Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy Techniques: A Contemporary Analysis Exploring Trends, Similarities, and Differences to Open Surgery

High Rates of Union Following Arthroscopic Treatment of Scaphoid Non-Union: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To synthesize and analyze the existing literature and report on the outcomes of arthroscopic surgery for the treatment of scaphoid non-union (SNU).

METHODS

This systematic review conforms to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. The authors conducted a search using Medline and Embase databases. Studies that reported outcomes on arthroscopic nonvascularized bone graft for SNU treatment, with no limits to follow-up, sample sizes or prevalence were included.

RESULTS

We found 17 eligible studies composed of 20 datasets, and all assessed nonvascularized arthroscopic treatment for SNU, with a mean follow-up that ranged from 6 to 38.5 months. Union rates ranged between 86% and 100%, and none of the studies reported any other complications than non-union following arthroscopic SNU.

CONCLUSIONS

The present systematic review found union rates ranging between 86% and 100%, with a time to union ranging from 2.3 to 7.8 months. Furthermore, the included studies reported satisfactory clinical scores, and the complication rate of non-union ranged between 0% and 14%.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, systematic review of level II-IV studies.

ROBOTIC ASSISTED VERSUS LAPAROSCOPIC DISTAL PANCREATECTOMY: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is associated with less blood loss and faster functional recovery. However, the benefits of robotic assisted distal pancreatectomy (RDP) over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) are unknown.

AIMS

To compare RDP versus LDP for surgical treatment of benign lesions, pre-malignant and borderline malignant pancreatic neoplasias.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study comparing LDP with RDP. Main outcomes were overall morbidity and overall costs. Secondary outcomes were pancreatic fistula (PF), infectious complications, readmission, operative time (OT) and length of hospital stay (LOS).

RESULTS

Thirty patients submitted to LDP and 29 submitted to RDP were included in the study. There was no difference regarding preoperative characteristics. There was no difference regarding overall complications (RDP - 72,4% versus LDP - 80%, p=0,49). Costs were superior for patients submitted to RDP (RDP=US$ 6,688 versus LDP=US$ 6,149, p=0,02), mostly due to higher costs of surgical materials (RDP=US$ 2,364 versus LDP=1,421, p=0,00005). Twenty-one patients submitted to RDP and 24 to LDP developed pancreatic fistula (PF), but only 4 RDP and 7 LDP experienced infectious complications associated with PF. OT (RDP=224 min. versus LDP=213 min., p=0.36) was similar, as well as conversion to open procedure (1 RDP and 2 LDP).

CONCLUSIONS

The postoperative morbidity of robotic distal pancreatectomy is comparable to laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. However, the costs of robotic distal pancreatectomy are slightly higher.