Search

Your search keyword '"Casellas-Robert M."' showing total 2 results
Start Over Author "Casellas-Robert M." Topic length of stay
2 results on '"Casellas-Robert M."'

1. Open versus laparoscopic hepatectomies within an ERAS (Enhanced Recovery After Surgery) program. Are there differences?

Author

Nari GA, Castro-Gutiérrez E, Layún J, Falgueras-Verdaguer L, Mariot D, Albiol-Quer MT, and Casellas-Robert M

Subjects
Early Ambulation, Female, Hepatectomy adverse effects, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Operative Time, Enhanced Recovery After Surgery, Hepatectomy methods, Laparoscopy adverse effects, Length of Stay, Postoperative Complications
Abstract

Background: Laparoscopic procedures have gained popularity because they favor a faster recovery. In the same way, the establishment of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program in major abdominal surgery has shortened the hospital stay. There are several studies that report the results on ERAS programs applied to open or laparoscopic hepatectomies or comparing one of them with the classic approach but few have compared the results between both within an ERAS program., Objective: To compare the results between open and laparoscopic hepatectomies in the same ERAS program., Method: Thirty-six patients undergoing hepatectomies were enrolled in this study and were either laparoscopically or open in an identical ERAS program. Hospital stay and the number of complications were taken as primary end points., Results: There were no significant differences between both groups in terms of hospital stay or number of complications. The differences were in a shorter time of surgery and an earlier ambulation in favor of open surgery and a better full recovery in favor of the laparoscopic approach., Conclusions: Initial data suggest that there would be no benefits in terms of hospital stay and complication rate of laparoscopic hepatectomies over open ones within an ERAS program., (Copyright: © 2020 Permanyer.)

Published
2020
Full Text
View/download PDF

2. Utility of the Iwate difficulty scoring system for laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy: do surgical outcomes differ for tumors in segments VI and VII?

Author

Choi S. H., Chen K. -H., Syn N. L., Cipriani F., Cheung T. -T., Chiow A. K. H., Choi G. -H., Siow T. -F., Sucandy I., Marino M. V., Gastaca M., Chong C. C., Lee J. H., Ivanecz A., Mazzaferro V., Lopez-Ben S., Fondevila C., Rotellar F., Campos R. R., Efanov M., Kingham T. P., Sutcliffe R. P., Troisi R. I., Pratschke J., Wang X., D'Hondt M., Yong C. C., Levi Sandri G. B., Tang C. N., Ruzzenente A., Cherqui D., Ferrero A., Wakabayashi G., Scatton O., Aghayan D., Edwin B., Coelho F. F., Giuliante F., Liu R., Sijberden J., Abu Hilal M., Sugioka A., Long T. C. D., Fuks D., Aldrighetti L., Han H. -S., Goh B. K. P., Kang I., Jang J. Y., Chan C. -Y., D'Silva M., Schotte H., De Meyere C., Lai E., Krenzien F., Schmelzle M., Kadam P., Montalti R., Giglio M., Liu Q., Lee K. -F., Salimgereeva D., Alikhanov R., Lee L. -S., Prieto M., Lim C., Nghia P. P., Kojima M., Kato Y., Forchino F., Herman P., Kruger J. A. P., Saleh M., Pascual F., Dalla Valle B., Lopez-Lopez V., Casellas-Robert M., Giustizieri U., Citterio D., Mishima K., Fretland A. A., Ghotbi J., Ettorre G. M., Colasanti M., Guzman Y., Ardito F., Vani S., Wang H. -P., Choi, S. H., Chen, K. -H., Syn, N. L., Cipriani, F., Cheung, T. -T., Chiow, A. K. H., Choi, G. -H., Siow, T. -F., Sucandy, I., Marino, M. V., Gastaca, M., Chong, C. C., Lee, J. H., Ivanecz, A., Mazzaferro, V., Lopez-Ben, S., Fondevila, C., Rotellar, F., Campos, R. R., Efanov, M., Kingham, T. P., Sutcliffe, R. P., Troisi, R. I., Pratschke, J., Wang, X., D'Hondt, M., Yong, C. C., Levi Sandri, G. B., Tang, C. N., Ruzzenente, A., Cherqui, D., Ferrero, A., Wakabayashi, G., Scatton, O., Aghayan, D., Edwin, B., Coelho, F. F., Giuliante, F., Liu, R., Sijberden, J., Abu Hilal, M., Sugioka, A., Long, T. C. D., Fuks, D., Aldrighetti, L., Han, H. -S., Goh, B. K. P., Kang, I., Jang, J. Y., Chan, C. -Y., D'Silva, M., Schotte, H., De Meyere, C., Lai, E., Krenzien, F., Schmelzle, M., Kadam, P., Montalti, R., Giglio, M., Liu, Q., Lee, K. -F., Salimgereeva, D., Alikhanov, R., Lee, L. -S., Prieto, M., Lim, C., Nghia, P. P., Kojima, M., Kato, Y., Forchino, F., Herman, P., Kruger, J. A. P., Saleh, M., Pascual, F., Dalla Valle, B., Lopez-Lopez, V., Casellas-Robert, M., Giustizieri, U., Citterio, D., Mishima, K., Fretland, A. A., Ghotbi, J., Ettorre, G. M., Colasanti, M., Guzman, Y., Ardito, F., Vani, S., Wang, H. -P., Choi, Sung Hoon, Chen, Kuo-Hsin, Syn, Nicholas L, Cipriani, Federica, Cheung, Tan-To, Chiow, Adrian K H, Choi, Gi-Hong, Siow, Tiing-Foong, Sucandy, Iswanto, Marino, Marco V, Gastaca, Mikel, Chong, Charing C, Lee, Jae Hoon, Ivanecz, Arpad, Mazzaferro, Vincenzo, Lopez-Ben, Santiago, Fondevila, Constantino, Rotellar, Fernando, Campos, Ricardo Roble, Efanov, Mikhail, Kingham, T Peter, Sutcliffe, Robert P, Troisi, Roberto I, Pratschke, Johann, Wang, Xiaoying, D'Hondt, Mathieu, Yong, Chee Chien, Levi Sandri, Giovanni Battista, Tang, Chung Ngai, Ruzzenente, Andrea, Cherqui, Daniel, Ferrero, Alessandro, Wakabayashi, Go, Scatton, Olivier, Aghayan, Davit, Edwin, Bjørn, Coelho, Fabricio Ferreira, Giuliante, Felice, Liu, Rong, Sijberden, Jasper, Abu Hilal, Mohammad, Sugioka, Atsushi, Long, Tran Cong Duy, Fuks, David, Aldrighetti, Luca, Han, Ho-Seong, and Goh, Brian K P

Subjects
Carcinoma, Hepatocellular, Laparoscopic liver, Settore MED/18 - CHIRURGIA GENERALE, Operative Time, Liver Neoplasms, Carcinoma, Hepatocellular, Difficulty score, Length of Stay, Iwate, Laparoscopic hepatectomy, Right posterior sectionectomy, Treatment Outcome, Postoperative Complications, Humans, Hepatectomy, Surgery, Laparoscopy, Retrospective Studies
Abstract

Introduction: The Iwate Score (IS) have not been well-validated for specific procedures, especially for right posterior sectionectomy (RPS). In this study, the utility of the IS was determined for laparoscopic (L)RPS and the effect of tumor location on surgical outcomes was investigated. Methods: Post-hoc analysis of 647 L-RPS performed in 40 international centers of which 596L-RPS cases met the inclusion criteria. Baseline characteristics and perioperative outcomes of patients stratified based on the Iwate score were compared to determine whether a correlation with surgical difficulty existed. A 1:1 Mahalanobis distance matching was utilized to investigate the effect of tumor location on L-RPS outcomes. Results: The patients were stratified into 3 levels of difficulty (31 intermediate, 143 advanced, and 422 expert) based on the IS. When using a stepwise increase of the IS excluding the tumor location score, only Pringle’s maneuver was more frequently used in the higher surgical difficulty level (35.5%, 54.6%, and 65.2%, intermediate, advanced, and expert levels, respectively, Z = 3.34, p = 0.001). Other perioperative results were not associated with a statistical gradation toward higher difficulty level. 80 of 85 patients with a segment VI lesion and 511 patients with a segment VII lesion were matched 1:1. There were no significant differences in the perioperative outcomes of the two groups including open conversion, operating time, blood loss, intraoperative blood transfusion, postoperative stay, major morbidity, and mortality. Conclusion: Among patients undergoing L-RPS, the IS did not significantly correlate with most outcome measures associated with intraoperative difficulty and postoperative outcomes. Similarly, tumor location had no effect on L-RPS outcomes.

Published
2022

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results