Emergency laparoscopy: Role and implementation

Robotic versus laparoscopic general surgery in the emergency setting: a systematic review

Robot-assisted general surgery, an advanced technology in minimally invasive procedures, is increasingly employed in elective general surgery, showing benefits over laparoscopy in specific cases. Although laparoscopy remains a standard approach for common acute abdominal conditions, the role of robotic surgery in emergency general surgery remains uncertain. This systematic review aims to compare outcomes in acute general surgery settings for robotic versus laparoscopic surgeries. A PRISMA-compliant systematic search across MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the Cochrane Library was conducted. The literature review focused on articles comparing perioperative outcomes of emergency general surgery managed laparoscopically versus robot-assisted. A descriptive analysis was performed, and outcome measures were recorded. Six articles, involving 1,063 patients, compared outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic procedures. Two articles covered cholecystectomies, while the others addressed ileocaecal resection, subtotal colectomy, hiatal hernia and repair of perforated gastrojejunal ulcers. The level of evidence was low. Laparoscopic bowel resection in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) had higher complications; no significant differences were found in complications for other operations. Operative time showed no differences for cholecystectomies, but robotic approaches took longer for other procedures. Robotic cases had shorter hospital length of stay, although the associated costs were significantly higher. Perioperative outcomes for emergency robotic surgery in selected general surgery conditions are comparable to laparoscopic surgery. However, recommending robotic surgery in the acute setting necessitates a well-powered large population study for stronger evidence.

Safety and feasibility of emergency robot-assisted transabdominal preperitoneal repair for the treatment of incarcerated inguinal hernia: A retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Few studies assessed robotic in emergency setting and no solid evidence was demonstrated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of robot-assisted transabdominal preperitoneal (R-TAPP) repair for the treatment of incarcerated inguinal hernia.

METHODS

We retrospectively searched from a prospectively maintained database patients who underwent R-TAPP or open surgery for incarcerated inguinal hernias from January 2018 to March 2023. The primary endpoint was to assess safety and feasibility of the R-TAPP compared to the standard approach. For eligible patients, data was extracted and analyzed using a propensity score-matching (PSM).

RESULTS

Thirty-four patients were retrieved from our database, 15 underwent R-TAPP, while 19 underwent open surgery. Mean age was 73.1 ± 14.6 years, 30 patients (88.2%) were male and mean BMI was 23.5 ± 3.2 kg/m2. No intraoperative complication occurred. Three cases requiring small bowel resection were all in the open surgery group (p = 0.112). The operative time was 108 ± 31 min versus 112 ± 31 min in the R-TAPP and open surgery groups (p = 0.716). Seven postoperative complications occurred, only one classified as severe was in the open surgery group. The length of hospital stay was 2.9 ± 1.8 in the R-TAPP versus 4.2 ± 2.3 min in the open surgery group (p = 0.077). PSM analysis showed similar postoperative outcomes and costs in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite its limitations, our study appears to endorse the safety and feasibility of the robotic-assisted treatment for incarcerated inguinal hernia. This approach yielded comparable results to open surgery, albeit in a limited number of patients, suggesting it might be a viable alternative.

Cesena guidelines: WSES consensus statement on laparoscopic-first approach to general surgery emergencies and abdominal trauma

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy is widely adopted across nearly all surgical subspecialties in the elective setting. Initially finding indication in minor abdominal emergencies, it has gradually become the standard approach in the majority of elective general surgery procedures. Despite many technological advances and increasing acceptance, the laparoscopic approach remains underutilized in emergency general surgery and in abdominal trauma. Emergency laparotomy continues to carry a high morbidity and mortality. In recent years, there has been a growing interest from emergency and trauma surgeons in adopting minimally invasive surgery approaches in the acute surgical setting. The present position paper, supported by the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), aims to provide a review of the literature to reach a consensus on the indications and benefits of a laparoscopic-first approach in patients requiring emergency abdominal surgery for general surgery emergencies or abdominal trauma.

METHODS

This position paper was developed according to the WSES methodology. A steering committee performed the literature review and drafted the position paper. An international panel of 54 experts then critically revised the manuscript and discussed it in detail, to develop a consensus on a position statement.

RESULTS

A total of 323 studies (systematic review and meta-analysis, randomized clinical trial, retrospective comparative cohort studies, case series) have been selected from an initial pool of 7409 studies. Evidence demonstrates several benefits of the laparoscopic approach in stable patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery for general surgical emergencies or abdominal trauma. The selection of a stable patient seems to be of paramount importance for a safe adoption of a laparoscopic approach. In hemodynamically stable patients, the laparoscopic approach was found to be safe, feasible and effective as a therapeutic tool or helpful to identify further management steps and needs, resulting in improved outcomes, regardless of conversion. Appropriate patient selection, surgeon experience and rigorous minimally invasive surgical training, remain crucial factors to increase the adoption of laparoscopy in emergency general surgery and abdominal trauma.

CONCLUSIONS

The WSES expert panel suggests laparoscopy as the first approach for stable patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery for general surgery emergencies and abdominal trauma.

Intraoperative serum lactate levels as a prognostic predictor of outcome for emergency abdominal surgery: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

The relationship between intraoperative lactate levels and prognosis after emergency gastrointestinal surgery remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to investigate the prognostic value of intraoperative lactate levels for predicting in-hospital mortality, and to examine intraoperative hemodynamic managements.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective observational study of emergency GI surgeries performed at our institution between 2011 and 2020. The study group comprised patients admitted to intensive care units postoperatively, and whose intraoperative and postoperative lactate levels were available. Intraoperative peak lactate levels (intra-LACs) were selected for analysis, and in-hospital mortality was set as the primary outcome. The prognostic value of intra-LAC was assessed using logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 551 patients included in the study, 120 died postoperatively. Intra-LAC in the group who survived and the group that died was 1.80 [interquartile range [IQR], 1.19-3.01] mmol/L and 4.22 [IQR, 2.15-7.13] mmol/L (P < 0.001), respectively. Patients who died had larger volumes of red blood cell (RBC) transfusions and fluid administration, and were administered higher doses of vasoactive drugs. Logistic regression analysis showed that intra-LAC was an independent predictor of postoperative mortality (odds ratio [OR] 1.210, 95% CI 1.070 -1.360, P = 0.002). The volume of RBCs, fluids transfused, and the amount of vasoactive agents administered were not independent predictors. The area under the curve (AUC) of the ROC curve for intra-LAC for in-hospital mortality was 0.762 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.711-0.812), with a cutoff value of 3.68 mmol/L by Youden index.

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative lactate levels, but not hemodynamic management, were independently associated with increased in-hospital mortality after emergency GI surgery.

Role and Outcome of Laparoscopic/Minimally Invasive Surgery for Variety of Colorectal Emergencies

BACKGROUND

Recently, the laparoscopic or minimally invasive approach has become common practice for planned colorectal malignancies. Its use in the emergency setting is limited by various factors, including resource availability and surgical expertise. However, more recent evidence suggests a laparoscopic approach to colorectal emergencies, which is comparable with laparoscopic routine work, and often promising. In this study, authors have investigated the outcome of the laparoscopic approach in both benign and malignant colorectal emergencies.

METHOD

Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data (theater records, histology database, and discharge records) over the course of 9 years. The standard surgical approach included conventional laparoscopic and single-port technique (single-incision laparoscopic surgery). The outcome variables included in the final analysis were: success of the minimally invasive approach, conversion rate, postoperative complications, return to theater, and mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 202 (males, 110 and females, 92) emergency patients with a median age of 59 years underwent surgery between December 2009 and 2019. The mean operating time was 169 minutes and median American Society of Anesthesiology grade III. Single-incision laparoscopic surgery was used in 19 patients (9.4%). The conversion to open surgery was 12.3% (n=25). The majority of them had primary anastomosis (n= 132, 65.3%).The complications from most to least frequent were: CONCLUSION:: The favorable results obtained in this study underline the theme that with the availability of resources and expertise, it is possible to offer minimal invasive approach to emergency colonic pathology.

Primary laparoscopic approach to repair perforated peptic ulcer. A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Perforated peptic ulcer is a serious complication of peptic ulcer disease and carries high risk for morbidity and mortality. Although the incidence of peptic ulcer disease has decreased in recent decades, the percentage of patients with perforated peptic ulcer requiring emergency surgery remains constant. The use of laparoscopic management as a first choice for the treatment of the perforation is growing but is not routine in many centers.

METHODS

Clinical and surgical data on 42 patients underwent surgical treatment for perforated peptic ulcer from January 2012 to December 2016 were collected. Laparoscopic repair of the perforation with a three-port technique was made in all cases. The Boey scoring system was used to predict the prognosis.

RESULTS

All patients underwent suture-closure of the ulcer, and omental patch through laparoscopy without conversion to open surgery. Duodenal leakages occurred in 3 patients (7.1%), then treated with a conservative approach and resolved on the 10^th postoperative day. Two patients (4.7%) had deep space infections in the first week after surgery, therefore subdiaphragmatic and pelvic abscess were drained by ultrasound guidance. Four patients (9.5%) died up to 30-day post-surgery due to progression of multisystem organ failure in absence of leakages or infections. All these patients were American Society of Anesthesiologists Classification >III and Boey Score 3.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data show that a primary laparoscopic approach in patients with peptic ulcer perforation is associated with postoperative advantages and acceptable rates of morbidity and mortality, essentially related to high Boey Score. Therefore, we suggest that the surgical repair of PPU could be always started laparoscopically.

Emergency surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic: what you need to know for practice

INTRODUCTION

Several articles have been published about the reorganisation of surgical activity during the COVID-19 pandemic but few, if any, have focused on the impact that this has had on emergency and trauma surgery. Our aim was to review the most current data on COVID-19 to provide essential suggestions on how to manage the acute abdomen during the pandemic.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted of the most relevant English language articles on COVID-19 and surgery published between 15 December 2019 and 30 March 2020.

FINDINGS

Access to the operating theatre is almost exclusively restricted to emergencies and oncological procedures. The use of laparoscopy in COVID-19 positive patients should be cautiously considered. The main risk lies in the presence of the virus in the pneumoperitoneum: the aerosol released in the operating theatre could contaminate both staff and the environment.

CONCLUSIONS

During the COVID-19 pandemic, all efforts should be deployed in order to evaluate the feasibility of postponing surgery until the patient is no longer considered potentially infectious or at risk of perioperative complications. If surgery is deemed necessary, the emergency surgeon must minimise the risk of exposure to the virus by involving a minimal number of healthcare staff and shortening the occupation of the operating theatre. In case of a lack of security measures to enable safe laparoscopy, open surgery should be considered.