Search

Introduction: Ohtahara syndrome (OS) is a rare drug-resistant epileptic encephalopathy characterized by frequent tonic spasms or focal motor seizures associated with the specific electroencephalographic pattern of burst suppression. It begins in the first months of life and represents less than 4% of childhood epilepsy cases. The prognosis depends from the aetiology and is generally poor with death in most cases during early childhood. The management of severe encephalopathies associated with OS is controversial, especially regarding the strategies to ensure the well-being of young patients and their families, requiring a continuous modulation of medical interventions: from the intensity of care waiting for the diagnosis, to palliative care where a prognosis of incurability, up to the possible desist from intensive/invasive treatments when they are no longer proportionate to the current clinical situation. Objective: Through the case of M, a 38-week-old newborn, intubated and mechanically ventilated since birth due to the absence of spontaneous respiratory activity, for whom the clinical diagnosis of OS was reached at about 4 months of life, we intend to investigate the related ethical issues: a. the proportionality and ethical-clinical appropriateness of treatments in patients for whom a poor prognosis quoad vitam is reached; b. the decision-making process to be shared with the parents, those were unable to accept the irreversibility of their daughter's illness, despite the psychological support offered to them from the beginning. Discussion: In a situation of probably irreversible pathology, such as severe encephalopathy with cortico-subcortical dysfunction and electrical-clinical picture of OS, associated with the absence of respiratory trigger, in which elements capable of modifying the prognosis quoad vitam do not emerge, and it is difficult for the parents to elaborate awareness about the seriousness of the disease, it becomes difficult to identify the limits

Purpose: Minimally invasive surgery has increasingly gained popularity as a treatment of choice for pancreatectomy with encouraging initial results in robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP). However, few data are available on the comparison between RDP and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs). Our aim, thus, is to compare perioperative and long-term outcomes as well as total costs of RDP and LDP for pNETs. Methods: All RDPs and LDPs for pNETs performed in four referral centers from 2008 to 2016 were included. Perioperative outcomes, histopathological results, overall (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS), and total costs were evaluated. Results: Ninety-six RDPs and 85 LDPs were included. Demographic and clinical characteristics were comparable between the two cohorts. Operative time was 36.5 min longer in the RDP group (p = 0.009) but comparable to LDP after removing the docking time (247.9 vs 233.7 min; p = 0.6). LDP related to a lower spleen preservation rate (44.7% vs 65.3%; p < 0.0001) and higher blood loss (239.7 ± 112 vs 162.5 ± 98 cc; p < 0.0001). Advantages in operative time for RDP were documented in case of the spleen preservation procedures (265 ± 41.52 vs 291 ± 23 min; p = 0.04). Conversion rate, postoperative morbidity, and pancreatic fistula rate were similar between the two groups, as well as histopathological data, OS, and DFS. Significant advantages were evidenced for LDP regarding mean total costs (9235 (± 1935) € vs 11,226 (± 2365) €; p < 0.0001). Conclusions: Both RDP and LDP are safe and efficacious for pNETs treatment. However, RDP offers advantages with a higher spleen preservation rate and lower blood loss. Costs still remain the main limitation of the robotic approach.