No abstract

No abstract

Though laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) was highly criticized in its early stages, it quickly grew to become a new standard of care and has revolutionized the field of general surgery. Now emerging robotic technology is making its way into the minimally invasive arena. Robotic cholecystectomy (RC) is often disparaged as a costly technology that can lead to increased operative times with outcomes that are quite similar to LC. However, this perspective is skewed as many existing studies were performed in the early phase of learning for this procedure. RC can be performed in a cost-effective manner as the volume of robotic procedures increases. In addition, improved visualization and capability to perform fluorescence cholangiography can improve the safety profile of cholecystectomy to a level that has not yet been achieved with conventional laparoscopy. Advanced simulation technology for robotic surgery, and newer singlesite robotic platforms have the potential to further revolutionize this technology and lead to improved patient satisfaction. In this review, we will present current data, trends, and controversies in robotic-assisted cholecystectomy.

Reverse alignment (mirror image) visualization is a disconcerting situation occasionally faced during laparoscopic operations. This occurs when the camera faces back at the surgeon in the opposite direction from which the surgeon's body and instruments are facing. Most surgeons will attempt to optimize trocar and camera placement to avoid this situation. The authors' objective was to determine whether the intentional use of reverse alignment visualization during laparoscopic training would improve performance. A standard box trainer was configured for reverse alignment, and 34 medical students and junior surgical residents were randomized to train with either forward alignment (DIRECT) or reverse alignment (MIRROR) visualization. Enrollees were tested on both modalities before and after a 4-week structured training program specific to their modality. Student's t test was used to determine differences in task performance between the 2 groups. Twenty-one participants completed the study (10 DIRECT, 11 MIRROR). There were no significant differences in performance time between DIRECT or MIRROR participants during forward or reverse alignment initial testing. At final testing, DIRECT participants had improved times only in forward alignment performance; they demonstrated no significant improvement in reverse alignment performance. MIRROR participants had significant time improvement in both forward and reverse alignment performance at final testing. Reverse alignment imaging for laparoscopic training improves task performance for both reverse alignment and forward alignment tasks. This may be translated into improved performance in the operating room when faced with reverse alignment situations. Minimal lab training can account for drastic adaptation to this environment.

Purpose While robotic-assisted hernia repair has increased the popularity of minimally invasive hernia surgery, selecting between the types of approaches is a challenge for both experts and novices alike. In this study, we compared a single surgeon’s early experience transitioning from transabdominal hernia repair with sublay mesh in either the pre-peritoneal or retrorectus space (TA-SM) and enhanced-view totally extra-peritoneal (eTEP) ventral hernia repair in the peri-operative and long-term post-operative time periods. Methods We conducted a retrospective review of 50 eTEP and 108 TA-SM procedures to collect demographics, intraoperative details, and 30-day and 1-year post-operative outcomes. Statistical analysis was performed utilizing Chi-square analysis, Fisher’s test, and two sample t -tests with equal variances. Results There were no significant differences in patient demographics or comorbidities. eTEP patients had larger defects (109.1 cm 2 vs. 31.8 cm 2 , p = 0.043) and mesh used (432.8 cm 2 vs. 137.9 cm 2 , p = 0.001). Operative times were equivalent (158.3 ± 90.6 min eTEP and 155.8 ± 65.2 min TA-SM, p = 0.84), but conversion to alternate procedure type was higher for the transabdominal approach (4% eTEP vs. 22% TA-SM, p < 0.05). Hospital stay was less in the eTEP cohort (1.3 days vs. 2.2 days, p < 0.05). Within 30 days, there were no significant differences in emergency visits or hospital readmissions. There was a greater propensity for eTEP patients to develop seromas (12.0% vs. 1.9%, p < 0.05). At 1 year, there was no statistically significant difference in recurrence rate (4.56% eTEP vs. 12.2% TA-SM, p = 0.28) respective to average time to recurrence (9.17 months eTEP vs. 11.05 months TA-SM). Conclusion The eTEP approach can be adopted safely and efficiently, and may have superior peri-operative outcomes including fewer conversions and reduced hospital stay.