Background: In the past 20 years, the fast spread of new surgical technologies has reached an important peak with the advent of the robotic surgery. Many studies have been run about a cosmetic desire to avoid neck scars after thyroid surgery and this has led to the development of remote access robotic thyroidectomy (RT). Among the various RT approaches, unilateral transaxillary access is one of the most widely used, reporting excellent results in terms of feasibility and patient's compliance. The mini-invasive technique demonstrated many potential shortcoming overcomes with the robotic approach. At our institution a team of 3 skilled endocrine surgeons with experience in laparoscopic and robotic procedures performed RT. Our aim is to report our 8-year single-centre robot-assisted thyroidectomy experience, by applying a gasless unilateral transaxillary approach with the so-called hybrid technique, and to demonstrate its safety and feasibility. Methods: In the period between September 2010 and June 2018 at our institution, a total of 472 patients underwent thyroid and parathyroid transaxillary surgery. The hybrid technique was applied for all the robotic procedures. A total of 412 procedures were performed with the use of external “Modena Retractor” (CEATEC ® Medizintechnik) and with 3 surgeons. According to international guidelines, our indications for robotic surgery were benign lesions with a diameter <5 cm, Graves' disease, well-differentiated thyroid cancers, and parathyroid adenomas. Results: In this series, a total of 449 cases were registered. General data of patients were analyzed: gender, age, body mass index, tumor size, preoperative fine-needle aspiration examination, definitive histological examination, operative time, and postoperative complications. Conclusions: This study confirms the application of robotic approach in thyroid surgery as a feasible technique in terms of safety and complications risk. The hybrid technique, together with a dedicated surgical team, can lead to obtaining the same outcomes of traditional anterior cervicotomic surgery, adding a scarless thyroidectomy.

Purpose of reviewThe robotic surgical approach for minimally invasive thyroid surgery has been well described from the Korean surgeons and shows a wide spread diffusion in Asian area. This paper gives a systematic review aiming to pointed out the interest and the way of behaving of the European surgeons about the role of the robotic thyroidectomy (RT).Recent findingsA literature search was performed using Pubmed, MEDLINE, Cochrane and ClinicalTrials.gov databases, including only papers wrote from european surgeons enrolling patients operated in Europe. Outcomes of interest included patients characteristics, patients position, surgical devices, surgical technique, surgical outcomes, and complications. Eighteen studies have been included in the analysis, published from 2011 to 2017. An overall number of 1108 patients were treated in studies included. In the 44.4% of studies (eight trials), the Kuppersmith position was chosen, whereas in the 22.2% (four trials), the Chung position was selected, with a mean length on axilla skin incision of 5.8 ± 1.5 cm. Considering the characteristics of the surgical technique, the mean total surgical time was 166.8 ± 36.6 min (including total thyroidectomy and loboisthmectomy together), divided three consecutive phases, such as mean working space was 50.7 ± 21.8 min, mean docking time 16.0 ± 11.9 min and mean console time 102.87 ± 38.8 min. Considering the complications, only 50% of studies included reported data about acute complications. In particular, the most frequent was hypocalcemia, occurring in 32 cases (2.9%). RLN palsy occurred in 29 patients (2.6%), definitive in 13.8% of these cases and transient in 86.2%. Only nine studies reported the discharge time, with a mean of 2.4 ± 1.2 days after surgery.SummaryDespite the papers included in the study show a different way of collecting data, the transaxillary approach for robotic thyroidectomy for European patients is both feasible and safe. This procedure has to be carried out by surgeons expert in thyroid surgery with knowledge in robotic procedure. In the future, the incoming of dedicated instruments could improve and developed this technique.

Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic is having a deep impact on emergency surgical services, with a significant reduction of patients admitted into emergency surgical units world widely. Reliable figures of this reduction have not been produced yet. Our international audit aimed at giving a precise snapshot of the absolute and relative changes of emergency surgical admissions at the outbreak of the pandemic. Materials and methods Datasets of patients admitted as general surgical emergencies into 45 internationally distributed emergency surgical units during the months of March and April 2020 (Covid-19 pandemic outbreak) were collected and compared with those of patients admitted into the same units during the months of March and April 2019 (pre-Covid-19). Primary endpoint was to evaluate the relative variation of the presentation symptoms and discharge diagnoses between the two study periods. Secondary endpoint was to identify the possible change of therapeutic strategy during the same two periods. Results Forty-five centres participated sent their anonymised data to the study hub, for a total of 6263 patients. Of these, 3810 were admitted in the pre-Covid period and 2453 in the Covid period, for a 35.6% absolute reduction. The most common presentation was abdominal pain, whose incidence did not change between the two periods, but in the Covid period patients presented less frequently with anal pain, hernias, anaemia and weight loss. ASA 1 and low frailty patients were admitted less frequently, while ASA>1 and frail patients showed a relative increase. The type of surgical access did not change significantly, but lap-to-open conversion rate halved between the two study periods. Discharge diagnoses of appendicitis and diverticulitis reduced significantly, while bowel ischaemia and perianal ailments had a significant relative increase. Conclusions Our audit demonstrates a significant overall reduction of emergency surgery admissions at the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic with a minimal change of the proportions of single presentations, diagnoses and treatments. These findings may open the door to new ways of managing surgical emergencies without engulfing the already busy hospitals.

Background: Robotic adrenalectomy offers several clinical benefits if compared with laparoscopic adrenalectomy; however, its superiority is still under debate. The aim of this study was the investigation of differences between the two techniques, and a comparison when approaching right or left side adrenal lesions was further conducted. Materials and Methods: All patients undergoing laparoscopic and robotic unilateral adrenalectomy at our institution from January 2006 to December 2019 were collected and retrospectively analyzed. Statistical analysis was conducted; differences between the two cohorts were reported. Results: A total of 160 cases were included (84 patients in laparoscopic adrenalectomy-group [LA-g] 76 cases in robotic adrenalectomy-group [RA-g]). The groups were homogeneous for demographic data. No intraoperative complications were reported; mean amount of intraoperative blood loss was comparable. No cases of conversion to open surgery were required. RA-g presented a longer operative time than LA-g for right adrenalectomy ( P = .05), no differences were noted for left side ( P = .187). Overall morbidity was 21% for LA-g and 10.5% for RA-g ( P = .087), with an inferior rate of surgical complications for RA-g ( P = .024), and for robotic left adrenalectomy than robotic right procedure ( P = .03). Length of hospital stay was shorter for RA-g ( P = .005). Conclusions: Robotic adrenalectomy presents similar outcomes as laparoscopic approach with some benefits for selected cases. Left adrenal lesions seem to receive greater advantages from robotic technique. Large randomized controlled trials are required to determine the role of robotic adrenal surgery and if the indication can be standardized based on the laterality of adrenal procedure.

Introduction The concept of “weekend effect”, that is, substandard healthcare during weekends, has never been fully demonstrated, and the different outcomes of emergency surgical patients admitted during weekends may be due to different conditions at admission and/or different therapeutic approaches. Aim of this international audit was to identify any change of pattern of emergency surgical admissions and treatments during weekends. Furthermore, we aimed at investigating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the alleged “weekend effect”. Methods The database of the CovidICE-International Study was interrogated, and 6263 patients were selected for analysis. Non-trauma, 18+ yo patients admitted to 45 emergency surgery units in Europe in the months of March–April 2019 and March–April 2020 were included. Demographic and clinical data were anonymised by the referring centre and centrally collected and analysed with a statistical package. This study was endorsed by the Association of Italian Hospital Surgeons (ACOI) and the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES). Results Three-quarters of patients have been admitted during workdays and only 25.7% during weekends. There was no difference in the distribution of gender, age, ASA class and diagnosis during weekends with respect to workdays. The first wave of the COVID pandemic caused a one-third reduction of emergency surgical admission both during workdays and weekends but did not change the relation between workdays and weekends. The treatment was more often surgical for patients admitted during weekends, with no difference between 2019 and 2020, and procedures were more often performed by open surgery. However, patients admitted during weekends had a threefold increased risk of laparoscopy-to-laparotomy conversion (1% vs. 3.4%). Hospital stay was longer in patients admitted during weekends, but those patients had a lower risk of readmission. There was no difference of the rate of rescue surgery between weekends and workdays. Subgroup analysis revealed that interventional procedures for hot gallbladder were less frequently performed on patients admitted during weekends. Conclusions Our analysis revealed that demographic and clinical profiles of patients admitted during weekends do not differ significantly from workdays, but the therapeutic strategy may be different probably due to lack of availability of services and skillsets during weekends. The first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic did not impact on this difference.