Training curriculum in minimally invasive emergency digestive surgery: 2022 WSES position paper

The role of RObotic surgery in EMergency setting (ROEM): protocol for a multicentre, observational, prospective international study on the use of robotic platform in emergency surgery

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery has gained widespread acceptance in elective interventions, yet its role in emergency procedures remains underexplored. While the 2021 WSES position paper discussed limited studies on the application of robotics in emergency general surgery, it recommended strict patient selection, adequate training, and improved platform accessibility. This prospective study aims to define the role of robotic surgery in emergency settings, evaluating intraoperative and postoperative outcomes and assessing its feasibility and safety.

METHODS

The ROEM study is an observational, prospective, multicentre, international analysis of clinically stable adult patients undergoing robotic surgery for emergency treatment of acute pathologies including diverticulitis, cholecystitis, and obstructed hernias. Data collection includes patient demographics and intervention details. Furthermore, data relating to the operating theatre team and the surgical instruments used will be collected in order to conduct a cost analysis. The study plans to enrol at least 500 patients from 50 participating centres, with each centre having a local lead and collaborators. All data will be collected and stored online through a secure server running the Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) web application. Ethical considerations and data governance will be paramount, requiring local ethical committee approvals from participating centres.

DISCUSSION

Current literature and expert consensus suggest the feasibility of robotic surgery in emergencies with proper support. However, challenges include staff training, scheduling conflicts with elective surgeries, and increased costs. The ROEM study seeks to contribute valuable data on the safety, feasibility, and cost-effectiveness of robotic surgery in emergency settings, focusing on specific pathologies. Previous studies on cholecystitis, abdominal hernias, and diverticulitis provide insights into the benefits and challenges of robotic approaches. It is necessary to identify patient populations that benefit most from robotic emergency surgery to optimize outcomes and justify costs.

Structured feedback and operative video debriefing with critical view of safety annotation in training of laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND

The learning curve in minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is lengthened compared to open surgery. It has been reported that structured feedback and training in teams of two trainees improves MIS training and MIS performance. Annotation of surgical images and videos may prove beneficial for surgical training. This study investigated whether structured feedback and video debriefing, including annotation of critical view of safety (CVS), have beneficial learning effects in a predefined, multi-modal MIS training curriculum in teams of two trainees.

METHODS

This randomized-controlled single-center study included medical students without MIS experience (n = 80). The participants first completed a standardized and structured multi-modal MIS training curriculum. They were then randomly divided into two groups (n = 40 each), and four laparoscopic cholecystectomies (LCs) were performed on ex-vivo porcine livers each. Students in the intervention group received structured feedback after each LC, consisting of LC performance evaluations through tutor-trainee joint video debriefing and CVS video annotation. Performance was evaluated using global and LC-specific Objective Structured Assessments of Technical Skills (OSATS) and Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic Skills (GOALS) scores.

RESULTS

The participants in the intervention group had higher global and LC-specific OSATS as well as global and LC-specific GOALS scores than the participants in the control group (25.5 ± 7.3 vs. 23.4 ± 5.1, p = 0.003; 47.6 ± 12.9 vs. 36 ± 12.8, p < 0.001; 17.5 ± 4.4 vs. 16 ± 3.8, p < 0.001; 6.6 ± 2.3 vs. 5.9 ± 2.1, p = 0.005). The intervention group achieved CVS more often than the control group (1. LC: 20 vs. 10 participants, p = 0.037, 2. LC: 24 vs. 8, p = 0.001, 3. LC: 31 vs. 8, p < 0.001, 4. LC: 31 vs. 10, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Structured feedback and video debriefing with CVS annotation improves CVS achievement and ex-vivo porcine LC training performance based on OSATS and GOALS scores.

European society for trauma and emergency surgery member-identified research priorities in emergency surgery: a roadmap for future clinical research opportunities

BACKGROUND

European Society for Trauma and Emergency Surgery (ESTES) is the European community of clinicians providing care to the injured and critically ill surgical patient. ESTES has several interlinked missions - (1) the promotion of optimal emergency surgical care through networked advocacy, (2) promulgation of relevant clinical cognitive and technical skills, and (3) the advancement of scientific inquiry that closes knowledge gaps, iteratively improves upon surgical and perioperative practice, and guides decision-making rooted in scientific evidence. Faced with multitudinous opportunities for clinical research, ESTES undertook an exercise to determine member priorities for surgical research in the short-to-medium term; these research priorities were presented to a panel of experts to inform a 'road map' narrative review which anchored these research priorities in the contemporary surgical literature.

METHODS

Individual ESTES members in active emergency surgery practice were polled as a representative sample of end-users and were asked to rank potential areas of future research according to their personal perceptions of priority. Using the modified eDelphi method, an invited panel of ESTES-associated experts in academic emergency surgery then crafted a narrative review highlighting potential research priorities for the Society.

RESULTS

Seventy-two responding ESTES members from 23 countries provided feedback to guide the modified eDelphi expert consensus narrative review. Experts then crafted evidence-based mini-reviews highlighting knowledge gaps and areas of interest for future clinical research in emergency surgery: timing of surgery, inter-hospital transfer, diagnostic imaging in emergency surgery, the role of minimally-invasive surgical techniques and Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols, patient-reported outcome measures, risk-stratification methods, disparities in access to care, geriatric outcomes, data registry and snapshot audit evaluations, emerging technologies interrogation, and the delivery and benchmarking of emergency surgical training.

CONCLUSIONS

This manuscript presents the priorities for future clinical research in academic emergency surgery as determined by a sample of the membership of ESTES. While the precise basis for prioritization was not evident, it may be anchored in disease prevalence, controversy around aspects of current patient care, or indeed the identification of a knowledge gap. These expert-crafted evidence-based mini-reviews provide useful insights that may guide the direction of future academic emergency surgery research efforts.

Robotic Cholecystectomy Remains Safe and Effective After Regular Staffing Hours

Background Robotic-assisted surgery continues to grow in popularity. Access during evenings and weekends for non-elective operations can be restricted out of safety concerns. We sought to analyze and compare outcomes of patients undergoing robotic cholecystectomy, a common urgent procedure for acute calculous cholecystitis, during regular hours versus evenings or weekends. Based on this comparison, we sought to determine if this restriction is justified. Methods We performed a retrospective analysis of 46 patients who underwent robotic cholecystectomy for acute calculous cholecystitis per 2018 Tokyo criteria by a single surgeon at a single institution between 2021 and 2022. Patients were grouped as undergoing "after-hours" cholecystectomy if the operation started at five pm or later, or anytime during the weekend (Saturday, Sunday). Demographic, perioperative, and outcome variables were tabulated and analyzed. For illustrative purposes, the data presented as median ± standard deviation were applicable. Results After-hours cholecystectomy occurred in 26 patients and regular-hours cholecystectomy occurred in 20 patients. There were no significant differences in perioperative variables between the two cohorts in terms of body mass index, age, gender, cirrhotic status, American Society of Anesthesiology score, white blood cell count, or neutrophil percentage. The after-hours group had more prior abdominal operations. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of operative time, estimated blood loss, or length of stay. There were no mortalities. There was one readmission in the after-hours cohort unrelated to the operation. Conclusion Robotic cholecystectomy can be safely performed on the weekends and evenings. Hospitals should make the robotic platform available during this time.

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.

New Robotic Platforms in General Surgery: What's the Current Clinical Scenario?

Background and Objectives: Robotic surgery has been widely adopted in general surgery worldwide but access to this technology is still limited to a few hospitals. With the recent introduction of new robotic platforms, several studies reported the feasibility of different surgical procedures. The aim of this systematic review is to highlight the current clinical practice with the new robotic platforms in general surgery. Materials and Methods: A grey literature search was performed on the Internet to identify the available robotic systems. A PRISMA compliant systematic review was conducted for all English articles up to 10 February 2023 searching the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. Clinical outcomes, training process, operating surgeon background, cost-analysis, and specific registries were evaluated. Results: A total of 103 studies were included for qualitative synthesis after the full-text screening. Of the fifteen robotic platforms identified, only seven were adopted in a clinical environment. Out of 4053 patients, 2819 were operated on with a new robotic device. Hepatopancreatobiliary surgery specialty performed the majority of procedures, and the most performed procedure was cholecystectomy. Globally, 109 emergency surgeries were reported. Concerning the training process, only 45 papers reported the background of the operating surgeon, and only 28 papers described the training process on the surgical platform. Only one cost-analysis compared a new robot to the existing reference. Two manufacturers promoted a specific registry to collect clinical outcomes. Conclusions: This systematic review highlights the feasibility of most surgical procedures in general surgery using the new robotic platforms. Adoption of these new devices in general surgery is constantly growing with the extension of regulatory approvals. Standardization of the training process and the assessment of skills' transferability is still lacking. Further studies are required to better understand the real clinical and economical benefit.