Search

Background: Although single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) is safe and effective, inherent surgeons' discomfort has prevented a large-scale adaptation of this technique. Recent advances in robotic technology suggest that da Vinci Single-Site™ cholecystectomy (dVSSC) may overcome this issue by reducing the stress load of the surgeon compared to SILC. However, evidence to objectively assess differences between the two approaches is lacking.Methods: 60 patients [36 women, 24 men (mean age 52 years)] with benign gallbladder disease were randomly assigned to dVSSC (n = 30) or SILC (n = 30) in this single-centre, single-blinded controlled trial. The primary endpoint was surgeon's stress load. Secondary endpoints included operating time, conversion rates, additional trocar placement, blood loss, length of hospital stay, procedure costs, health-related quality of life, cosmesis and complications. Data were collected preoperatively, during the hospital stay, and at 1 and 12 months' follow-up.Results: The dVSSC group showed a significant reduction of mental stress load of the surgeon compared to SILC [Subjective Mental Effort Questionnaire (SMEQ) score: median 25.0 (range 8-89) vs. 42.5 (range 13-110) points; p = 0.002] and a trend towards reduced physical stress load [Local Experienced Discomfort (LED) score: median 8 (range 2-27) vs. 12 (range 0-64) points; p = 0.088]. The length of hospital stay was longer in the SILC group [mean 3.06 (median 2; range 1-26) vs. 1.9 (median 2; range 1-4) days, p = 0.034] but overall hospital costs were higher for dVSSC [median 9734 (range 5775-16729) vs. 6900 (range 4156-99977) CHF; p = 0.001]. There were no differences in the rate of postoperative complications that required re-intervention (Dindo-Clavien grade ≥ IIIa; SILC n = 2 vs. dVSSC n = 0, p = 0.492) or other secondary endpoints.Conclusions: Da Vinci Single-Site™ cholecystectomy provides significant benefits over Single-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy in terms of surgeon's stress load, matches the standards of the laparoscopic single-incision approach with regard to patients' outcomes but increases expenses. Clinicaltrials.gov registration-No.: NCT02485392. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The aim of this post hoc analysis was to examine self-reported recovery following a post-discharge intervention and to focus on the moderators of this intervention programme.Methods: RCT using parallel group block randomisation, including 151 patients with ≤3 hospitalisations within the last 3 years, a GAF score ≤60, and aged 18-64 years, assessed at two psychiatric hospitals from Zurich, Switzerland, between September 2011 and February 2014. In the present study, the main outcome was the OQ-45 as assessed prior to discharge from the index hospitalisation and at 12-month follow-up. Participants received either the post-discharge intervention provided by a social worker or treatment as usual (TAU).Results: Patients in the intervention group showed substantially less recovery over the 12-month observation period than controls (d = 0.44). In the TAU group, 15.6 % remained clinically impaired at 12-month follow-up as opposed to 48.1 % in the intervention group (p = 0.001). Among participants in the intervention group, an interdisciplinary meeting of significant network members was associated with less recovery (d = 0.46). Involuntary index admission (d = 0.42) and high educational degree (d = 0.52) were significant moderators of the intervention. Both factors related to less recovery over time in the intervention group relative to TAU.Conclusions: According to the OQ-45, this psychosocial post-discharge intervention revealed an unintended negative effect on self-reported recovery over time. Specifically, the meeting of significant network members related to a moderate deteriorating effect, suggesting that the involvement of some carers, relatives, or friends may cause harm to the patient. Considering with reservation pending replication, these findings could have important implications for brief interventions targeted at patients' social networks.Funding: This study was supported by a private foundation.Trial Registration: ISRCTN58280620. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]