Laparoscopic vs. Robotic Gastrectomy in Patients with Situs Inversus Totalis: A Systematic Review.
Journal
Minimally invasive surgery
ISSN: 2090-1445
Titre abrégé: Minim Invasive Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101566870
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
02
04
2022
revised:
16
09
2022
accepted:
04
02
2023
entrez:
13
3
2023
pubmed:
14
3
2023
medline:
14
3
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Situs inversus totalis (SIT) is a rare genetic anomaly involving the mirror-image transposition of organs. This transposition can potentially make surgical treatments difficult because of the reversed anatomy and intraoperative confusion. The aim of this systematic review is to compare the perioperative outcomes and safety of robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy in patients with SIT. We included full-text case reports with brief reviews and standalone case studies on SIT patients age ≥21, undergoing laparoscopic or robotic gastrectomy. We excluded case studies focusing on procedures other than laparoscopic and robotic gastrectomy, namely, open gastrectomy, gastric banding, and gastric bypass. English was selected as the language and articles published in the last 10 years were selected with a date range from Jan, 2011, to Aug, 2021. We focused on intraoperative and postoperative outcomes including blood loss, vascular aberrancy, operation duration, mortality, operative complications, duration of hospitalization, and follow-up interval. Online databases included Clinical Key, Embase, ScienceDirect, Ovid, and Google Scholar. The last search was conducted on Aug 15, 2021. For all eligible articles, risk of bias assessment was carried out using JBI critical appraisal checklist (Table 1). Continuous data were analyzed using From our search, we retained 29 case reports which reported information from 30 cases. The results reported in each study were summarized (Table 2). The laparoscopic procedure was used in 21 cases and robot-assisted surgery was used in 9 cases. Operative time was mentioned in 24 out of the 30 cases and the average operative time was 205.67 min. Blood loss was reported in 16 out of the 30 cases, with an average blood loss of 51.9 mL. Hospital stay information was provided in 26 out of the 30 cases, with an average length of stay of 8.5 days. A statistically significant difference was not found for the operative time, length of hospitalization, or age of the patient. However, intraoperative blood loss in robot-assisted gastrectomy was lower compared to laparoscopic gastrectomy, with a Laparoscopic and robotic gastrectomy can be safely used for SIT patients if performed cautiously. Some precautions include thoroughly assessing anatomical aberrations using preoperative imaging, adjusting the operative set up, and having experienced surgeons. The robotic approach may have a few advantages over laparoscopic procedures that may enhance the surgical safety for SIT patients and need to be further explored in future research. Advantages of the robotic approach may include improved surgical safety with better visualization of the surgical field, promoting the stability of surgical instruments and perhaps allowing ease of surgical orientation and positioning when operating on patients with SIT. Further research in this field is merited.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Situs inversus totalis (SIT) is a rare genetic anomaly involving the mirror-image transposition of organs. This transposition can potentially make surgical treatments difficult because of the reversed anatomy and intraoperative confusion. The aim of this systematic review is to compare the perioperative outcomes and safety of robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy in patients with SIT.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
We included full-text case reports with brief reviews and standalone case studies on SIT patients age ≥21, undergoing laparoscopic or robotic gastrectomy. We excluded case studies focusing on procedures other than laparoscopic and robotic gastrectomy, namely, open gastrectomy, gastric banding, and gastric bypass. English was selected as the language and articles published in the last 10 years were selected with a date range from Jan, 2011, to Aug, 2021. We focused on intraoperative and postoperative outcomes including blood loss, vascular aberrancy, operation duration, mortality, operative complications, duration of hospitalization, and follow-up interval. Online databases included Clinical Key, Embase, ScienceDirect, Ovid, and Google Scholar. The last search was conducted on Aug 15, 2021. For all eligible articles, risk of bias assessment was carried out using JBI critical appraisal checklist (Table 1). Continuous data were analyzed using
Results
UNASSIGNED
From our search, we retained 29 case reports which reported information from 30 cases. The results reported in each study were summarized (Table 2). The laparoscopic procedure was used in 21 cases and robot-assisted surgery was used in 9 cases. Operative time was mentioned in 24 out of the 30 cases and the average operative time was 205.67 min. Blood loss was reported in 16 out of the 30 cases, with an average blood loss of 51.9 mL. Hospital stay information was provided in 26 out of the 30 cases, with an average length of stay of 8.5 days. A statistically significant difference was not found for the operative time, length of hospitalization, or age of the patient. However, intraoperative blood loss in robot-assisted gastrectomy was lower compared to laparoscopic gastrectomy, with a
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
Laparoscopic and robotic gastrectomy can be safely used for SIT patients if performed cautiously. Some precautions include thoroughly assessing anatomical aberrations using preoperative imaging, adjusting the operative set up, and having experienced surgeons. The robotic approach may have a few advantages over laparoscopic procedures that may enhance the surgical safety for SIT patients and need to be further explored in future research. Advantages of the robotic approach may include improved surgical safety with better visualization of the surgical field, promoting the stability of surgical instruments and perhaps allowing ease of surgical orientation and positioning when operating on patients with SIT. Further research in this field is merited.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36909819
doi: 10.1155/2023/3894561
pmc: PMC9998161
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
3894561Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 Anmol Multani et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Références
In Vivo. 2021 Mar-Apr;35(2):913-918
pubmed: 33622883
BMC Surg. 2015 Jun 19;15:75
pubmed: 26087838
Surg Case Rep. 2021 Aug 2;7(1):172
pubmed: 34337695
BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n71
pubmed: 33782057
Prz Gastroenterol. 2018;13(1):47-51
pubmed: 29657611
Surg Oncol. 2019 Sep;30:98-99
pubmed: 31500795
J Minim Access Surg. 2012 Jul;8(3):93-6
pubmed: 22837597
Clin Imaging. 2021 Apr;72:122-135
pubmed: 33232899
Hippokratia. 2015 Oct-Dec;19(4):360-362
pubmed: 27703309
Int J Surg Case Rep. 2021 Apr;81:105818
pubmed: 33887833
Case Rep Oncol. 2017 Jan 27;10(1):130-135
pubmed: 28203176
J Gastric Cancer. 2013 Dec;13(4):266-72
pubmed: 24511424
World J Surg Oncol. 2018 Mar 2;16(1):41
pubmed: 29499701
J Surg Case Rep. 2021 May 15;2021(5):rjaa475
pubmed: 34025963
JSLS. 2014 Apr-Jun;18(2):314-8
pubmed: 24960499
Asian J Endosc Surg. 2021 Apr;14(2):297-300
pubmed: 32875706
Asian J Endosc Surg. 2017 Feb;10(1):47-50
pubmed: 27739194
Cureus. 2018 Oct 18;10(10):e3464
pubmed: 30585280
J Taibah Univ Med Sci. 2020 May 29;15(4):329-333
pubmed: 32982638
J Gastrointest Surg. 2017 Dec;21(12):2144-2145
pubmed: 28900793
ANZ J Surg. 2019 Oct;89(10):E480-E481
pubmed: 30192067
Asian J Endosc Surg. 2018 Feb;11(1):39-42
pubmed: 28677888
Lancet. 2020 Aug 29;396(10251):635-648
pubmed: 32861308
Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2014 Nov-Dec;10(6):e53-6
pubmed: 25443073
Int Surg. 2013 Jul-Sep;98(3):266-70
pubmed: 23971782
J Korean Surg Soc. 2012 May;82(5):321-4
pubmed: 22563541
BMC Public Health. 2019 Oct 15;19(1):1293
pubmed: 31615464
World J Gastroenterol. 2015 Sep 21;21(35):10246-50
pubmed: 26401091
Obes Surg. 2015 Oct;25(10):1985-6
pubmed: 26227396
Syst Rev. 2021 Jan 26;10(1):39
pubmed: 33499930
Indian J Surg. 2016 Apr;78(2):130-5
pubmed: 27303123
J Korean Surg Soc. 2011 Dec;81 Suppl 1:S34-8
pubmed: 22319735
Medicine (Baltimore). 2017 Sep;96(39):e8209
pubmed: 28953685