Previous Issue
Volume 2, September

Surgeries, Volume 2, Issue 4 (December 2021) – 2 articles

  • Issues are regarded as officially published after their release is announced to the table of contents alert mailing list.
  • You may sign up for e-mail alerts to receive table of contents of newly released issues.
  • PDF is the official format for papers published in both, html and pdf forms. To view the papers in pdf format, click on the "PDF Full-text" link, and use the free Adobe Readerexternal link to open them.
Order results
Result details
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
Systematic Review
Systematic Review Comparing the Effectiveness of Robotic verse Laparoscopic Liver Surgery in Colorectal Liver Metastasis (CRLM)
Surgeries 2021, 2(4), 357-370; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/surgeries2040035 - 12 Oct 2021
Viewed by 146
Abstract
Introduction: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in the world. The liver is the most common site of metastasis with 15 to 25% of patients presenting with synchronous colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM). This study is aimed at evaluating the long- [...] Read more.
Introduction: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in the world. The liver is the most common site of metastasis with 15 to 25% of patients presenting with synchronous colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM). This study is aimed at evaluating the long- and short-term outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic CRLM surgery, and directly comparing their respective effectiveness. Methodology: A literature search was performed and all studies that reported on operative characteristics, oncological outcomes for CRLM, morbidity or mortality and cost-effectiveness on robotic or laparoscopic surgery were included. The study design was in keeping with the PRISMA guidelines. Results: From the initial 606 manuscripts identified, 19 studies were included in the final qualitative analysis. A total of 1340 patients with 1194 LLR (Laparoscopic Liver Resection) and 146 RLR (Robotic Liver Resection) cases were analysed. Within the LLR group, the average tumour size excised was 32.1 mm compared to the RLR group of 33.8 mm. The average operative time in the LLR was 193 min, CI of 95% (147.4 min to 238.6 min) compared to RLR 257 min, CI of 95% (201.5 min to 313.8 min) with a p-value < 0.0001. Estimated blood loss was lower in the RLR group (210 mL) compared with the LLR group (246 mL). Conclusion: Despite the higher operative cost, RLRs do not result in statistically better treatment outcomes, with the exception of lower estimated blood loss and excision of larger CRLMs. Operative time and total complication rate are significantly more favourable with LLRs. Our study has shown that robotic liver surgery is safe and feasible in well-selected patients. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Article
Monitoring of Cardiac Output Using a New Smartphone Application (Capstesia) vs. Vigileo FloTrac System
Surgeries 2021, 2(4), 347-356; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/surgeries2040034 - 28 Sep 2021
Viewed by 304
Abstract
(1) Background: We tested Capstesia against a reference system, Vigileo FloTrac, in patients undergoing major vascular surgery procedures. (2) Methods: Twenty-two adult patients (236 data pairs) were enrolled. Cardiac output (CO), stroke volume (SV), systemic vascular resistance (SVR), and related indexed parameters from [...] Read more.
(1) Background: We tested Capstesia against a reference system, Vigileo FloTrac, in patients undergoing major vascular surgery procedures. (2) Methods: Twenty-two adult patients (236 data pairs) were enrolled. Cardiac output (CO), stroke volume (SV), systemic vascular resistance (SVR), and related indexed parameters from the two monitoring systems were collected and compared at eleven time points during surgery. Intraclass correlation coefficients with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and Bland–Altman plots with percentages of error were used. (3) Results: The interclass correlation coefficients for CO, SV, and SVR were 0.527 (95%CI 0.387 to 0.634), 0.580 (95%CI 0.454 to 0.676), and 0.609 (95%CI 0.495 to 0.698), respectively. In the Bland–Altman analysis, bias (and limits of agreement) of CO was 0.33 L min−1 (−2.44; 3.10), resulting in a percentage error of 61.91% for CO. For SV, it was 5.02 mL (−36.42; 46.45), with 57.19% of error. Finally, the bias (and limit of agreement) of SVR was −75.99 dyne sec cm−5 (−870.04; 718.06), resulting in an error of 69.94%. (4) Conclusions: Although promising, cost-effective, and easy to use, the moderate level of agreement with Vigileo and the high level of error make Capstesia unsuitable for use in the intraoperative setting of vascular surgery. Critical errors in acquisition or digitalization of the snap might have a strong impact on the accuracy and performance. Further standardization of the acquisition technique and improvements in the processing algorithm are needed. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Previous Issue
Back to TopTop