Surgical outcomes in elective sigmoid resection for diverticulitis stratified according to indication: a propensity-score matched cohort study with 903 patients

OBJECTIVE

Weighing the perioperative risk of elective sigmoidectomy is done regardless of the specific diverticulitis classification. The aim of this study is to evaluate surgical outcomes according to the classification grade and the indication.

METHODS

All patients who underwent elective colonic resection for diverticulitis during the ten-year study period were included. They were divided into two groups: relative surgery indication (RSI) and absolute surgery indication (ASI). RSI included microabscess and recurrent uncomplicated disease. ASI included macroabscess and recurrent complicated disease. Propensity score-matching (PSM, 1:1) was performed.

RESULTS

585 patients fulfilled criteria for RSI and 318 patients fulfilled criteria for ASI. In the univariate analysis, RSI patients were younger (62 vs. 67.7 years, p < 0.001), had a higher physical status (ASA score 1 or 2 in 80.7% vs. 60.8%, p < 0.001), were less immunosuppressed (3.4% vs. 6.9%, p = 0.021) and suffered less often from coronary heart disease (3.8% vs. 7.2%, p = 0.025). After PSM, 318 RSI vs. 318 ASI patients were selected; baseline characteristics results were comparable. The proportion of planned laparoscopic resection was 93% in RSI versus 75% in ASI (p < 0.001), and the conversion rate to open surgery for laparoscopic resection was 5.0% and 13.8% in RSI versus ASI, respectively (p < 0.001). Major morbidity (Clavien/Dindo ≥ IIIb) occurred less frequently in RSI (3.77% vs. 10%, p = 0.003). A defunctioning stoma was formed in 0.9% and 11.0% in RSI vs ASI, respectively (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The lower risk for postoperative morbidity, the higher chance for a laparoscopic resection and the decreased rate of stoma formation are attributed to patients with recurrent uncomplicated diverticulitis or diverticulitis including a microabscess as compared to patients with complicated diverticulitis or diverticulitis and a macroabscess, and this applies even after PSM.

From laparoscopic to robotic-assisted Heller myotomy for achalasia in a single high-volume visceral surgery center: postoperative outcomes and quality of life

Background

Laparoscopic (LSC) Heller myotomy (HM) is considered the standard procedure for the treatment of achalasia. Robotic platforms, established over the last years, provide important advantages to surgeons, such as binocular 3-dimensional vision and improvement of fine motor control. However, whether perioperative outcomes and long-term results of robotic-assisted laparoscopic (RAL) HM are similar or even superior to LSC technique, especially concerning long-term follow-up, is still debated. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to evaluate intra- and postoperative results as well as long-term quality of life after RAL compared to LSC surgery for achalasia in a single high-volume visceral surgery center.

Methods

Between August 2007 and April 2020, 43 patients undergoing minimally invasive HM for achalasia in a single high-volume Swiss visceral surgery center, were included in the present study. Intra- and postoperative outcome parameters were collected and evaluated, and a long-term follow-up was performed using the gastroesophageal-reflux disease health-related quality of life (GERD-Hr-QuoL) questionnaire.

Results

A total of 11 patients undergoing RAL and 32 undergoing LSC HM were analyzed. Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics were similar. A trend (p = 0.052) towards a higher number of patients with ASA III score treated with RAL was detectable. Operation time was marginally, but significantly, shorter in LSC (140 min, IQR: 136–150) than in RAL (150 min, IQR: 150–187, p = 0.047). Postoperative complications graded Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3 were only observed in one patient in each group. Length of hospital stay was similar in both groups (LSC: 11 days, IQR: 10–13 vs. RAL: 11 days, IQR: 10–14, p = 0.712). Long-term follow-up (LSC: median 89 months, vs. RAL: median 28 months, p = 0.001) showed comparable results and patients from both groups expressed similar levels of satisfaction (p = 0.181).

Conclusions

LSC and RAL HM show similar peri- and postoperative results and a high quality of life, even in long-term (> 24 months) follow-up. Prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter trials are needed to overcome difficulties associated to small sample sizes in a rare condition and to confirm the equality or demonstrate the superiority of robotic-assisted procedures for achalasia. Meanwhile, the choice of the treatment technique could be left to the operating surgeon’s preferences.

Continuously sutured versus linear-stapled anastomosis in 76 robotic-assisted Ivor Lewis esophagectomies

Objective

We introduced robotic-assisted Ivor Lewis esophagectomies (rob-E) using the da Vinci Xi in Oct. 2015. Two anastomotic techniques have been performed – continuously sutured (COSU) and linear-stapled (LIST). Aim of this study is to evaluate the two anastomotic techniques regarding perioperative outcomes in our experience.

Methods

Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data between Oct. 2015 and Dec. 2020 including 76 patients. 45 underwent COSU and 31 LIST. Techniques are demonstrated with video material. Minor (Clavien-Dindo &lt; = 3a) and major (Clavien-Dindo &gt; = 3b) morbidity, rate of anastomotic insufficiency, mortality, and duration of hospitalization were compared.

Results

Patient characteristics were as follows: median age of 69 (35-83) years in COSU and 70 (36-83) years in LIST (p = 0.575), male gender in 84.4% of COSU and 83.9% of LIST (p = 1.000), and physical status with American Society of Anesthesiologists score 3 in 62.2% of COSU and 67.7% of LIST (p = 0.771). Concerning tumor characteristics there were 91.1% adenocarcinomas in COSU and 96.8% in LIST (p = 0.642), whereas the others were squamous cell carcinomas and one neuroendocrine tumor in COSU. The tumors were stage II in 22.2% respectively 32.3% and stage III in 57.8% respectively 48.4% of COSU and LIST (p = 0.555). Comparison of minor morbidity occurring in 60.0% of COSU and 54.8% of LIST (p = 0.813), major morbidity in 8.9% respectively 16.1% (p = 0.473), incidence of anastomotic insufficiency in 8.9% of COSU and 6.5% of LIST (p = 1.000), rate of surgical reintervention necessary in 2.2% respectively 9.7% (p = 0.298) as well as mortality of 2.2% in COSU and 3.2% in LIST (p = 1.000) showed no difference. Median duration of hospitalization of 20 (13-49) days in COSU and 20 (14-62) in LIST (p = 0.423) did not differ.

Conclusion

In rob-E COSU and LIST show comparable results and a preferable technique cannot be determined yet. Our results do not support the results of previous reports (Cerfolio et al.) that demonstrated a superiority of LIST. While stapling the backside of the anastomosis in LIST impresses as an elegant way to overcome the surgical demanding part of the anastomosis, other disadvantages such as compromising perfusion of the gastric conduit may prevail and limit the benefits. Further studies with a larger cohort are planned in order to draw more decisive conclusions.

Comparison of robotic-assisted and open Ivor Lewis esophagectomies in 321 patients of a single center: A case-matched analysis

Objective

We introduced robotic-assisted Ivor Lewis esophagectomies (rob-E) using the da Vinci Xi in Oct. 2015. Prior to that, esophagectomies were performed as open Ivor Lewis (open-E) procedures. Aim of this study is to evaluate the safety of rob-E in comparison to open-E procedures regarding perioperative outcomes.

Methods

Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data between Feb. 1999 and Dec. 2020. A case-matched analysis, matching open-E to rob-E in a 1:1 manner, was conducted. Cases were matched regarding age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, histological type of tumor, tumor location and stage.

Results

In the study period 321 patients underwent an esophagectomy. 76 received rob-E and 245 open-E. After matching the cases the comparison of preoperative patient and tumor characteristics revealed no differences between the rob-E and open-E group regarding age at time of operation with a median of 69.5 (35-83) respectively 70 (46-88) years (p = 0.900), gender with 84.2% male in both groups (p = 1.000), ASA score with 68.4% ASA 3 or 4 in both groups (p = 1.000), percentage of tumor stage III of 53.9% respectively 57.9% (p = 0.707), and rate of neoadjuvant treatment of 82.9% in rob-E and 81.6% in open-E (p = 1.000). Conversion from rob-E to open-E was never necessary. For rob-E versus open-E no difference was found regarding overall morbidity with 69.7% versus 60.5% (p = 0.307), major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo &gt; = 3b) with 11.8% versus 14.5% (p = 0.811), incidence of anastomotic insufficiency with 7.9% versus 5.3% (p = 0.745), rate of surgical reintervention with 5.3% versus 7.9% (p = 0.745), and mortality with 2.6% versus 3.9% (p = 1.000). Postoperative details showed no difference including a similar duration of hospitalization with a median of 20 (13-62) respectively 18.5 (13-52) days (p = 0.368) and number of harvested lymph nodes with a median of 24.5 (7-59) in rob-E and 23 (2-64) in open-E (p = 0.203).

Conclusion

The introduction of rob-E in our institution was safe, as perioperative morbidity and mortality did not differ from the previously performed open-E. Overall, the incidence of major morbidity and anastomotic insufficiency in rob-E and open-E show a satisfactory rate compared to previous reports in literature. Further studies with a larger cohort of rob-E are planned in order to draw more decisive conclusions.