Search

Your search keyword '"Giacomo, Arcuri"' showing total 4 results
Start Over Author "Giacomo, Arcuri"
4 results on '"Giacomo, Arcuri"'

1. Augmented reality (AR) in minimally invasive surgery (MIS) training: where are we now in Italy? The Italian Society of Endoscopic Surgery (SICE) ARMIS survey

Author

Balla, Andrea, Sartori, Alberto, Botteri, Emanuele, Podda, Mauro, Ortenzi, Monica, Silecchia, Gianfranco, Guerrieri, Mario, Agresta, Ferdinando, Antonino, Agrusa, Daniele, Aguzzi, Mariantonietta, Alagia, Laura, Alberici, Marco Ettore Allaix, Luisa, Ambrosio, Alfonso, Amendola, Michele, Ammendola, Pietro Maria Amodio, Gabriele, Anania, Jacopo, Andreuccetti, Alfredo, Annichiarico, Pietro, Anoldo, Alessandro, Anselmo, Giovanni, Aprea, Giacomo, Arcuri, Alberto, Arezzo, Giulia, Armatura, Giulia, Bagaglini, Francesco, Bagolini, Beatrice, Bailetti, Gianluca, Baiocchi, Edoardo, Baldini, Elisa, Bannone, Mirko, Barone, Gianluca, Baronio, Raffaele, Basile, Bellucci, Marco, Andrea Benedetti Cacciaguerra, Ilaria, Benzoni, Francesco, Bianco, Giuseppe, Boccia, Cristina, Bombardini, Luigi, Boni, Dario, Bono, Luca Domenico Bonomo, Giulia, Bonventre, Andrea, Bottari, Claudio, Botti, Giacomo, Brentegani, Mattia, Buonomo, Umberto, Bracale, Cosimo, Callari, Luca, Calligaris, Pietro Giorgio Calò, Angelo, Cangiano, Lorenzo, Capezzuoli, Gabriella Teresa Capolupo, Marianna, Capuano, Filippo, Carannante, Eugenia, Cardamone, Teresa, Carfora, Chiara, Caricato, Pietro, Carnevali, Francesco Maria Carrano, Lorenzo, Casali, Gianmaria Casoni Pataccini, Gianluca, Cassese, Simone, Castiglioni, Flavia, Cavicchi, Ceccarelli, Graziano, Giovanni, Cestaro, Pasquale, Cianci, Claudio, Cimmino, Marco, Clementi, Coletta, Diego, Riccardo, Conventi, Corallino, Diletta, Maurizio, Costantini, Lorenzo, Crepaz, Diego, Cuccurullo, Curci, FABIO PIO, Giuseppe, Currò, Giorgio, Dalmonte, Giovanni, D'Alterio, Michele, D'Ambra, D'Ambrosio, Giancarlo, Anna, D'Amore, Michele De Capua, Simona, Deidda, Daniele, Delogu, Maurizio De Luca, Nicolò De Manzini, DE STEFANI, Elena, Giuseppe Di Buono, Marcello Di Martino, DI TOMASO, Anna, Ugo, Elmore, CORDOVA HERENCIA, INGRID ELVA, Giovanni, Emiliani, Sofia, Esposito, Fazio, Federico, Federico, Festa, Marcello, Filotico, Fiocca, Fausto, Irene, Fiume, Francesco, Fleres, Giulia, Fontana, Tommaso, Fontana, Edoardo, Forcignanò, Giampaolo, Formisano, Laura, Fortuna, Uberto Fumagalli Romario, Andrea, Galderisi, Raffaele, Galleano, Carlo, Gazia, Alessio, Giordano, Giorgio, Giraudo, Maria Carmela Giuffrida, Simona, Giura, Anna, Guida, Antonio Maria Iannello, Marco, Inama, Sara, Ingallinella, Iossa, Angelo, Livio, Iudici, Laracca, GIOVANNI GUGLIELMO, LARGHI LAUREIRO, Zoe, Saverio, Latteri, Luca, Leonardi, Pasquale, Lepiane, Edelweiss, Licitra, Paolo, Locurto, Sarah Lo Faso, Nicola, Luciani, Luzza, Luigi, Magaletti, Sara, Michele, Manigrasso, Alessandra, Marano, Francesco, Marchetti, Alessandra, Marello, Nicolò, Mariani, Jacopo Nicolò Marin, Gennaro, Martines, Laura, Mastrangelo, Antonio, Matarangolo, Marco, Materazzo, Mazzarella, Gennaro, Giorgio, Mazzarolo, Maria Paola Menna, Meoli, Francesca, Marco, Milone, Elisabetta, Moggia, Davide, Moioli, Sarah, Molfino, Vitantonio, Mongelli, Roberto, Montalti, Giulia, Montori, Luca, Morelli, Gianluigi, Moretto, Muttillo, EDOARDO MARIA, Irnerio, Muttillo, Francesca, Notte, Alessandro, M Paganini, Gianluca, Pagano, Palmieri, Livia, Giuseppe, Palomba, Valentina, Palumbo, Panetta, Cristina, Giulia, Paradiso, Beniamino, Pascotto, Passannanti, Daniele, Renato, Patrone, Francesca, Pecchini, Francesca, Pego, Fabio, Pelle, Perrotta, Nicola, Wanda, Petz, Biagio, Picardi, Picchetto, Andrea, Chiara, Piceni, Pietricola, Giulia, Enrico, Pinotti, Felice, Pirozzi, Paolo, Pizzini, Poillucci, Gaetano, Ilaria, Puccica, Lorenzo, Ramaci, Rapanotti, Eleonora, Daniela, Rega, Angelica, Reggiani, Giorgio, Romano, Gregorio, Romeo, Luigi, Romeo, Gianluca, Rompianesi, Stefano, Rossi, Edoardo, Saladino, Roberto, Santambrogio, Federica, Saraceno, Giuliano, Sarro, Diego, Sasia, Grazia, Savino, Rosa, Scaramuzzo, Antonio, Sciuto, Michela, Scollica, Giovanni, Scudo, Ardit, Seitaj, Carlo, Serra, Francesco, Serra, Pierpaolo, Sileri, Leandro, Siragusa, Carmen, Sorrentino, Giuseppe, Surfaro, Ernesto, Tartaglia, Beatrice, Torre, Andrea, Tufo, Matteo, Uccelli, Alessandro, Ussia, Vaccari, Samuele, Marina, Valente, Sara, Vertaldi, Alessandro, Vitali, Luca, Zaccherini, Luigi, Zorcolo, Noemi, Zorzetti, Balla, A., Sartori, A., Botteri, E., Podda, M., Ortenzi, M., Silecchia, G., Guerrieri, M., Agresta, F., Agrusa, A., Aguzzi, D., Alagia, M., Alberici, L., Allaix, M. E., Ambrosio, L., Amendola, A., Ammendola, M., Amodio, P. M., Anania, G., Andreuccetti, J., Annichiarico, A., Anoldo, P., Anselmo, A., Aprea, G., Arcuri, G., Arezzo, A., Armatura, G., Bagaglini, G., Bagolini, F., Bailetti, B., Baiocchi, G., Baldini, E., Bannone, E., Barone, M., Baronio, G., Basile, R., Bellucci, M., Cacciaguerra, A. B., Benzoni, I., Bianco, F., Boccia, G., Bombardini, C., Boni, L., Bono, D., Bonomo, L. D., Bonventre, G., Bottari, A., Botti, C., Brentegani, G., Buonomo, M., Bracale, U., Callari, C., Calligaris, L., Calo, P. G., Cangiano, A., Capezzuoli, L., Capolupo, G. T., Capuano, M., Carannante, F., Cardamone, E., Carfora, T., Caricato, C., Carnevali, P., Carrano, F. M., Casali, L., Pataccini, G. C., Cassese, G., Castiglioni, S., Cavicchi, F., Ceccarelli, G., Cestaro, G., Cianci, P., Cimmino, C., Clementi, M., Coletta, D., Conventi, R., Corallino, D., Costantini, M., Crepaz, L., Cuccurullo, D., Curci, F. P., Curro, G., Dalmonte, G., D'Alterio, G., D'Ambra, M., D'Ambrosio, G., D'Amore, A., De Capua, M., Deidda, S., Delogu, D., De Luca, M., De Manzini, N., De Stefani, E., Di Buono, G., Di Martino, M., Di Tomaso, A., Elmore, U., Herencia, I. E. C., Emiliani, G., Esposito, S., Fazio, F., Festa, F., Filotico, M., Fiocca, F., Fiume, I., Fleres, F., Fontana, G., Fontana, T., Forcignano, E., Formisano, G., Fortuna, L., Romario, U. F., Galderisi, A., Galleano, R., Gazia, C., Giordano, A., Giraudo, G., Giuffrida, M. C., Giura, S., Guida, A., Iannello, A. M., Inama, M., Ingallinella, S., Iossa, A., Iudici, L., Laracca, G. G., Laureiro, Z. L., Latteri, S., Leonardi, L., Lepiane, P., Licitra, E., Locurto, P., Faso, S. L., Luciani, N., Luzza, L., Magaletti, S., Manigrasso, M., Marano, A., Marchetti, F., Marello, A., Mariani, N., Marin, J. N., Martines, G., Mastrangelo, L., Matarangolo, A., Materazzo, M., Mazzarella, G., Mazzarolo, G., Menna, M. P., Meoli, F., Milone, M., Moggia, E., Moioli, D., Molfino, S., Mongelli, V., Montalti, R., Montori, G., Morelli, L., Moretto, G., Muttillo, E. M., Muttillo, I., Notte, F., Paganini, A. M., Pagano, G., Palmieri, L., Palomba, G., Palumbo, V., Panetta, C., Paradiso, G., Pascotto, B., Passannanti, D., Patrone, R., Pecchini, F., Pego, F., Pelle, F., Perrotta, N., Petz, W., Picardi, B., Picchetto, A., Piceni, C., Pietricola, G., Pinotti, E., Pirozzi, F., Pizzini, P., Poillucci, G., Puccica, I., Ramaci, L., Rapanotti, E., Rega, D., Reggiani, A., Romano, G., Romeo, G., Romeo, L., Rompianesi, G., Rossi, S., Saladino, E., Santambrogio, R., Saraceno, F., Sarro, G., Sasia, D., Savino, G., Scaramuzzo, R., Sciuto, A., Scollica, M., Scudo, G., Seitaj, A., Serra, C., Serra, F., Sileri, P., Siragusa, L., Sorrentino, C., Surfaro, G., Tartaglia, E., Torre, B., Tufo, A., Uccelli, M., Ussia, A., Vaccari, S., Valente, M., Vertaldi, S., Vitali, A., Zaccherini, L., Zorcolo, L., Zorzetti, N., Balla, Andrea, Sartori, Alberto, Botteri, Emanuele, Podda, Mauro, Ortenzi, Monica, Silecchia, Gianfranco, Guerrieri, Mario, Agresta, Ferdinando, de Manzini, Nicolo, and ARMIS (Augmented Reality in Minimally Invasive Surgery) Collaborative, Group

Subjects
Virtual reality (VR), minimally invasive surgery (MIS), Augmented reality (AR), Minimally invasive surgery (MIS), Mixed reality (MR), Survey, Training, training, augmented reality (AR), mixed reality (MR), survey, virtual reality (VR), Settore MED/18 - Chirurgia Generale, Surgery
Abstract

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is a widespread approach in general surgery. Computer guiding software, such as the augmented reality (AR), the virtual reality (VR) and mixed reality (MR), has been proposed to help surgeons during MIS. This study aims to report these technologies' current knowledge and diffusion during surgical training in Italy. A web-based survey was developed under the aegis of the Italian Society of Endoscopic Surgery (SICE). Two hundred and seventeen medical doctors' answers were analyzed. Participants were surgeons (138, 63.6%) and residents in surgery (79, 36.4%). The mean knowledge of the role of the VR, AR and MR in surgery was 4.9 ± 2.4 (range 1-10). Most of the participants (122, 56.2%) did not have experience with any proposed technologies. However, although the lack of experience in this field, the answers about the functioning of the technologies were correct in most cases. Most of the participants answered that VR, AR and MR should be used more frequently for the teaching and training and during the clinical activity (170, 80.3%) and that such technologies would make a significant contribution, especially in training (183, 84.3%) and didactic (156, 71.9%). Finally, the main limitations to the diffusion of these technologies were the insufficient knowledge (182, 83.9%) and costs (175, 80.6%). Based on the present study, in Italy, the knowledge and dissemination of these technologies are still limited. Further studies are required to establish the usefulness of AR, VR and MR in surgical training.

Published
2023

2. Laparoscopic Compared with Open D2 Gastrectomy on Perioperative and Long-Term, Stage-Stratified Oncological Outcomes for Gastric Cancer: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of the IMIGASTRIC Database

Author

Paulina González, Giacomo Arcuri, Irene Terrenato, Stefano Trastulli, Shou Gen Cao, Juan Santiago Azagra, Jian Xian Lin, Ninh T. Nguyen, Daniel Reim, Enrique Norero, S D’Imporzano, Graziano Pernazza, Tong Liu, Chao-Hui Zheng, Alessandra Marano, Amilcare Parisi, Feng Qi, Chang Ming Huang, Andrea Coratti, Sergio Bracarda, Fabio Staderini, Steven Brower, Jacopo Desiderio, Eleonora Garofoli, Claudia Mosillo, Vito D'Andrea, Yan Bing Zhou, Francesco Guerra, Fabio Cianchi, Orhan Alimoglu, Maurizio Cesari, Francesca Bazzocchi, and Felice Borghi

Subjects
Cancer Research, medicine.medical_treatment, Oncology and Carcinogenesis, laparoscopy, computer.software_genre, Article, Clinical Research, gastric cancer, minimally invasive surgery, medicine, Stage (cooking), Laparoscopy, Pathological, RC254-282, Cancer, medicine.diagnostic_test, Database, business.industry, Neoplasms. Tumors. Oncology. Including cancer and carcinogens, Retrospective cohort study, Perioperative, medicine.disease, Oncology, Propensity score matching, Gastrectomy, Patient Safety, business, 6.4 Surgery, computer
Abstract

Background: The laparoscopic approach in gastric cancer surgery is being increasingly adopted worldwide. However, studies focusing specifically on laparoscopic gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy are still lacking in the literature. This retrospective study aimed to compare the short-term and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer. Methods: The protocol-based, international IMIGASTRIC (International study group on Minimally Invasive surgery for Gastric Cancer) registry was queried to retrieve data on patients undergoing laparoscopic or open gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer with curative intent from January 2000 to December 2014. Eleven predefined, demographical, clinical, and pathological variables were used to conduct a 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) analysis to investigate intraoperative and recovery outcomes, complications, pathological findings, and survival data between the two groups. Predictive factors of long-term survival were also assessed. Results: A total of 3033 patients from 14 participating institutions were selected from the IMIGASTRIC database. After 1:1 PSM, a total of 1248 patients, 624 in the laparoscopic group and 624 in the open group, were matched and included in the final analysis. The total operative time (median 180 versus 240 min, p &lt, 0.0001) and the length of the postoperative hospital stay (median 10 versus 14.8 days, p &lt, 0.0001) were longer in the open group than in the laparoscopic group. The conversion to open rate was 1.9%. The proportion of patients with in-hospital complications was higher in the open group (21.3% versus 15.1%, p = 0.004). The median number of harvested lymph nodes was higher in the laparoscopic approach (median 32 versus 28, p &lt, 0.0001), and the proportion of positive resection margins was higher (p = 0.021) in the open group (5.9%) than in the laparoscopic group (3.2%). There was no significant difference between the groups in five-year overall survival rates (77.4% laparoscopic versus 75.2% open, p = 0.229). Conclusion: The adoption of the laparoscopic approach for gastric resection with D2 lymphadenectomy shortened the length of hospital stay and reduced postoperative complications with respect to the open approach. The five-year overall survival rate after laparoscopy was comparable to that for patients who underwent open D2 resection. The types of surgical approaches are not independent predictive factors for five-year overall survival.

Published
2021
Full Text
View/download PDF

3. Prospective, observational, multicenter study on minimally invasive gastrectomy for gastric cancer: robotic, laparoscopic and open surgery compared on operative and follow-up outcomes - IMIGASTRIC II study protocol: IMIGASTRIC II

Author

Orhan Alimoglu, Christos Chatzakis, Alexander Novotny, Martine Goergen, Stefano Trastulli, Daniel Reim, Orestis Ioannidis, Benedetta Badii, Fabio Cianchi, Enrique Norero, J.S. Azagra, Lydia Loutzidou, Ninh T. Nguyen, Arda Isik, Leonardo Solaini, Cuneyt Kayaalp, Graziano Pernazza, Rémy Sindayigaya, Shougen Cao, Jacopo Desiderio, Ibrahim Ali Ozemir, Andrea Avanzolini, Olivier Saint-Marc, S D’Imporzano, Yanbing Zhou, Lu Zang, Chao-Hui Zheng, Amilcare Parisi, Francesco Guerra, Alessandra Marano, Natalie G. Coburn, Jian-Xian Lin, Feng Qi, Francesco Giovanardi, Johan Gagnière, Chang-Ming Huang, A. Coratti, Felice Borghi, Maurizio Cesari, Giacomo Arcuri, Steven Brower, Francesca Bazzocchi, Tong Liu, and Denis Pezet

Subjects
Protocol (science), medicine.medical_specialty, medicine.diagnostic_test, business.industry, General surgery, medicine.medical_treatment, Cancer, medicine.disease, Good clinical practice, Medicine, Robotic surgery, Observational study, Gastrectomy, business, Prospective cohort study, Laparoscopy
Abstract

Background: Several meta-analyses have tried to defi ne the role of minimally invasive approaches. However, further evidence to get a wider spread of these methods is necessary. Current studies describe minimally invasive surgery as a possible alternative to open surgery but deserving further clarifi cation. However, despite the increasing interest, the difficulty of planning prospective studies of adequate size accounts for the low level of evidence, which is mostly based on retrospective experiences. A multi-institutional prospective study allows the collection of an impressive amount of data to investigate various aspects of minimally invasive procedures with the opportunity of developing several subgroup analyses. A prospective data collection with high methodological quality on minimally invasive and open gastrectomies can clarify the role of diff erent procedures with the aim to develop specifi c guidelines. Methods and analysis: a multi-institutional prospective database will be established including information on surgical, clinical and oncological features of patients treated for gastric cancer with robotic, laparoscopic or open approaches and subsequent follow-up. The study has been shared by the members of the International study group on Minimally Invasive surgery for GASTRIc Cancer (IMIGASTRIC) The database is designed to be an international electronic submission system and a HIPPA protected real time data repository from high volume gastric cancer centers. Ethics: This study is conducted in compliance with ethical principles originating from the Helsinki Declaration, within the guidelines of Good Clinical Practice and relevant laws/regulations. Trial registration number: NCT02751086

Published
2019
Full Text
View/download PDF

4. Minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer: A comparison between robotic, laparoscopic and open surgery

Author

Stefano Trastulli, Andrea Coratti, Andrea Avanzolini, Denis Pezet, Maurizio Cesari, Steven Brower, J.S. Azagra, Metin Leblebici, Fabio Cianchi, Arda Isik, Vito D'Andrea, Shu Zhang, G Palazzini, Olivier Facy, Giacomo Arcuri, Alessandro Gemini, Yan-Bing Zhou, Francesca Bazzocchi, Orhan Alimoglu, Jacopo Desiderio, Ninh T Nguyen, Simone D’Imporzano, Shou-Gen Cao, Felice Borghi, Tong Liu, Benedetta Badii, Feng Qi, Graziano Pernazza, Alexander Novotny, Martine Goergen, Lu Zang, Johan Gagnière, Zhi-Wei Jiang, Mario Annecchiarico, Alessandra Marano, Daniel Reim, Amilcare Parisi, Università degli Studi di Perugia (UNIPG), St. Mary's Hospital (Terni, Italy), Klinik und Poliklinik fuer Chirurgie ( Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technical University Munich), Technische Universität Munchen - Université Technique de Munich [Munich, Allemagne] (TUM)-Klinikums rechts der Isar, Groupe d'Etude sur l'Inflammation Chronique et l'Obésité (GEICO), Université de La Réunion (UR), Chirurgie digestive et hépatobiliaire, CHU Estaing [Clermont-Ferrand], CHU Clermont-Ferrand-CHU Clermont-Ferrand, Service de Chirurgie Digestive, Cancérologique, Générale, Endocrinienne et Urgences (CHU de Dijon), Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Dijon - Hôpital François Mitterrand (CHU Dijon), Medical School (University of Nanjing), Nanjing University (NJU), Department of Surgical Science [University of Roma 'La Sapienza'], and Università degli Studi di Roma 'La Sapienza' = Sapienza University [Rome]

Subjects
Male, medicine.medical_specialty, medicine.medical_treatment, Gastrectomy, Gastric cancer, Laparoscopy, Minimally invasive surgery, Robot-assisted, Robotic, Gastroenterology, 030230 surgery, 03 medical and health sciences, Postoperative Complications, 0302 clinical medicine, Robotic Surgical Procedures, Retrospective Study, Stomach Neoplasms, Humans, Medicine, Robotic surgery, Aged, Retrospective Studies, Aged, 80 and over, medicine.diagnostic_test, castric cancer, laparoscopy, minimally invasive surgery, robot-assisted, robotic, business.industry, Open surgery, General surgery, digestive, oral, and skin physiology, technology, industry, and agriculture, Cancer, [SDV.MHEP.HEG]Life Sciences [q-bio]/Human health and pathology/Hépatology and Gastroenterology, General Medicine, Middle Aged, medicine.disease, 3. Good health, body regions, surgical procedures, operative, Italy, 030220 oncology & carcinogenesis, Invasive surgery, Female, business, human activities
Abstract

IF 3.365; International audience; AIMTo investigate the role of minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer and determine surgical, clinical, and oncological outcomes.METHODSThis is a propensity score-matched case-control study, comparing three treatment arms: robotic gastrectomy (RG), laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG), open gastrectomy (OG). Data collection started after sharing a specific study protocol. Data were recorded through a tailored and protected web-based system. Primary outcomes: harvested lymph nodes, estimated blood loss, hospital stay, complications rate. Among the secondary outcomes, there are: operative time, R0 resections, POD of mobilization, POD of starting liquid diet and soft solid diet. The analysis includes the evaluation of type and grade of postoperative complications. Detailed information of anastomotic leakages is also provided.RESULTSThe present analysis was carried out of 1026 gastrectomies. To guarantee homogenous distribution of cases, patients in the RG, LG and OG groups were 1: 1: 2 matched using a propensity score analysis with a caliper = 0.2. The successful matching resulted in a total sample of 604 patients (RG = 151; LG = 151; OG = 302). The three groups showed no differences in all baseline patients characteristics, type of surgery (P = 0.42) and stage of the disease (P = 0.16). Intraoperative blood loss was significantly lower in the LG (95.93 +/- 119.22) and RG (117.91 +/- 68.11) groups compared to the OG (127.26 +/- 79.50, P = 0.002). The mean number of retrieved lymph nodes was similar between the RG (27.78 +/- 11.45), LG (24.58 +/- 13.56) and OG (25.82 +/- 12.07) approach. A benefit in favor of the minimally invasive approaches was found in the length of hospital stay (P < 0.0001). A similar complications rate was found (P = 0.13). The leakage rate was not different (P = 0.78) between groups.CONCLUSIONLaparoscopic and robotic surgery can be safely performed and proposed as possible alternative to open surgery. The main highlighted benefit is a faster postoperative functional recovery.

Published
2017
Full Text
View/download PDF

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results