Search

Background: There is a paucity of data comparing open, robotic, and laparoscopic approaches on unilateral, non-recurrent inguinal hernias. Our study presents a large, retrospective triple-arm outcome analysis between robotic, laparoscopic, and open unilateral, non-recurrent inguinal hernia repairs at a single institution., Methods: 706 patients who underwent elective, non-recurrent inguinal hernia repair performed by 8 general surgeons at a single institution from 2016 to 2019 were reviewed retrospectively. Patient baseline characteristics, operative times, resident involvement, and postoperative outcomes were analyzed for all repair types. A cost analysis of the different procedures was performed., Results: There were 305 laparoscopic repairs, 207 robotic repairs, and 194 open repairs. Open and laparoscopic repairs were performed on patients who were older (p =< .001) and with a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index (p =< .001). Patient BMI was higher in minimally invasive repair than open repair (P = .021). There were no significant differences in complication rates on pairwise analysis. Robotic and open repairs had significantly longer operative times than laparoscopic repairs (P < .001). There was less resident involvement in robotic repair than with the other approaches (P < .001). Resident involvement was associated with shorter OR times (P = .001) and no significant difference in postoperative complications. There was a trend over the study period toward faster operative times and more robotic repair. Robotic repair is the most expensive repair, followed by laparoscopic and open repairs., Conclusion: All 3 repair techniques can be performed without significant differences in outcomes. The technique utilized should be based on surgeon preference and patient characteristics., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Introduction: Failure of the cricopharyngeus to relax results in oropharyngeal dysphagia, which over time results in hypertrophy and increased risk for aspiration. Open myotomy is one definitive treatment option, however there are several drawbacks attributable to the long neck incision, ± drain placement, and invasiveness of the procedure. We aim to share our experience using the DaVinci robotic platform to perform a minimally invasive cricopharyngeal myotomy, which has never been described before in the literature., Methods: All robotic cricopharyngeal myotomies performed in adult patients by a single surgeon from 2021 to 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. No patients were excluded. Outcomes of interest included length of procedure, time to diet resumption, hospital length of stay, complications, symptom improvement at follow-up, and symptom recurrence., Results: Eight robotic cricopharyngeal myotomies were performed. The median age was 65 years old (62-91) and mostly female (n = 5, 56%) with a median BMI of 28.9 kg/m 2 (21.7-39.5). The median procedure length was 113 min (94-141) and there were no intraoperative complications. All patients underwent a post-procedural esophagram with no leaks were identified. All patients were started on clear liquids in recovery and transitioned to full liquids prior to discharge. All but one patient was subsequently discharged home on the same day as procedure. All patients had routine 2-week post-operative follow-up in addition to phone follow-up at a later date (6-11 months post-operative). All patients reported resolution of symptoms. There were no complications or readmissions. No instances of recurrence were reported. On cost analysis, the minimally invasive robotic approach allows for an outpatient procedure with similar cost to an open approach with a one-night stay., Conclusion: Our experience with the novel technique of minimally invasive robotic cricopharyngeal myotomy for cricopharyngeal bars with cervical dysphagia is safe, efficacious, less invasive, and cost saving, with excellent patient outcomes., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Purpose: Patient optimization and selecting the proper technique to repair large incisional hernias is a multifaceted challenge. Body mass index (BMI) is a modifiable variable that may infer higher intra-abdominal pressures and, thus, predict the need for component separation (CS) at the time of surgery, but no data exist to support this. This paper assesses if the ratio of anterior-posterior (AP): transverse (TRSV) abdominal diameter, from pre-operative CT imaging, indicates a larger proportion of intra-abdominal fat and correlates with a hernia defect requiring a component separation for successful tension-free closure., Methods: Ninety patients were identified who underwent either an open hernia repair with mesh by primary closure (N = 53) or who required a component separation at the time of surgery (N = 37). Pre-operative CT images were used to measure hernia defect width, AP abdominal diameter, and TRSV abdominal diameter. Quantitative data, nominal data, and logistic regression was used to determine predictors associated with surgical group categorization., Results: The average hernia defect widths for primary closure and CS were 7.7 ± 3.6 cm (mean ± SD) and 9.8 ± 4.5, respectively (p = 0.015). The average BMI for primary closure was 33.9 ± 7.2 and 33.8 ± 4.9 for those requiring CS (p = 0.924). The AP:TRSV diameter ratios for primary closure and CS were 0.41 ± 0.08 and 0.49 ± 0.10, respectively (p < 0.001). In a multivariate analysis including both defect width and AP:TRSV diameter ratio, only AP:TRSV diameter ratio predicted the need for a CS (p = 0.001) while BMI did not (p = 0.92)., Conclusion: Intraabdominal fat distribution measured by AP:TRSV abdominal diameter ratio correlates with successful tension-free fascial closure during incisional hernia repair, while BMI does not., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: The treatment of Zenker's diverticulum has been shifted from open cricopharyngeal myotomy and rigid endoscopy to the use of flexible endoscopy. Few studies evaluate general surgeon's performance of flexible endoscopic management of Zenker's diverticulum as the majority are performed by gastroenterologists. The objective of our case series is to show that general surgeons trained in surgical endoscopy can perform this procedure with favorable outcomes., Methods: A retrospective review of peroral cricopharyngeal myotomies performed at Spectrum Health hospital in Grand Rapids, Michigan by a single surgical endoscopist between the 2018 and 2021 was conducted. The primary outcome was the improvement of dysphagia. Intra-procedural complications, post-procedural complications, hospital length of stay, time to oral intake, and recurrence were also evaluated. Age, sex, body mass index, diverticulum size, and procedure time were abstracted. Median (ranges) and frequencies (percentages) are used to describe the patient population and outcomes., Results: Forty patients were included in the study. Median age was 74 years old (60-95) with a male predominance (n = 27, 67.5%). Median BMI was 28 kg/m2 (18-43), average procedure length of 64 min (41-119), diverticulum size of 28 mm (19-90), and average length of stay of 0.9 days (0-8). There were no intra-procedural complications. All patients had a post-procedural esophagram prior to initiation of diet. Esophageal leak was the only complication that occurred, which was found on post-procedural esophagram (n = 5). Only two patients had clinical sequelae. All leaks closed without additional surgical intervention. The majority of patients had their diet resumed and discharged the same day of the procedure. Frequency of recurrence was 17.5% (n = 7)., Conclusion: Our study demonstrates that general surgeons trained in endoscopy can perform endoscopic myotomies for Zenker's diverticula on a wide range of sizes, with favorable patient outcomes, and few complications., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)