Kandil, Omneya

Background: Whether robot-assisted cholecystectomy reduces bile duct injury compared with laparoscopic cholecystectomy remains uncertain because prior studies have inadequately accounted for disease severity and have rarely classified injury severity using standardized criteria. This study compared perioperative outcomes after robot-assisted and laparoscopic cholecystectomy across a large healthcare system while adjusting for operative complexity. Study Design: Adults undergoing robot-assisted or laparoscopic cholecystectomy within the Mayo Clinic Enterprise (2014–2025) were retrospectively evaluated. Propensity score weighting adjusted for demographics, surgeon case volume, learning curve, and disease severity using the Tokyo Guidelines and Parkland grading system in patients with acute cholecystitis. The primary outcome was bile duct injury; secondary outcomes included general and procedure-specific complications. Results: Among 23,513 patients (19,998 laparoscopic; 3,515 robotic), robot-assisted cholecystectomy was used more frequently for Parkland grade ≥3 disease. Overall, 227 bile duct injuries occurred (204 laparoscopic; 23 robotic), corresponding to absolute risks of 1.02% and 0.65%, respectively (absolute risk difference −0.37%, 95% CI −0.72% to −0.02%; number needed to treat, 273). Robot-assisted cholecystectomy was associated with lower odds of conversion to open surgery, 30-day readmission, and mortality, shorter hospital stay (β −0.56, 95% CI −0.66 to −0.45; P<0.001), and a 5-minute longer median operative time. In acute cholecystitis, robot-assisted cholecystectomy was associated with lower adjusted odds of bile duct injury (aOR 0.29, 95% CI 0.07–0.78; P=0.011). Conclusions: After adjustment for disease severity and surgeon-related factors, robot-assisted cholecystectomy was associated with lower odds of bile duct injury in acute cholecystitis and improved perioperative outcomes, including shorter hospitalization and lower conversion rates, despite greater use in more complex cases.

Objectives Comparing clinical outcomes after cardiopulmonary bypass with hemodsorption (HA) versus cardiopulmonary bypass without HA in patients undergoing cardiac surgery in terms of mortality and major complications. Methods PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched for relevant randomized control trials (RCTs) that compared postoperative clinical outcomes between patients receiving intraoperative HA with cardiopulmonary bypass versus patients receiving cardiopulmonary bypass without intraoperative HA in cardiac surgery. Results Sixteen RCTs with 851 patients (433 in the HA group and 418 in the control group), were included in our meta-analysis. Our meta-analysis found no significant differences between the intraoperative HA group and the control group in patients undergoing cardiac surgery in terms of 30-days/in-hospital mortality, new-onset atrial fibrillation, stroke or cerebrovascular events, postoperative delirium, renal failure/acute kidney injury, need for renal replacement, postoperative liver dysfunction, thrombocytopenia, bleeding, volume of blood loss, pneumonia, sepsis, respiratory insufficiency, duration of postoperative ventilation, distributive/septic shock, pericardial tamponade, need for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support, sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score at ICU admission, plasma-free hemoglobin levels, and fibrinogen levels. However, the pooled analysis showed a significant association between HA and decreased albumin at ICU admission (MD = − 0.28, 95% CI [0.55 to 0.01], p -value = 0.04), decreased length of ICU stay (MD = −0.66, 95% CI [−1.24 to 0.08], p -value = 0.03), and decreased length of hospital stay (MD = −0.99, 95% CI [−1.88 to −0.10], p -value = 0.03). Conclusion Our findings suggest that there is not enough evidence to endorse the role of routine intraoperative HA during cardiopulmonary bypass in improving clinical outcomes after cardiac surgery. Factors such as patient risk profile, procedure complexity, and cost implications should be taken into account when considering this adjunct therapy.