Giuseppe Marincola

The application of a robotic platform in the bariatric surgical field is intended to enhance the already established advantages of minimally invasive surgery in terms of both technical and clinical outcomes. These advantages are especially relevant for technically challenging multiquadrant operations such as Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (RYGB). Consequently, robotic-assisted surgery has emerged as a possible application for bariatric surgeries. The study attempts to assess feasibility and safety of the Hugo^™-Robotic-Assisted Surgery System (Hugo^™-RAS) platform compared to the DaVinci^® Surgical System (DaVinci^®-SS) with a focus on complication rates and operative times. We retrospectively reviewed bariatric procedures performed from January 2013 until December 2023. We included all robotic RYGBs performed using Hugo^™-RAS and DaVinci^®-SS platforms. The study utilized Propensity Score Matching (PSM) analysis to address bias in selection, matching patients based on age, gender, body mass index, comorbidities and past abdominal operations. One hundred thirty-five patients were identified: 90 DaVinci^®-SS and 45 Hugo^™-RAS procedures. After PSM, each group consisted of 45 patients. There was no discernible disparity observed in relation to early (≤ 30 days) postoperative complications rate (p = 1), mean operative time (for docking time, console time and total operative time: p = 0.176, p = 0.678, p = 0.229, respectively) and postoperative hospital stay (p = 0.052) between DaVinci^®-RSS and Hugo^™-RAS procedures. Our results suggest that application of both Hugo^™-RAS and DaVinci^®-SS robotic platforms to RYGB is related to comparable safety profiles. Although DaVinci^®-SS remains the most widely adopted platform in clinical practice, this study underscores the potential role of the Hugo^™-RAS to provide effective solutions in robotic bariatric procedures.

Purpose: Sleeve Gastrectomy (SG) is the most performed bariatric surgery, but a considerable number of patients may require revisional procedures for suboptimal clinical response/recurrence of weight (SCR/RoW). Conversion options include One-Anastomosis Gastric Bypass (OAGB) and Single Anastomosis Duodeno-Ileal Bypass (SADI). The study aims to compare SADI vs. OAGB as revisional procedures in terms of early and mid-term complications, operative time, postoperative hospital stay and clinical outcomes. Methods: All patients who underwent OAGB or SADI as revisional procedures following SG for SCR/RoW at three high-volume bariatric centers between January 2014 and April 2021 were included. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed. Demographic, operative, and postoperative outcomes of the two groups were compared. Results: One hundred and sixty-eight patients were identified. After PSM, the two groups included 42 OAGB and 42 SADI patients. Early (≤ 30 days) postoperative complications rate did not differ significantly between OAGB and SADI groups (3 bleedings vs. 0, p = 0.241). Mid-term (within 2 years) complications rate was significantly higher in the OAGB group (21.4% vs. 2.4%, p = 0.007), mainly anastomotic complications and reflux disease (12% of OAGBs). Seven OAGB patients required conversion to another procedure (Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass—RYGB) vs. none among the SADI patients (p = 0.006). Conclusions: SADI and OAGB are both effective as revisional procedures for SCR/RoW after SG. OAGB is associated with a significantly higher rate of mid-term complications and a not negligible rate of conversion (RYGB). Larger studies are necessary to draw definitive conclusions.

The increased operative time and costs represent the main limitations of robotic technology application to bariatric surgery. Robotic platforms may help the surgeon to overcome the technical difficulties in super-obese (SO, BMI ≥ 50 kg/m²) patients, in which multi-quadrant operations could be challenging. We aimed to evaluate the effect of robot-assisted (R) versus laparoscopic (L) approaches in Single Anastomosis Duodeno-Ileal Bypass with Sleeve Gastrectomy (SADI-S) and Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (RYGB) in SO and Super-Super Obese (SSO, BMI ≥ 60 kg/m²) patients in terms of outcomes and cost-effectiveness. Bariatric procedures performed from 2012 to 2023 were retrospectively reviewed. The inclusion criteria were BMI ≥ 50 kg/m², primary SADI-S or RYGB. Operative time (OT), early complications, post-operative stay (POS), overall costs and follow-up data were analyzed. A subgroup analysis for surgical procedures and SSO patients was also performed. Among 4596 patients, 174 RYGB and 91 SADI-S in BMI ≥ 50 kg/m² patients were selected. After Propensity Score Matching analysis, two groups of patients were identified (laparoscopic and robot-assisted), each one composed of 18 RYGB and 26 SADI-S. Intraoperative and post-operative complication rates and POS were comparable. Mean OT was longer in robotic procedures compared with laparoscopy (199.1 ± 65.7 and 109.5 ± 39.1 min, respectively, p < 0.001). The difference in OT was eliminated after only SSO patients were included in the analysis (172.7 ± 24.1 vs 152.6 ± 26.2 min for R-SADI-S and L-SADI-S, respectively, p = 0.107). Robotic surgeries were associated with higher costs (8134.6 ± 1886.7 and 2386.7 ± 388.2 € in R-RYGB and L-RYGB, respectively; 7996.6 ± 873.1 and 3954.6 ± 631.1 € in R-SADI-S and L-SADI-S). Despite increased costs, robotic approach may represent an added value in more complex cases such as SSO patients.

Non-cirrhotic portal hypertension (NCPH), also known as idiopathic non-cirrhotic portal hypertension (INCPH) and porto-sinusoidal vascular disorder (PSVD), is a rare disease characterized by intrahepatic portal hypertension (IPH) in the absence of cirrhosis. The precise etiopathogenesis of IPH is an area of ongoing research. NCPH diagnosis is challenging, as there are no specific tests available to confirm the disease, and a high-quality liver biopsy, detailed clinical information, and an expert pathologist are necessary for diagnosis. Currently, the treatment of NCPH relies on the prevention of complications related to portal hypertension, following current guidelines of cirrhotic portal hypertension. No treatment has been studied that aimed to modify the natural history of the disease; however, transjugular intrahepatic porto-systemic shunt (TIPS) placement, shunt and liver transplantation are considerable symptomatic options. In this review, we discuss the heterogeneity of NCPH as well as its etiopathogenesis, clinical presentation and management issues. Starting from the assumption that portal hypertension does not always mean cirrhosis, cooperative studies are probably needed to clarify the issues of etiology and the possible genetic background of this rare disease. This knowledge might lead to better treatment and perhaps better prevention.

The implementation of barbed sutures appears to enhance the process of suturing and knot tying, particularly in the field of bariatric surgery, where they can offer significant advantages. The objective of this study is to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of utilising barbed sutures for gastric pouch-jejunal anastomosis (GPJA) and jejuno-jejunal anastomosis (JJA) anastomosis in Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (RYGB). Data from patients who underwent primary RYGB between January 2012 and October 2018 were retrospectively collected using Propensity Score Matching (PSM) to randomise groups (barbed sutures—BS-G and conventional sutures—CS-G). The primary outcome was postoperative early complications. The secondary outcomes were late complications (internal hernias and small bowel obstructions), operative time and postoperative hospital stay. A total of 969 patients were included. After PSM, 322 (161 in BS-G vs. 161 in CS-G) patients were compared (chi-square 0.287, p = 0.862). Postoperative early and late complications were comparable between the two groups. BS-G had a significantly shorter median operative time (65 vs. 95 min p < 0.001). Median postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter for BS-G (2 vs. 5 days, p < 0.001). Barbed sutures effectively reduce the operation duration and are as safe as conventional sutures for closing anastomotic defects during RYGB.

Introduction: Single Anastomosis Duodenal-Ileal Bypass with Sleeve Gastrectomy (SADI-S), like other hypoabsorptive procedures, could be burdened by long-term nutritional deficiencies such as malnutrition, anemia, hypocalcemia, and hyperparathyroidism. Objectives: We aimed to report our experience in terms of mid-term (2 years) bariatric, nutritional, and metabolic results in patients who underwent SADI-S both as a primary or revisional procedure. Methods: One hundred twenty-one patients were scheduled for SADI-S as a primary or revisional procedure from July 2016 to February 2020 and completed at least 2 years of follow-up. Demographic features, bariatric, nutritional, and metabolic results were analyzed during a stepped follow-up at 3 months, 6 months, 1 year and 2 years. Results: Sixty-six patients (47 female and 19 male) were included. The median preoperative BMI was 53 (48–58) kg/m². Comorbidities were reported in 48 (72.7%) patients. At 2 years, patients had a median BMI of 27 (27–31) kg/m² (p < 0.001) with a median %EWL of 85.3% (72.1–96.1), a TWL of 75 (49–100) kg, and a %TWL of 50.9% (40.7–56.9). The complete remission rate was 87.5% for type 2 diabetes mellitus, 83.3% for obstructive sleep apnea syndrome and 64.5% for hypertension. The main nutritional deficiencies post SADI-S were vitamin D (31.82%) and folic acid deficiencies (9.09%). Conclusion: SADI-S could be considered as an efficient and safe procedure with regard to nutritional status, at least in mid-term (2 years) results. It represents a promising bariatric procedure because of the excellent metabolic and bariatric outcomes with acceptable nutritional deficiency rates. Nevertheless, larger studies with longer follow-ups are necessary to draw definitive conclusions.

Background: Early postoperative discharge after colorectal surgery within the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) guidelines has been demonstrated to be safe, although its applicability has not been universal. The primary aim of this study was to identify the predictors of early discharge and readiness for discharge in a study population. Methods: Early discharge was defined as discharge occurring in 72 h or less after surgery. The characteristics and clinical outcomes of the patients in the early and non-early discharge groups were compared, and variables associated with early discharge were identified. Additionally, independent variables associated with the readiness for discharge within 48 h were evaluated. Results: Of 965 patients who underwent colorectal surgery between January 2015 and July 2020, 788 were included in this study. No differences in readmission, reoperation, or 30-day mortality were observed between the early and non-early discharge groups. Both early discharge and readiness for discharge had a positive association with adherence to 80 per cent or more of the ERAS items and a negative association with the female sex, duration of surgery, drain positioning, and postoperative complications. Conclusion: Early discharge after colorectal surgery is safe and feasible, and is not associated with a high risk of readmission or reoperation. Discharge at 48 h can be reliably predicted in a subset of patients. Future studies should collect prospective data on early discharge related to safety, as well as patients’ expectations, possible organizational issues, and effective costs reduction in Italian clinical practice.