BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic surgery is widely used in abdominal emergency surgery (AES), and the possibility of extending this approach to the more recent robotic surgery (RS) arouses great interest. The slow diffusion of robotic technology mainly due to high costs and the longer RS operative time when compared to laparoscopy may represent disincentives, especially in AES. This study aims to report our experience in the use of RS in AES assessing its safety and feasibility, with particular focus on intra- and post-operative complications, conversion rate, and surgical learning curve. Our data were also compared to other experiences though an extensive literature review.
METHODS: We retrospectively analysed a single surgeon series of the last 10 years. From January 2014 to December 2023, 36 patients underwent urgent or emergency RS. The robotic devices used were Da Vinci Si (15 cases) and Xi (21 cases).
RESULTS: 36 (4.3%) out of 834 robotic procedures were included in our analysis: 20 (56.56%) females. The mean age was 63 years and 30% of patients were ≥ 70 years. 2 (5.55%) procedures were performed at night. No conversions to open were reported in this series. According to the Clavien-Dindo classification, 2 (5.5%) major complications were collected. Intraoperative and 30-day mortality were 0%.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that RS may be a useful and reliable approach also to AES and intraoperative laparoscopic complications when performed in selected hemodynamically stable patients in very well-trained robotic centers. The technology may increase the minimally invasive use and conversion rate in emergent settings in a completely robotic or hybrid approach.

OBJECTIVE: To search the pattern of diagnoses in nonagenarians undergoing emergency abdominal surgery between January 2009 and December 2013 in two hospitals. To test the hypothesis that pre-hospital functional status is an effective criterion for predicting postoperative mortality in nonagenarians after emergency abdominal surgery.
METHODS: The study is an observational study on 157 patients. Patients were identified from the operation database and perioperative data were extracted as prospectively information supplied by retrospective data from patient electronic files. The primary endpoints were short, middle and long-term mortality and the secondary endpoint was to identify preoperative factors associated with postoperative mortality.
RESULTS: The most frequent reason for operation was intestinal obstruction. Overall mortality in the cohort was 34% (n = 54) after 30 days and 54% (n = 84) after 1 year. Amongst patients developing a serious complication (classified as Clavien Dindo class III or greater) after surgery (n = 45) the mortality was 80% (n = 36) after 30 days and 89% (n = 40) after 1 year. In multivariate analysis, a high American Association of Anesthesiologists class (ASA) and a high Performance Status (PS) class (low performance) were significant predictors of post-operative mortality.
CONCLUSIONS: Our data support pre-admission functional status for predicting postoperative mortality after emergency abdominal surgery in nonagenarians.

BACKGROUND: Nowadays, very few patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding fail endoscopic hemostasis (refractory NVUGIB). This subset of patients poses a clinical dilemma: should they be operated on or referred to transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE)?
OBJECTIVE: To carry out a systematic review of the literature and to perform a meta-analysis of studies that directly compare TAE and surgery in patients with refractory NVUGIB.
METHODS: We searched PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, and Embase. A combination of the MeSH terms \"gastrointestinal bleeding\"; \"gastrointestinal hemorrhage\"; \"embolization\"; \"embolization, therapeutic\"; and \"surgery\" were used ((\"gastrointestinal bleeding\" or \"gastrointestinal hemorrhage\") and (\"embolization\" or \"embolization, therapeutic\") and \"surgery\")). The search was performed in June 2018. Studies were retrieved and relevant studies were identified after reading the study title and abstract. Bibliographies of the selected studies were also examined. Statistical analysis was performed using RevMan software. Outcomes considered were all-cause mortality, rebleeding rate, complication rate, and the need for further intervention.
RESULTS: Eight hundred fifty-six abstracts were found. Only 13 studies were included for a total of 1077 patients (TAE group 427, surgery group 650). All selected papers were non-randomized studies: ten were single-center and two were double-center retrospective comparative studies, while only one was a multicenter prospective cohort study. No comparative randomized clinical trial is reported in the literature.Mortality. Pooled data (1077 patients) showed a tendency toward improved mortality rates after TAE, but this trend was not statistically significant (OD = 0.77; 95% CI 0.50, 1.18; P = 0.05; I 2 = 43% [random effects]). Significant heterogeneity was found among the studies.Rebleeding rate. Pooled data (865 patients, 211 events) showed that the incidence of rebleeding was significantly higher for patients undergoing TAE (OD = 2.44; 95% CI 1.77, 3.36; P = 0.41; I 2 = 4% [fixed effects]).Complication rate. Pooling of the data (487 patients, 206 events) showed a sharp reduction of complications after TAE when compared with surgery (OD = 0.45; 95% CI 0.30, 0.47; P = 0.24; I 2 = 26% [fixed effects]).Need for further intervention. Pooled data (698 patients, 165 events) revealed a significant reduction of further intervention in the surgery group (OD = 2.13; 95% CI 1.21, 3.77; P = 0.02; I 2 = 56% [random effects]). A great degree of heterogeneity was found among the studies.
CONCLUSIONS: The present study shows that TAE is a safe and effective procedure; when compared to surgery, TAE exhibits a higher rebleeding rate, but this tendency does not affect the clinical outcome as shown by the comparison of mortality rates (slight drift toward lower mortality for patients undergoing TAE). The present study suggests that TAE could be a viable option for the first-line therapy of refractory NVUGIB and sets the foundation for the design of future randomized clinical trials.
CONCLUSIONS: The retrospective nature of the majority of included studies leads to selection bias. Furthermore, the decision of whether to proceed with surgery or refer to TAE was made on a case-by-case basis by each attending surgeon. Thus, external validity is low. Another limitation involves the variability in etiology of the refractory bleeding. TAE techniques and surgical procedure also differ consistently between different studies. Frame time for mortality detection differs between the studies. These limitations do not impair the power of the present study that represents the largest and most recent meta-analysis currently available.