Search

Background: The safety and efficacy of robotic liver resection (RLR) for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have been reported worldwide. However, the exact role of RLR in HCC patients with liver cirrhosis is not sufficiently determined. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study on consecutive patients with cirrhosis or non-cirrhosis who received RLR for HCC from 2018 to 2023. Data on patients' demographics and perioperative outcomes were collected and analyzed. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the risk factors of prolonged postoperative length of stay (LOS) and morbidity. Results: Of the 571 patients included, 364 (64%) had cirrhosis. Among the cirrhotic patients, 48 (13%) were classified as Child–Pugh B. After PSM, the cirrhosis and non-cirrhosis group (n = 183) had similar operative time, estimated blood loss, postoperative blood transfusion, LOS, overall morbidity (p > 0.05). In addition, the intraoperative and postoperative outcomes were similar between the two groups in the subgroup analyses of patients with tumor size ≥ 5 cm, major hepatectomy, and high/expert IWATE difficulty grade. However, patients with Child–Pugh B cirrhosis had longer LOS and more overall morbidity than that of Child–Pugh A. Child–Pugh B cirrhosis, ASA score > 2, longer operative time, and multiple tumors were risk factors of prolonged LOS or morbidity in patients with cirrhosis. Conclusion: The presence of Child–Pugh A cirrhosis didn't significantly influence the difficulty and perioperative outcomes of RLR for selected patients with HCC. However, even in high-volume center, Child–Pugh B cirrhosis was a risk factor for poor postoperative outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Robotic distal gastrectomy (RDG) is a new technique that is rapidly gaining popularity and may help overcome the limitations of laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG); however, its safety and therapeutic efficacy remain controversial. Therefore, this meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of RDG.Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for studies that compared RDG and LDG and were published between the time of database inception and May 2021. We assessed the bias risk of the observational studies using ROBIN-I, and a random effect model was always applied.Results: The meta-analysis included 22 studies involving 5386 patients. Compared with LDG, RDG was associated with longer operating time (Mean Difference [MD] = 43.88, 95% CI = 35.17-52.60), less intraoperative blood loss (MD = - 24.84, 95% CI = - 41.26 to - 8.43), a higher number of retrieved lymph nodes (MD = 2.41, 95% CI = 0.77-4.05), shorter time to first flatus (MD = - 0.09, 95% CI = - 0.15 to - 0.03), shorter postoperative hospital stay (MD = - 0.68, 95% CI = - 1.27 to - 0.08), and lower incidence of pancreatic fistula (OR = 0.23, 95% CI = 0.07-0.79). Mean proximal and distal resection margin distances, time to start liquid and soft diets, and other complications were not significantly different between RDG and LDG groups. However, in the propensity-score-matched meta-analysis, the differences in time to first flatus and postoperative hospital stay between the two groups lost significance.Conclusions: Based on the available evidence, RDG appears feasible and safe, shows better surgical and oncological outcomes than LDG and, comparable postoperative recovery and postoperative complication outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of preoperative biliary drainage (PBD) on outcomes of pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) in patients with biliary obstruction. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and Web of Science from database inception to 11 March 2021. We used the ROBINS-I tool and Cochrane risk of bias tool 2.0 to assess the risk of bias. The data were statistically analyzed using the RevMan software (Version 5.4). In all, 43 studies, including 23,076 patients, were analyzed, of which 13,922 patients were treated with PBD and 9154 were treated with no preoperative biliary drainage (NPBD). The morbidity , infection morbidity , and postoperative pancreatic fistulae (POPF) in patients undergoing PBD, were significantly higher than those in patients undergoing NPBD. Further, PBD may lead to a significantly worse 2- and 3-year overall survival (OS) rates. In subgroup meta-analysis, the differences in morbidity, POPF, and OS outcomes lost significance between the PBD and NPBD groups when the mean total serum bilirubin (TSB) concentration was below 15 mg/dl. Routine PBD still cannot be recommended because it showed no beneficial effect on postoperative outcomes. However, in patients with < 15 mg/dl TSB concentration, PBD tends to be a better choice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Biliary tract reconstruction with or without T-tube is commonly used in orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT). However, the efficacy and safety of T-tube usage remain controversial. This meta-analysis was conducted to assess the latest evidence of clinical outcomes. Methods: Embase, Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Web of Science were systematically searched from inception to 20 January 2021 for eligible studies. The analyses were performed using Review Manager and Stata. Results: A total of 24 trials involving 3320 participants were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with the no T-tube group, there was a higher incidence of overall biliary complications (OR:1.54; 95%CI, 1.06–2.24; P = 0.02), bile leaks (OR:2.34; 95%CI,1.57–3.48; P < 0.0001), cholangitis (OR:2.78; 95%CI,1.19–6.51; P = 0.002), and longer cold ischemia time (MD:22.27; 95%CI,0.80–43.74; P = 0.04) in the T-tube group. Furthermore, the no T-tube group had significantly higher odds of biliary strictures than the T-tube group (OR:0.60; 95%CI, 0.47–0.78; P = 0.0001). Conclusion: T-tube is still not routinely recommended, but is a good choice for OLT patients at high risk of biliary strictures. Notably, the higher rate of biliary complications in the T-tube group did not translate into an increase in endoscopic or re-operative interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]