A Medium-Term Comparison of Quality of Life and Pain After Robotic or Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

INTRODUCTION

We sought to compare medium-term outcomes between robotic-assisted cholecystectomy (RC) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) using validated quality of life (QoL) and pain assessments.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent RC or LC between 2012 and 2017 at a single academic institution were examined. Cases converted to open were excluded. Patients were contacted by telephone in 2019 and completed two standardized surveys to rate their QoL and pain.

RESULTS

Of those screened, 122 (35.8%) completed both surveys. Ninety three (76.2%) underwent RC and 29 (23.8%) underwent LC. The groups (RC versus LC) were similar based on mean age (47.9 versus 45.5 y, P = 0.48), gender (66.7% versus 72.4% female, P = 0.56), race (86.0% White/5.4% Black versus 72.4% White/13.8% Black, P = 0.2), insurance status (98.9% versus 100.0% insured, P = 0.58), median body mass index (31.8 versus 31.3, P = 0.43), and median Charlson Comorbidity Index (1 versus 0, P = 0.14). Fewer RC patients had a history of steroid use compared to LC (16.1% versus 34.5%, P = 0.03). No overall significant difference in QoL was demonstrated. LC group had higher severity of "tiring-exhausting pain" (P = 0.04), "electric-shock pain" (P = 0.003), and "shooting pain" (P = 0.05). The "overall intensity" of pain in the "gallbladder region" between the groups was similar at the time of follow-up (P = 0.31).

CONCLUSIONS

QoL over 2-7 y following time of surgery is comparable for robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomies. The laparoscopic approach may be associated with a higher severity of subset categories of pain, but overall pain between the two approaches is comparable.

Basilar apex aneurysm systematic review: Microsurgical versus endovascular treatment

BACKGROUND

Both microsurgical and endovascular techniques continued to be treatment options for basilar apex aneurysms (BAA). We conducted a systematic review to compare both treatment options in terms of both clinical and radiological outcomes.

METHODS

The PRISMA method was used to identify related articles. Data collected from each article and the two treatment approaches were compared in terms of favorable clinical outcome and complete/near complete occlusion rate. Subgroup analysis was done based on the size and the rupture status of BAA.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine (59) and 32 articles reported a measurable clinical and radiological outcome respectively. The weighted average favorable clinical outcome was significantly higher in the endovascular group (86.4% vs 79.6%, P<0.0001), while the weighted average complete/near complete occlusion rate was significantly higher in the surgical group (92.6% vs 83.8%, P<0.0001). In the subgroup analysis, the favorable clinical outcome remained significantly higher in the endovascular group for the ruptured, unruptured and giant/large BAA (P<0.001), but not in the small BAA subgroup (P=0.26). The occlusion rate remained significantly higher in the surgical group for all subgroups (P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Treatment of BAA remains in a trade-off between favorable clinical outcome and complete or near-complete occlusion depending on the treatment modality selected. Careful selection of cases and judicial discussion between open surgical and endovascular team is warranted for treatment optimization.