Achalasia of the cardia is associated with an increased risk of esophageal carcinoma. The real burden of achalasia at the malignancy genesis is still a controversial issue. Therefore, there are no generally accepted recommendations on follow-up evaluation for achalasia patients. This study aims to estimate the risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma in achalasia patients. We searched for association between carcinoma and esophageal achalasia in databases up to January 2017 to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis. A total of 1,046 studies were identified from search strategy, of which 40 were selected for meta-analysis. A cumulative number of 11,978 esophageal achalasia patients were evaluated. The incidence of squamous cell carcinoma was 312.4 (StDev 429.16) cases per 100,000 patient-years at risk. The incidence of adenocarcinoma was 21.23 (StDev 31.6) cases per 100,000 patient-years at risk. The prevalence for esophageal carcinoma was 28 carcinoma cases in 1,000 esophageal achalasia patients (CI 95% 2, 39). The prevalence for squamous cell carcinoma was 26 cases in 1,000 achalasia patients (CI 95% 18, 39) and for adenocarcinoma was 4 cases in 1,000 achalasia patients (CI 95% 3, 6).The absolute risk increase for squamous cell carcinoma was 308.1 and for adenocarcinoma was 18.03 cases per 100,000 patients per year. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis estimating the burden of achalasia as an esophageal cancer risk factor. The high increased risk rate for cancer in achalasia patients points to a strict endoscopic surveillance for these patients. Also, the increased risk for developing adenocarcinoma in achalasia patients suggests fundoplication after myotomy, to avoid esophageal reflux and Barret esophagus, a known risk factor for adenocarcinoma.

Background: Despite recent advances in diagnosis and treatment, esophageal cancer still has high mortality. Prognostic factors associated with patient and with disease itself are multiple and poorly explored. Aim: Assess prognostic variables in esophageal cancer patients. Methods: Retrospective review of all patients with esophageal cancer in an oncology referral center. They were divided according to histological diagnosis (444 squamous cell carcinoma patients and 105 adenocarcinoma), and their demographic, pathological and clinical characteristics were analyzed and compared to clinical stage and overall survival. Results: No difference was noted between squamous cell carcinoma and esophageal adenocarcinoma overall survival curves. Squamous cell carcinoma presented 22.8% survival after five years against 20.2% for adenocarcinoma. When considering only patients treated with curative intent resection, after five years squamous cell carcinoma survival rate was 56.6 and adenocarcinoma, 58%. In patients with squamous cell carcinoma, poor differentiation histology and tumor size were associated with worse oncology stage, but this was not evidenced in adenocarcinoma. Conclusion: Weight loss (kg), BMI variation (kg/m²) and percentage of weight loss are factors that predict worse stage at diagnosis in the squamous cell carcinoma. In adenocarcinoma, these findings were not statistically significant.

Preoperative strategies to increase liver volume are effective in achieving resectability of HCC. TACE + PVE is as safe as PVL/PVE providing higher OS. ALPPS is associated with a higher risk of PHLF, major complications, and mortality. RE despite the small experience seems to present similar resection rate and OS as TACE + PVE with higher rate of major complications.

Weight loss following bariatric surgery increases risk for biliary stones. This study performed a meta-analysis evaluating cholecystectomy risks in bariatric patients. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed. We evaluated the incidence rate for biliary complications in patients followed after bariatric surgery. We compared the risks for mortality, complications, and in hospital stay among patient submitted to cholecystectomy before, concomitantly with or after bariatric surgery, as well as patients submitted to bariatric surgery and cholecystectomy, and patients submitted only to bariatric surgery in order to evaluate when to perform cholecystectomy in morbidly obese patients. The incidence rate of biliary complications was 5.54 cases/1000 patient year. The addition of cholecystectomy to bariatric surgery resulted in an increased risk for complications (RD = 0.02). The risk for complications (RD = - 0.09) and reoperation (RD = - 0.02) was lower when performed concomitantly with bariatric surgery compared to post-bariatric procedure. Prophylactic cholecystectomy may be avoided. Patients submitted to bariatric surgery have low incidence rate of biliary complications, and concomitant cholecystectomy increases the risk for postoperative complications and operative time. If cholecystectomy is not indicated, patients should be carefully followed with attention for biliary complications, once cholecystectomy performed post-bariatric surgery is at higher risk for complications and reoperations.

The term “robot” was concepted in the beginning of last century, coming originally from the Czech word “robota”, meaning “labor”. More recently, computer assistance and robotics based in the telepresence and virtual reality concept have been applied to surgical procedures. The application of robots in surgery dates approximately 35 years, experiencing significant growth in the last two decades fueled by the advent of advanced technologies. Despite its recent and brief status in surgery history, robotic technology has already proven its enhanced visualization, superior dexterity and precision during minimally invasive procedures. Currently, the worldwide diffused and predominant robot system used in surgery is Da Vinci by Intuitive Surgical, however robotic surgery evolution is far from over, with multiple potential competitors on the horizon pushing forward its paradigms. We aim to describe the history and evolution of robotic surgery in the last years as well as present its future perspectives.