No Safety Advantage to Emergency Robotic Cholecystectomy
TOPLINE:
In acute care settings, robotic-assisted cholecystectomy (RAC) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) resulted in similar rates of bile duct injury, but RAC was associated with higher rates of major postoperative complications, more frequent drain placement, and longer hospital stays than LC.
METHODOLOGY:
Although some prior studies have raised concerns about increased bile duct injury with RAC vs LC, their relative safety in acute care surgery remains unclear.
Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort analysis using commercial claims and encounter data from 2016 to 2021 to compare outcomes between RAC and LC in acute care surgery.
The primary outcome was bile duct injury; secondary outcomes included major postoperative complications, the use of a postoperative drain, length of hospital stay, surgical site infections, and conversion to open surgery.
TAKEAWAY:
Researchers included 844,428 adults (mean age, 45.6 years; 64.9% women), with 35,037 undergoing RAC and being propensity-matched with an equal number of adults who underwent LC.
Adoption of RAC increased from 2.2% in 2016 to 8.2% in 2021.
Bile duct injury rates were similar between the groups (P = .54).
RAC vs LC was associated with higher rates of major postoperative complications (8.37% vs 5.50%; P < .001), an increased use of postoperative drains (0.63% vs 0.48%; P < .001), and a longer median hospital stay (3 vs 2 days; P < .001).
Use of intraoperative cholangiograms was more common in the LC than in the RAC group (P < .001), whereas RAC was associated with fewer surgical site infections than LC (0.04% vs 0.09%; P = .02).
Conversion to open surgery was uncommon in both the groups.
IN PRACTICE:
'Although these results may partly reflect case complexity and selection bias, they do not suggest a clear advantage of RAC over the standard, established laparoscopic cholecystectomy,' the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Nathnael Abera Woldehana, MD, MPH, Division of Minimally Invasive Surgery, Department of Surgery, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore. It was published online in JAMA Surgery.
LIMITATIONS:
The retrospective design may have introduced selection bias and unmeasured confounding factors. The study's generalizability is limited to commercially insured populations. Long-term outcomes such as readmissions, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness were not assessed.
DISCLOSURES:
Some authors reported receiving conference travel/attendance support, consulting fees, grants, advisory board fees, and speaker fees and having other ties with several organizations and pharmaceutical companies.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Medscape
3 days ago
- Medscape
No Safety Advantage to Emergency Robotic Cholecystectomy
TOPLINE: In acute care settings, robotic-assisted cholecystectomy (RAC) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) resulted in similar rates of bile duct injury, but RAC was associated with higher rates of major postoperative complications, more frequent drain placement, and longer hospital stays than LC. METHODOLOGY: Although some prior studies have raised concerns about increased bile duct injury with RAC vs LC, their relative safety in acute care surgery remains unclear. Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort analysis using commercial claims and encounter data from 2016 to 2021 to compare outcomes between RAC and LC in acute care surgery. The primary outcome was bile duct injury; secondary outcomes included major postoperative complications, the use of a postoperative drain, length of hospital stay, surgical site infections, and conversion to open surgery. TAKEAWAY: Researchers included 844,428 adults (mean age, 45.6 years; 64.9% women), with 35,037 undergoing RAC and being propensity-matched with an equal number of adults who underwent LC. Adoption of RAC increased from 2.2% in 2016 to 8.2% in 2021. Bile duct injury rates were similar between the groups (P = .54). RAC vs LC was associated with higher rates of major postoperative complications (8.37% vs 5.50%; P < .001), an increased use of postoperative drains (0.63% vs 0.48%; P < .001), and a longer median hospital stay (3 vs 2 days; P < .001). Use of intraoperative cholangiograms was more common in the LC than in the RAC group (P < .001), whereas RAC was associated with fewer surgical site infections than LC (0.04% vs 0.09%; P = .02). Conversion to open surgery was uncommon in both the groups. IN PRACTICE: 'Although these results may partly reflect case complexity and selection bias, they do not suggest a clear advantage of RAC over the standard, established laparoscopic cholecystectomy,' the authors wrote. SOURCE: The study was led by Nathnael Abera Woldehana, MD, MPH, Division of Minimally Invasive Surgery, Department of Surgery, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore. It was published online in JAMA Surgery. LIMITATIONS: The retrospective design may have introduced selection bias and unmeasured confounding factors. The study's generalizability is limited to commercially insured populations. Long-term outcomes such as readmissions, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness were not assessed. DISCLOSURES: Some authors reported receiving conference travel/attendance support, consulting fees, grants, advisory board fees, and speaker fees and having other ties with several organizations and pharmaceutical companies. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
Chatting to passenger biggest cause of car crashes
Talking to passengers and daydreaming behind the wheel are bigger causes of driving mistakes that may lead to an accident than using a mobile phone, a survey suggests. The RAC, which commissioned the poll, warned that distractions can have 'catastrophic consequences'. More than three in five (63 per cent) of the 2,691 UK drivers surveyed said they had made mistakes behind the wheel because they were distracted. Of this group, the most common self-reported causes of distraction were talking to other passengers (43 per cent) and thinking about topics unrelated to driving (37 per cent). When respondents were asked what they thought were the most distracting things a driver could do, the most common responses were talking on a phone (46 per cent) and applying make-up or shaving (42 per cent). Among those who admitted to making distraction mistakes, just 8 per cent said talking on the phone was the cause, while 2 per cent of drivers blamed shaving or applying make-up. Mistakes included missing a junction, exceeding the speed limit, ending up in the wrong lane or nearly crashing into another road user. Yet almost a quarter (23 per cent) of under-25s said they had been distracted by making phone calls, even though doing so with a handheld device while driving is illegal. More than half (55 per cent) of this age group admitted to breaking the law by doing this. Overall, the difference between what drivers believe is distracting and what actually caused a mistake to be made suggests that the public may be wrong about the causes of road safety hazards. Rod Dennis, the RAC road safety spokesman, said: 'Talking to passengers or daydreaming are so common that they aren't perceived by drivers to be big distractions, but our research has revealed they are in fact responsible for most of the errors drivers admit to. 'Although your eyes are on the road, it's easy for your mind to wander behind the wheel, especially on long journeys. 'Distractions can have catastrophic consequences for both drivers themselves and other road users, especially in extreme instances like failing to stop at a junction or at a red light or crossing. 'Driving is still a very mentally demanding task, especially as we need to be able to react to what's in front in a split-second, so it's important we do everything we can to stay alert and minimise distractions.' Almost one in five (18 per cent) of younger motorists aged 17 to 24 said they had become distracted after eating or drinking while driving. Similarly, just over one in 10 of the same age group said vaping or smoking behind the wheel had led to them taking their minds off the road. Interacting with modern touchscreen systems to control functions such as heating, radio and navigation aids also lead to drivers making mistakes, with 26 per cent of the full survey sample saying this happened to them. Separate Department for Transport (DfT) figures show 940 people were killed or seriously injured in crashes on Britain's roads in 2023 where a driver was found to be distracted by something within their vehicle. Campaigners have long sought to crack down on the use of mobile phones while driving because of their potential to distract motorists from the road ahead. Yet the message of safety over convenience has yet to fully sink in. Earlier this year, rapper Stormzy was banned from driving for nine months after an undercover police officer caught him using a phone behind the wheel of a Rolls-Royce in west London. Manchester City player Erling Haaland was reportedly caught scrolling on his phone while stopped in traffic last September. Doing so behind the wheel still counts as using a handheld device while driving, even when the vehicle is stationary. Similarly, rail minister Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill was reported to police after he was caught doing the same thing in April while behind the wheel of his vintage Routemaster bus, which he was driving during a charity event. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Business Wire
28-05-2025
- Business Wire
Resolve Therapeutics and Duke Medical School Initiate Observational Study of Cell-free RNA in Polytrauma Patients
MIAMI--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Resolve Therapeutics, a leader in the emerging field of cell-free nucleic acid therapeutics, today announced a collaboration with the Department of Surgery, Duke University School of Medicine to analyze the role of cell-free RNA (cfRNA) in polytrauma A significant number of trauma patients admitted to the hospital each year suffer from polytrauma, with multiple, life-threatening injuries requiring immediate surgical intervention. Many of these patients experience poor clinical outcomes due to Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS). The mechanism of SIRS in polytrauma patients is not completely understood but the current view holds that that massive tissue injury results in the release of large amounts of RNA into the blood overwhelming the activity of circulating RNase, which protects cells from the inflammatory effects of cfRNA under normal circumstances. The accumulating cfRNA activates several key mechanisms driving local and systemic inflammation which leads to increased morbidity and mortality. 'Preventing systemic inflammation in polytrauma would be a large step forward in the treatment paradigm for these patients,' said Allan D. Kirk, MD, PhD, Chair of the Department of Surgery at Duke University. Share Working closely with the world's foremost trauma surgeons at Duke University, Resolve and Duke will conduct an observational study to analyze the presence, structure, and drug targeting of cfRNA in a selected population of polytrauma patients. Based on the results of this work, a proof-of-concept clinical trial with RSLV-132 (a fully human, catalytically active, RNase Fc fusion protein) may be undertaken seeking to improve clinical outcomes for polytrauma patients by removing circulating inflammatory nucleic acids. 'We are thrilled to work with the world class physician scientists within the Duke University School of Medicine and are hopeful our work together may lead to an improvement in the outcome for patients with polytrauma,' commented Dr. James Posada chief executive officer of Resolve Therapeutics. 'Duke Surgery offers a unique environment, coupling state of the art patient care with basic research expertise and infrastructure to enable systematic molecular analysis of plasma-borne inflammatory nucleic acids.' 'Preventing systemic inflammation in polytrauma would be a large step forward in the treatment paradigm for these patients,' said Allan D. Kirk, MD, PhD, Chair of the Department of Surgery at Duke University. 'We look forward to the collaboration with Resolve and learning more about the underlying mechanisms of inflammation in critically injured patients,' he added. About RSLV-132 RSLV-132 is a safe, fully-human, non-immunosuppressive, non-immunogenic, biologic drug with a three-week serum half-life. The drug is comprised of catalytically active human RNase fused to an engineered Fc region of human IgG1. It is designed to remain in circulation and digest extracellular pathogenic RNA in diseases where the presence of cfRNA drives the inflammatory process. RSLV-132 has proven safe in five clinical trials and has demonstrated improvement in autoimmune symptoms in phase 2 clinical trials in both systemic lupus erythematosus and Sjogren's syndrome. About Resolve Therapeutics Resolve is a biopharmaceutical company at the forefront of the emerging field of cell-free nucleic acids in disease. We are developing RSLV-132 and RSLV-145 in a broad range of acute and chronic diseases that are driven by cell-free RNA, cell-free DNA, and Neutrophil Extracellular Traps (NETs). For more information or to discuss our programs please visit:
