Minimally invasive vs open distal metatarsal osteotomy for hallux valgus - A systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundNumerous publications of the late 20th century have presented the radiological outcome of open technique for distal metatarsal osteotomy for mild to moderate hallux valgus and the clinical outcomes by means of well-established scoring systems which have been published and make these open techniques today’s benchmark and gold standard. Minimally invasive procedures reduce surgical trauma because they are performed without large incisions, and injury to the soft tissues is limited. This has the theoretical advantages of improved recovery and decreased rehabilitation times. There is however limited literature to prove the same for minimally invasive surgery for hallux valgus.Our aim was thus to pool all available comparative literature on minimally invasive hallux valgus surgery done for mild to moderate hallux valgus versus open surgical approaches.MethodsA PubMed, Embase and Scopus search was performed using the keywords (‘hallux valgus’ OR bunion) AND (‘minimally invasive’ OR percutaneous) AND osteotomy. A total of 473 records were identified and out of which nine studies were included in the final review.ResultsMost available studies are either randomized control trials, or prospective cohort studies providing good level of evidence. Radiological analysis showed similar correction with both MIS and open osteotomies. In functional analysis results were different with open techniques providing better results in terms of AOFAS score. (p < 0.0001). VAS score and complication rate were similar in both groups.Discussion/conclusionWe conclude that based on available literature MIS provides equivalent radiological outcomes with respect to open surgery but functionally despite the promising results (good to excellent in most series), the outcomes in terms of function are not as good as open surgery. MIS techniques provide satisfactory outcomes for mild-to-moderate severity of hallux valgus though not as good as open surgery. There is evolving literature for this relatively new procedure. Longer duration of follow up and bigger numbers would allow for more meaningful data analysis and conclusions to be drawn as more studies come forward.     

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion in adult spine deformity – A review of literature

IntroductionSurgery for adult spine deformity presents a challenging issue for spinal surgeons with high morbidity rates reported in the literature. The minimally invasive lateral approach aims at reducing these complications while maintaining similar outcomes as associated with open spinal surgeries. The aim of this paper is to review the literature on the use of lateral lumbar interbody fusion in the cases of adult spinal deformity.MethodsA literature review was done using the healthcare database Advanced Research on NICE and NHS website using Medline. Search terms were “XLIF” or “LLIF” or “DLIF” or “lateral lumbar interbody fusion” or “minimal invasive lateral fusion” and “adult spinal deformity” or “spinal deformity”.ResultsA total of 417 studies were considered for the review and 44 studies were shortlisted after going through the selection criteria. The data of 1722 patients and 4057 fusion levels were analysed for this review. The mean age of the patients was 65.18 years with L4/5 being the most common level fused in this review. We found significant improvement in the radiological parameters (lordosis, scoliosis, and disk height) in the pooled data. Transient neurological symptoms and cage subsidence were the two most common complications reported.ConclusionLLIF is a safe and effective approach in managing adult spinal deformity with low morbidity and acceptable complication rates. It can be used alone for lower grades of deformity and as an adjuvant procedure to decrease the magnitude of open surgeries in high-grade deformities.     

Reversal of direct oral anticoagulants in adult hip fracture patients. A systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundIncreasing numbers of patients are taking Direct Oral Anticoagulants at the time of hip fracture. Evidence is limited on how and if the effects of DOAC's should be reversed before surgical fixation. Wide variations in practice exist. We conducted a systematic review to investigate outcomes for three reversal strategies. These were: “watch and wait” (also referred to as “time-reversal”), plasma product reversal and reversal with specific antidotes.MethodsA systematic search was conducted using multiple databases. Results were obtained for studies directly comparing different DOAC reversal strategies in hip fracture patients and for studies comparing DOAC-taking hip fracture patients (including patients “reversed” using any method and “non-reversed” patients) against matched controls taking either a vitamin-K antagonist or not receiving anticoagulation therapy. This allowed construction of a network meta-analysis to indirectly compare outcomes between “reversed” and “non-reversed” DOAC patients. With respect to “watch and wait”/“time-reversal”, a cut-off time to surgery of 36 hours was used to distinguish between “time-reversed” and “non time-reversed” DOAC patients. The primary outcome was early/inpatient mortality, reported as Odds Ratios (OR).ResultsNo studies investigating plasma products or reversal agents specifically in hip fracture patients were obtained. Fourteen studies were suitable for analysis of “watch and wait”/“time- reversal”. Two studies directly compared “time-reversed” and “non time-reversed” DOAC-taking hip fracture patients (58 “time-reversed”, 62 “non time-reversed”). From 12 other studies we used indirect comparisons between “time-reversed” and “non time-reversed” DOAC patients (total, 357 “time-reversed”, 282 “non time-reversed”). We found no statistically significant differences in mortality outcomes between “time-reversal” and “non time-reversal” (OR 1.48 [95%CI: 0.29-7.53]). We also did not find a statistically significant difference between “time reversal” and “non time-reversal” in terms of blood transfusion requirements (OR 1.16 [95% CI 0.42-3.23]). However, several authors described that surgical delay is associated with worse outcomes related to prolonged hospitalisation, and that operating within 36 hours is safe.ConclusionsWe suggested against “watch and wait” to reverse the DOAC effect in hip fractures. Further work is required to assess the optimal timing for surgery as well as the use of plasma products or specific antidotes in DOAC-taking hip fracture patients.     

Does center or surgeon volume influence adoption of minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy? A systematic review and meta-regression

BackgroundThere has been increasing uptake of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy during the past decade, but it remains a highly specialized procedure as benefits over open pancreatoduodenectomy remain contentious. This study aimed to evaluate current evidence on minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy in terms of impact of center volume on outcomes.MethodsA systematic review of articles on comparative cohort and registry studies on minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy published until 31st December 2019 were identified, and meta-analyses were performed. Primary endpoints were International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula and 30-day mortality.ResultsAfter screening 7,390 studies, 43 comparative cohort studies (8,755 patients) with moderate methodological quality and 3 original registry studies (43,735 patients) were included. For the cohort studies, the median annual hospital minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy volume was 10. No significant differences were found in grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula (odds ratio: 0.98, 95% confidence interval: 0.78–1.23) or 30-day mortality (odds ratio: 1.14, 95% confidence interval: 0.65–2.01) between minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy when compared with open. No publication biases were present and meta-regression identified no confounding for grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula, center volume or 30-day mortality. Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy was only strongly associated with significantly lower rates of postoperative pulmonary complications and surgical site infection, shorter length of stay, and significantly higher rates of R0 margin resections.ConclusionMinimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy remains noninferior to open pancreatoduodenectomy for grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula but is strongly associated with significantly lower rates of postoperative pulmonary complications and surgical site infection. Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy can be adopted safely with good outcomes irrespective of annual center resection volume.     

Laser-assisted lipolysis in the treatment of gynecomastia: a prospective study in 28 patients

Gynecomastia is the most common breast pathology. Numerous excisions and liposuction techniques have been described to correct bilateral male breast enlargement. Recently, there has been a shift from the open approach to minimally invasive techniques. This article reports a 5-year experience using laser-assisted lipolysis (LAL) to treat gynecomastia, and describes the surgical technique. Between January 2006 and December 2010, a total of 28 patients with bilateral gynecomastia were treated with LAL. Patients had a mean age of 36.5 years (range 24 to 56 years). LAL was performed with a 980-nm diode laser (continuous emission, 15 W power, 8–12 kJ total energy per breast) after tumescent anesthetic infiltration. The breast was evaluated objectively by two physicians who compared chest circumference and photographs. Patients were also asked to score the results using a visual analogue scale: 75 to 100 (very good), 50–74 (good), 25 to 49 (fair) and 0 to 24 (poor). The postoperative period for all patients was incident-free. After 6 months, 18 patients (64.3%) scored the results as “very good”, 6 as “good” (21.4%), 3 as “fair” (10.7%) and 1 “poor” (3.6%). Mean chest circumferences pre- and postoperatively were, respectively, 117.4?±?11.1 cm and 103.3?±?7.5 cm (p?<?0.001), corresponding to a mean difference of 14.1 cm. Physicians scored the photographs as “very good” in 22 patients (78.6%), as “good” in five patients (17.9%), and as “fair” in one patient (3.6%). LAL in gynecomastia is safe and produces significant effects on fatty tissue, with a reduction in breast volume, together with significant skin tightening. Provided an appropriate amount of energy is delivered by an experienced operator, the results are both significant and consistent.     

Minimally Invasive Intermuscular Approaches Versus Conventional Approaches in Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BackgroundTo date, the literature has not yet revealed superiority of Minimally Invasive (MI) approaches over conventional techniques. We performed a systematic review to determine whether minimally invasive approaches are superior to conventional approaches in total hip arthroplasty for clinical and functional outcomes. We performed a meta-analysis of level 1 evidence to determine whether minimally invasive approaches are superior to conventional approaches for clinical outcomes.MethodsAll studies comparing MI approaches to conventional approaches were eligible for analysis. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were adhered to throughout this study. Registries were searched using the following MeSH terms: ‘minimally invasive’, ‘muscle-sparing’, ‘THA’, ‘THR’, ‘hip arthroplasty’ and ‘hip replacement’. Locations searched included PubMed, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, the European Union (EU) clinical trials register and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (World Health Organisation).ResultsTwenty studies were identified. There were 1,282 MI total hip arthroplasty (THAs) and 1,351 conventional THAs performed. There was no difference between MI and conventional approaches for all clinical outcomes of relevance including all-cause revision (P = .959), aseptic revision (P = .894), instability (P = .894), infection (P = .669) and periprosthetic fracture (P = .940). There was also no difference in functional outcome at early or intermediate follow-up between the two groups (P = .38). In level I studies exclusively, random-effects meta-analysis demonstrated no difference in aseptic revision (P = .461) and all other outcomes between both groups.ConclusionIntermuscular MI approaches are equivalent to conventional THA approaches when considering all-cause revision, aseptic revision, infection, dislocation, fracture rates and functional outcomes. Meta-analysis of level 1 evidence supports this claim.     

Facet joint violation after open and percutaneous posterior instrumentation: a comparative study

Purpose

Posterior instrumentation is the state-of-the-art surgical treatment for fractures of the thoracic and lumbar spine. Options for pedicle screw placement comprise open or minimally invasive techniques. Open instrumentation causes large approach related muscle detachment, which minimally invasive techniques aim to reduce. However, concerns of accurate pedicle screw placement are still a matter of debate. Beside neurological complications due to pedicle screw malplacement, also affection of the facet joints and thus motion dependent pain is known as a complication. The aim of this study was to assess accuracy of pedicle screw placement concerning facet joint violation (FJV) after open- and minimally invasive posterior instrumentation.

Methods

A retrospective data analysis of postoperative computer tomographic scans of 219 patients (1124 pedicle screws) was conducted. A total of 116 patients underwent open screw insertion (634 screws) and 103 patients underwent minimally invasive, percutaneous screw insertion (490 screws).

Results

In the lumbar spine (segments L3, L4, L5), there were significantly more and higher grade (open = 0.55 vs. percutaneous = 1.2; p = 0.001) FJV’s after percutaneously compared to openly inserted screws. In the thoracic spine, no significant difference concerning rate and grade of FJV was found (p > 0.56).

Conclusion

FJV is more likely to occur in percutaneously placed pedicle screws. Additionally, higher grade FJV’s occur after percutaneous instrumentation. However, in the thoracic spine we didn’t find a significant difference between open and percutaneous technique. Our results suggest a precise consideration concerning surgical technique according to the fractured vertebrae in the light of the individual anatomic structures in the preop CT.

     

Conventional Versus Minimally Invasive Hartmann Takedown: A Meta-analysis of the Literature

Although end colostomy closure following Hartmann’s procedure is a major surgery that is traditionally performed by conventional celiotomy, over the last decade there has been a growing interest toward the application of different minimally invasive techniques. We aimed at evaluating the relative outcomes of conventional surgery versus minimally invasive surgery by meta-analyzing the available data from the medical literature. The PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library and EMBASE electronic databases were searched through August 2018. Inclusion criteria considered eligible all comparative studies evaluating open versus minimally invasive procedures. Conventional laparoscopy, robotic and single-port laparoscopy were considered as minimally invasive techniques. Overall morbidity, rate of anastomotic failure, rate of wound complications and mortality were evaluated as primary outcomes. Perioperative details and surgical outcomes were also assessed. The data of a total of 13,740 patients from 26 studies were eventually included in the analysis. There were no significant differences on baseline characteristics such as age, BMI and proportion of high-risk patients between the two groups of patients. As compared to the conventional technique, minimally invasive surgery proved significantly superior in terms of postoperative morbidity, length of hospital stay and rate of incisional hernia. The current literature suggests that minimally invasive surgery should be considered in performing Hartmann’s reversal, if technically viable. However, due to the low level of the available evidence it is impossible to draw definitive conclusions.

     

Thoracoscopic esophagectomy in the prone position

Background

Minimally invasive esophageal surgery has arisen in an attempt to reduce the significant complications associated with esophagectomy. Despite proposed technical and physiological advantages, the prone position technique has not been widely adopted. This article reviews the current status of prone thoracoscopic esophagectomy.

Methods

A systematic literature search was performed to identify all published clinical studies related to prone esophagectomy. Medline, EMBASE and Google Scholar were searched using the keywords “prone,” “thoracoscopic,” and “esophagectomy” to identify articles published between January 1994 and September 2010. A critical review of these studies is given, and where appropriate the technique is compared to the more traditional minimally invasive technique utilising the left lateral decubitus position.

Results

Twelve articles reporting the outcomes following prone thoracoscopic oesophagectomy were tabulated. These studies were all non-randomised single-centre prospective or retrospective studies of which four compared the technique to traditional minimally invasive surgery. Although prone esophagectomy is demonstrated as being both feasible and safe, there is no convincing evidence that it is superior to other forms of esophageal surgery. Most authors comment that the prone position is associated with superior surgical ergonomics and theoretically offers a number of physiological benefits.

Conclusion

The ideal approach within minimally invasive esophageal surgery continues to be a subject of debate since no single method has produced outstanding results. Further clinical studies are required to see whether ergonomic advantages of the prone position can be translated into improved patient outcomes.     

A systematic review of ankle fracture treatment modalities in diabetic patients

AimThis systematic review evaluated the surgical outcomes of various ankle fracture treatment modalities in patients with Diabetes Mellitus as well as the methodological quality of the studies.MethodsFor our review, four online databases were searched: PubMed, MEDLINE (Clarivate Analytics), CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health) and Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics). The overall methodological quality of the studies was assessed with the Coleman Methodology Score. Data regarding diabetic ankle fractures were pooled into three outcomes groups for comparison: (1) the standard fixation cohort with management of diabetic ankle fractures using ORIF with small or mini fragment internal fixation techniques following AO principles, (2) the minimally invasive cohort with diabetic ankle fracture management utilizing percutaneous cannulated screws or intramedullary fixation, and (3) the combined construct cohort treated with a combination of ORIF and another construct (transarticular or external fixation).ResultsThe search strategy identified 2228 potential studies from the four databases and 11 were included in the final review. Compared to the standard fixation cohort, the minimally invasive cohort had increased risk of hardware breakage or migration and the combined constructs cohort had increased risk of hardware breakage or migration, surgical site infection and nonunion. Limb salvage rates were similar for the standard fixation and minimally invasive cohorts; however, the combined constructs cohort had a significantly lower limb salvage rate compared to that of the standard fixation cohort. The mean Coleman Methodology Score indicated the quality of the studies in the review was poor and consistent with its limitations.DiscussionThe overall quality of published studies on operative treatment of diabetic ankle fractures is low. Treating diabetic ankle fractures operatively results in a high number of complications regardless of fixation method. However, limb salvage rates remain high overall at 97.9% at a mean follow-up of 21.7 months. To achieve improved limb salvage rates and decrease complications, it is critical is to follow basic AO principles, respect the soft tissue envelope or utilize minimally invasive techniques, and be wary that certain combined constructs may be associated with higher complication rates.Level of evidence2.     

Surgical versus non-surgical treatment for acute Achilles’ tendon rupture. A systematic review of literature and meta-analysis

BackgroundAchilles’ tendon injury affect 31.17 per 100,000 yearly, it has a major impact on quality of life of affected patients, mostly active young individuals. Different management options exist ranging from conservative treatment, to operative repair either open or percutaneous repair. No consensus has been reached on which treatment modality is preferred for each patient. In this study we systematically reviewed the literature for available evidence regarding management of acute Achilles’ tendon rupture.MethodsThis systematic review consisted of 9 studies, including a systematic search of literature (PubMed, SCOPUS, and The Cochrane Library), selection of studies, extraction of study characteristics, assessment of methodological quality and bias and extraction of data on clinical outcomes and their comparisons between different surgical groups.ResultsA total of 9 studies were included, 822 patients were extracted from the included studies. Of the 822 patients, 415 (50.4%) had undergone surgical intervention and 407 (49.6%) had received non-surgical treatment. The minimum follow-up duration was 12 months. The left Achilles' tendon was relatively more prone to rupture. The interval from injury to treatment was within 2 to 14 days. Five 5 different surgical techniques were used; end to end, modified Kessler, augmented repair, Krackow type and interrupted circumferential stitch. Operative repair was found to significantly decrease rupture rate (Risk Ratio of 0.36, 95% CI 0.21–0.64; P = 0.0005) with higher risk of wound complications. No statistically significant difference between the two groups in functional outcome scores and range of motion.ConclusionWe concluded that surgical technique lowers the risk of rerupture rate but associated with higher complication rate which can be reduced by using the minimally invasive techniques. Multicenter randomized clinical trials are needed to obtain a high-quality level of evidence for the comparison between the different modified surgical techniques and the gap effect on making different decision of managements.     

Oncologic safety of minimally invasive surgery in non-endometrioid endometrial cancer

ObjectiveThis study was aimed to compare the oncologic outcomes of patients with non-endometrioid endometrial cancer who underwent minimally invasive surgery with the outcomes of patients who underwent open surgery.MethodThis is a retrospective, multi-institutional study of patients with non-endometrioid endometrial cancer who were surgically staged by either minimally invasive surgery or open surgery. Oncologic outcomes of the patients were compared according to surgical approach.Results113 patients met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. 57 underwent minimally invasive surgery and 56 underwent open surgery. Patients who underwent minimally invasive surgery had smaller tumors (median size, 3.3 vs. 5.2%, p = 0.0001) and a lower lymphovascular space invasion rate (29.8% vs. 48.2%, p = 0.045). In the overall population, the numbers and rate of recurrence were significantly higher in the open surgery group (p = 0.016). In multivariate analysis, disease stage and tumor size were associated with DFS in contrast to surgical procedure.ConclusionMinimally invasive surgery showed similar survival outcomes when compared to open surgery in non-endometrioid endometrial cancer patients, irrespective of disease stage. When minimally invasive surgery is managed by expert surgeons, non-endometrioid histological subtypes should not be considered a contraindication for minimally invasive surgery.     

Operative treatment options for Morton’s neuroma other than neurectomy − a systematic review

BackgroundThe effectiveness of operative treatments other than neurectomy for Morton’s neuroma remains debatable despite several reported studies. This review aimed to evaluate the effects of operative treatments for Morton’s neuroma other than neurectomy using an algorithmic approach and a structured critical framework to assess the methodological quality of reported studies.MethodsSeveral electronic databases were searched for articles published until August 2021 that evaluated the outcomes of operative treatments other than neurectomy in patients diagnosed with Morton’s neuroma. Data searches, extraction, analysis, and quality assessments were performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, and the clinical outcomes were evaluated using objective, subjective, and negative outcomes; complications; and reoperation rate and type.ResultsAfter reviewing 11,213 studies, 22 studies were finally included. Although a number of studies with high level of evidence are limited, we divided them according to four categories: (1) neurolysis with or without nerve transposition, (2) minimally invasive nerve decompression, (3) metatarsal osteotomy, and (4) additional procedures after nerve transection or neurectomy. All categories showed reliable outcomes except minimally invasive nerve decompression. The proportion of postoperative neurogenic symptoms was lower with neurolysis than with neurectomy.ConclusionWhether the alternative procedures were superior to neurectomy remains unclear as the number of good quality studies was limited. The proportion of postoperative neurogenic symptoms was lower with neurolysis than with neurectomy. Furthermore, performing simultaneous dorsal transposition of the nerve along with neurolysis is more recommended than neurolysis alone. Surgeons should be more careful with minimally invasive deep transverse intermetatarsal ligament release and metatarsal shortening osteotomy as their effectiveness remains inconclusive. Finally, we strongly recommend performing intramuscular embedding or intermuscular transposition of the nerve cutting end if neurectomy or nerve transection is inevitable.Level of evidenceLevel III, systematic review     

Comparison of open and minimally invasive techniques for posterior lumbar instrumentation and fusion after open anterior lumbar interbody fusion

Background contextMinimally invasive techniques for spinal fusion have theoretical advantages for the reduction of iatrogenic injury. Although this topic has been investigated previously for posterior-only interbody surgery, such as transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, similar studies have not evaluated these techniques after anteroposterior spinal fusion, a study design that can more accurately determine the effect of pedicle screw placement and decompression via a minimally invasive technique without the confounding effect of simultaneous interbody cage placement.PurposeTo compare process measures that provide insight into the morbidity of surgery, such as surgical time and the length of postoperative hospital stay between open and minimally invasive anteroposterior lumbar fusion; and to compare the complications during the intraoperative and early postoperative period between open and minimally invasive anteroposterior lumbar fusion.Study designRetrospective case-control study.Patient sampleOne hundred sixty-two patients.Outcome measuresEstimated blood loss, length of surgery, intraoperative fluoroscopy time, length of postoperative hospital stay, malpositioned instrumentation on postoperative imaging, and postoperative complications, including pulmonary embolus and surgical site infection.MethodsPatients who underwent open anterior lumbar interbody fusion followed by either traditional open posterior fusion (Open group) or minimally invasive posterior fusion (minimally invasive surgery [MIS] group) were matched by the number of surgical levels. A chart review was performed to document the intraoperative and postoperative process measures and associated complications in the two groups. Secondary analyses were performed to compare the subgroups of patients, who did and did not undergo a posterior decompression at the time of posterior instrumentation to determine the effect of decompression.ResultsBaseline characteristics were similar between the Open and MIS groups. Estimated blood loss and postoperative transfusion rate were significantly higher in the Open group, differences that the subanalyses suggested were largely because of those patients who underwent concomitant decompression. Length of stay was not significantly different between the groups but was significantly shorter for MIS patients treated without decompression than for Open patients treated without decompression. Intraoperative fluoroscopy time was significantly longer in the MIS group. There was no difference in the infection or complication rates between the groups.ConclusionsOur case-control study comparing patients who underwent anterior lumbar interbody fusion followed by open posterior instrumentation with those who underwent anterior lumbar interbody fusion followed by minimally invasive posterior instrumentation demonstrated that patients undergoing MIS fusion without decompression had less blood loss, less need for transfusion in the perioperative period, and a shorter hospital stay. In contrast, most outcome measures were similar between MIS and Open groups for patients who underwent decompression.     

Risk of gallstone-related complications in necrotizing pancreatitis patients treated with a step-up approach: The experience of two tertiary care centers

BackgroundA minimally invasive step-up approach to necrotizing biliary pancreatitis often requires multiple interventions, delaying cholecystectomy. The risk of gallstone-related complications during this time interval is unknown, as is the feasibility and safety of cholecystectomy after minimally invasive step-up treatment. In this paper, we analyzed both.MethodsNecrotizing pancreatitis patients treated with a minimally invasive step-up approach who underwent interval cholecystectomy at 2 tertiary care centers between 2014 and 2019 were included. Gallstone-related complications prior to cholecystectomy were examined, as were surgical approaches to cholecystectomy and complications. Necrotizing pancreatitis patients treated without mechanical intervention were also examined.ResultsSeven of 31 patients developed gallstone-related complications between minimally invasive step-up treatment initiation and cholecystectomy. One patient developed biliary colic. Six patients developed acute cholecystitis. Two of these patients also developed choledocholithiasis, and 1 developed cholangitis, all requiring endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Cholecystectomy was performed laparoscopically in 27 of 31 patients. One patient required open conversion, and 3 patients underwent planned cholecystectomy during another open operation. Four patients developed postoperative complications. Two of 14 necrotizing pancreatitis patients treated without mechanical intervention developed recurrent pancreatitis while awaiting cholecystectomy.ConclusionOver 20% of necrotizing pancreatitis patients treated by a minimally invasive step-up approach developed gallstone-related complications while awaiting cholecystectomy. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is feasible and safe in the great majority of necrotizing pancreatitis patients treated by a minimally invasive step-up approach.     

Scoping review of peer reviewed publications addressing rehabilitation for people sustaining traumatic spinal cord injury

Study Design: Scoping review

Objective: To study the design, clinical setting and outcome measures used in spinal cord injury rehabilitation publications.

Methods: A literature search on PubMed and Medline was conducted focusing on articles published between 1990–2016 and using “traumatic SCI”, “functional outcomes”, “rehabilitation”, “work” and “return to work” as outcomes. Studies were categorized based on design (intervention, including RCTs vs. non-intervention studies), settings (inpatient vs. outpatient vs. transition), and outcome measures used (impairment vs. function vs. participation/integration vs. quality of life vs. symptoms). Work-related studies were categorized independently.

Results: Five hundred forty-four articles met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 234 were interventional studies, including 23 RCTs. Studies were evenly divided among inpatient, outpatient and transition settings. Of the 234 interventional studies, 143 used functional evaluations. Sixty-one different functional instruments were used, with a predominant use of the Functional Independence Measure (61 times) and an additional use of SCI-specific measures, i.e. Spinal Cord Independence Measure and Craig Handicap Assessment and Reporting Technique (13 times each). Fifty-one studies measured mobility, while only three measured hand functions. The work-related sub-analysis revealed 32 intervention studies (no RCTs), of which 15 used functional evaluations and only three focused on tetraplegia.

Conclusion: Our study revealed a paucity of intervention trials and RCTs, indicating a dearth of knowledge that would be needed to establish evidence-based practice guidelines. This is particularly true for tetraplegia. While standard measures of function were frequently used, providing valuable data, there is no consensus about what exact outcome measure to use. Using newer measurement techniques, for instance based on the application of item response theory, should be considered to enhance uniformity.     

Nefrectomía parcial laparoscópica off-clamp tras la embolización del tumor en sala híbrida frente a nefrectomía parcial convencional: un análisis de pares emparejados por puntuación de propensión

ObjectiveOff-clamp laparoscopic partial nephrectomy in a hybrid operating room after superselective arterial embolization (hLPN) is a promising minimally invasive approach. In this study, we compared the perioperative surgical outcomes of this innovative technique with the conventional standard of care laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (cLPN) technique.Patients and methodsOverall, 86 and 127 patients treated with hLPN and cLPN, respectively, were included. These two techniques were compared in terms of surgical complications, estimated blood loss (EBL), operative time, length of stay (LOS), surgical margins, and Trifecta achievement rate (defined as warm ischemia duration < 25 min, negative surgical margins and absence of complications). A propensity score based on age, gender, BMI, preoperative eGFR and tumor size was used for a 1:1 matching of patients of each group. After matching, two groups of 67 patients with similar characteristics were obtained.ResultsConversion rate to open surgery, complications and EBL were similar in both groups. Conversely, operative time, LOS and Trifecta rates favored hLPN. The multivariate analysis showed that hLPN had a 70% higher chance of Trifecta achievement than cLPN in all age groups and for all tumor size across the study population.ConclusionCompared to a conventional approach, off-clamp laparoscopic partial nephrectomy in a hybrid room after superselective arterial embolization showed satisfying immediate surgical outcomes and reached a higher rate of Trifecta achievement. Mid and long-term functional and oncological results are needed to establish this minimally invasive surgical alternative.