30 days (93.1% vs. 95.8%, p = 0.564), 180 days (82.8% vs. 93%, p = 0.131), and 360 days (82.8% vs. 88.7%, p = 0.398) were similar for the resternotomy and primary sternotomy groups, respectively. Postoperative complications were also comparable, except for re-exploration for bleeding which was higher for the resternotomy group (17.2% vs. 4.2%, p = 0.029), although blood transfusion requirements were not significantly different (1.4 units vs. 1.2 units, p = 0.815). Left and right heart catheterization measurements and echocardiographic (ECHO) findings after 1 and 6 months of LVAD therapy were similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Survival at 30, 180, and 360 days after LVAD implantation is similar between the resternotomy and primary sternotomy group. No major differences in complications or hemodynamic measurements were observed. Although a limited observational study, our findings agree with previously published resternotomy outcomes.