Background and Objectives:Therapeutic laparoscopy was incorporated into surgical practice more than 25 y ago. Several modifications have since been developed to further minimize surgical trauma and improve results. Minilaparoscopy, performed with 2- to 3-mm instruments was introduced in the mid 1990s but failed to attain mainstream use, mostly because of the limitations of the early devices. Buoyed by a renewed interest, new generations of mini instruments are being developed with improved functionality and durability. This study is an objective evaluation of a new set of mini instruments with a novel low-friction design.Method:Twenty-two medical students and 22 surgical residents served as study participants. Three designs of laparoscopic instruments were evaluated: conventional 5 mm, traditional 3 mm, and low-friction 3 mm. The instruments were evaluated with a standard surgical simulator, emulating 4 exercises of various complexities, testing grasping, precise 2-handed movements, and suturing. The metric measured was time to task completion, with 5 replicates for every combination of instrument–exercise–participant.Results:For all 4 tasks, the instrument design that performed the best was the same in both the medical student and surgical resident groups. For the gross-grasping task, the 5-mm conventional instruments performed best, followed by the low-friction mini instruments. For the 3 more complex and precise tasks, the low-friction mini instruments outperformed both of the other instrument designs.Conclusion:In standard surgical simulator exercises, low-friction minilaparoscopic instruments outperformed both conventional 3- and 5-mm laparoscopic instruments for precise tasks.

Background and Objectives:Current treatments for overweight adults include reduced-calorie diet, exercise, behavior modification, and selective use of medications. Many achieve suboptimal results with these measures and progress to obesity. Whether the intragastric balloon (IGB), a reversible device approved for treatment of obesity, is a safe and effective option in overweight adults is less well studied. We conducted a study to prospectively analyze the safety and effectiveness of IGB in overweight adults, to compare the results to a simultaneously studied cohort of obese patients, and to share procedural tips for safe IGB placement and removal.Methods:One hundred thirty-nine patients were evaluated in this prospective, nonrandomized study. Twenty-six overweight [body mass index (BMI), 26–30)] and 113 obese (BMI > 30) patients underwent outpatient, endoscopic IGB placement under intravenous sedation. The IGB was filled with a 550–900 mL (average, 640 mL) solution of saline, radiological contrast, and methylene blue, with an approximate final proportion of 65:2:1. The patients were followed up at 1–2 weeks and then monthly for 6 months. At 6 months, they underwent IGB removal via an esophageal overtube to optimize safety, and then they were observed for 6 more months.Results:IGB time was 190 ± 36 d in the overweight patients and 192 ± 43 d in the obese patients. Symptoms of IGB intolerance included nausea and pain, which were transiently present in 50–95% of patients for several days, and necessitated early IGB removal in 6% of patients. There were no procedure-related complications and no IGB-related esophagitis, erosion, perforation, or obstruction. The percentage of excess weight loss (EWL%) was 96 ± 54% in the overweight group and 41 ± 26% in the obese group (P < 0.001).Conclusion:In overweight adults failing standard treatments, IGB placement for 6 months had an acceptable safety profile and excellent weight loss.

Introduction:This study was undertaken to identify which minimally invasive technique medical students prefer for cholecystectomy and what factors determine their decision.Methods:Brazilian medical students watched a video reviewing the advantages and disadvantages of six different surgical approaches to cholecystectomy: open surgery, conventional laparoscopy, mini-laparoscopy (MINI), single-incision laparoscopic surgery, natural-orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery, and robotic surgery. Respondents then answered questions about hypothetical situations in which the participants would be submitted to elective cholecystectomy.Results:One hundred eleven medical students completed the survey, 60 females (54%) and 51 males (46%). Most students were 19–26 years old. When asked whether they would consider an open cholecystectomy if minimally invasive surgery (MIS) techniques were available, only 9% answered yes. Senior medical students were the least willing to consider open surgery (P = .036). When asked if they would prefer conventional laparoscopy, MINI, or robotic surgery for their cholecystectomy, 85% of the women and 63% of the men chose MINI (P = .025). When asked if they would consider a single-incision laparoscopic surgery or natural-orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery approach, 94 respondents (84%) answered no. When asked to rank which factors they consider the most important when choosing a surgical technique, they ranked safety of the procedure first (58%) and surgeon experience second (30%).Conclusion:When Brazilian medical students were asked to select a surgical approach for cholecystectomy, most chose MINI. The preference for MINI was strongest amongst female medical students. Both female and male medical students ranked safety as the most important factor.

No abstract