No abstract

No abstract

for the International Robotic and Laparoscopic Liver Resection study group investigators IMPORTANCE Laparoscopic and robotic techniques have both been well adopted as safe options in selected patients undergoing hepatectomy. However, it is unknown whether either approach is superior, especially for major hepatectomy such as right hepatectomy or extended right hepatectomy (RH/ERH). OBJECTIVETo compare the outcomes of robotic vs laparoscopic RH/ERH. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In this case-control study, propensity score matching analysis was performed to minimize selection bias. Patients undergoing robotic or laparoscopic RH/EHR at 29 international centers from 2008 to 2020 were included. INTERVENTIONS Robotic vs laparoscopic RH/ERH. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Data on patient demographics, tumor characteristics, and short-term perioperative outcomes were collected and analyzed. RESULTS Of 989 individuals who met study criteria, 220 underwent robotic and 769 underwent laparoscopic surgery. The median (IQR) age in the robotic RH/ERH group was 61.00 (51.86-69.00) years and in the laparoscopic RH/ERH group was 62.00 (52.03-70.00) years. Propensity score matching resulted in 220 matched pairs for further analysis. Patients' demographics and tumor characteristics were comparable in the matched cohorts. Robotic RH/ERH was associated with a lower open conversion rate (19 of 220 [8.6%] vs 39 of 220 [17.1%]; P = .01) and a shorter postoperative hospital stay (median [IQR], 7.

Background: As more animal studies start to disentangle pathways linking the gut microbial ecosystem and neurobehavioral traits, human studies have grown rapidly. Many have since investigated the bidirectional communication between the gastrointestinal tract and the central nervous system, specifically on the effects of microbial composition on the brain and development. Methods: Our review at the initial stage aimed to evaluate literature on gut microbial alterations in pediatric neurobehavioral conditions. We searched five literature databases (Embase, PubMed, PsychInfo, Scopus, and Medline) and found 4489 published work. As the mechanisms linking gut microbiota to these conditions are divergent, the scope of this review was narrowed to focus on describing gut dysbiosis in children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Results: Among the final 26 articles, there was a lack of consistency in the reported gut microbiome changes across ASD studies, except for distinguishable patterns, within limits, for Prevotella, Firmicutes at the phylum level, Clostridiales clusters including Clostridium perfringens, and Bifidobacterium species. Conclusions: These results were inadequate to confirm a global microbiome change in children with ASD and causality could not be inferred to explain the etiology of the behaviors associated with ASD. Mechanistic studies are needed to elucidate the specific role of the gut microbiome in the pathogenesis of ASD.