Leonardo Solaini

Dr. Leonardo Solaini

Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Bologna, 47121 Forlì, Italy

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

18Years (2009-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
18 January 2017 in World Journal of Emergency Surgery
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
ACand Federico Coccolini
and Federico Coccolini
PSPhilip F. Stahel
Philip F. Stahel
GMGiulia Montori
Giulia Montori
WBWalter Biffl
Walter Biffl
THTal M Horer
Tal M Horer
LALuca Ansaloni
Luca Ansaloni
Complex pelvic injuries are among the most dangerous and deadly trauma related lesions. Different classification systems exist, some are based on the mechanism of injury, some on anatomic patterns and some are focusing on the resulting instability requiring operative fixation. The optimal treatment strategy, however, should keep into consideration the hemodynamic status, the anatomic impairment of pelvic ring function and the associated injuries. The management of pelvic trauma patients aims definitively to restore the homeostasis and the normal physiopathology associated to the mechanical stability of the pelvic ring. Thus the management of pelvic trauma must be multidisciplinary and should be ultimately based on the physiology of the patient and the anatomy of the injury. This paper presents the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) classification of pelvic trauma and the management Guidelines.

5 October 2021 in Journal of Robotic Surgery
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Leonardo SolainiLeonardo Solaini
Leonardo Solaini
DCDavide Cavaliere
Davide Cavaliere
AAAndrea Avanzolini
Andrea Avanzolini
GRGiuseppe Rocco
Giuseppe Rocco
GEGiorgio Ercolani
Giorgio Ercolani
The aim of this study was to review the latest evidence on the robotic approach (RHR) for inguinal hernia repair comparing the pooled outcome of this technique with those of the standard laparoscopic procedure (LHR). A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus for studies published between 2010 and 2021 concerning the comparison between RHR versus LHR. After screening 582 articles, 9 articles with a total of 64,426 patients (7589 RHRs) were eligible for inclusion. Among preoperative variables, a pooled higher ratio of ASA > 2 patients was found in the robotic group (12.4 vs 8.6%, p < 0.001). Unilateral hernia repair was more common in the laparoscopic group (79.9 vs 68.1, p < 0.001). Overall, operative time was longer in the robotic group (160 vs 90 min, p < 0.001); this was confirmed also in the sub-analysis on unilateral procedures (88 vs 68 min, p = 0.040). The operative time for robotic bilateral repair was similar to the laparoscopic one (111 vs 100, p = 0.797). Conversion to open surgery was 0% in the robotic group. The pooled rate of chronic pain and postoperative complications was similar between the groups. The standardized mean difference MD of the costs between LHR versus RHR was − 3270$ (95% CI – 4757 to − 1782, p < 0.001). In conclusion, laparoscopic and robotic inguinal hernia repair have similar safety parameters and postoperative outcomes. Robotic approach may require longer operative time if the unilateral repair is performed. Costs are higher in the robotic group.

7 December 2017 in Surgical Endoscopy
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
Leonardo SolainiLeonardo Solaini
Leonardo Solaini
FBFrancesca Bazzocchi
Francesca Bazzocchi
DCDavide Cavaliere
Davide Cavaliere
AAAndrea Avanzolini
Andrea Avanzolini
ACAlessandro Cucchetti
Alessandro Cucchetti
Giorgio ErcolaniGiorgio Ercolani
Giorgio Ercolani

1 June 2022 in International Journal of Colorectal Disease
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Leonardo SolainiLeonardo Solaini
Leonardo Solaini
ABAntonio Bocchino
Antonio Bocchino
AAAndrea Avanzolini
Andrea Avanzolini
DADomenico Annunziata
Domenico Annunziata
DCDavide Cavaliere
Davide Cavaliere
GEGiorgio Ercolani
Giorgio Ercolani
Background: This study aimed to review the new evidence to understand whether the robotic approach could find some clear indication also in left colectomy. Methods: A systematic review of studies published from 2004 to 2022 in the Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus databases and comparing laparoscopic (LLC) and robotic left colectomy (RLC) was performed. All comparative studies evaluating robotic left colectomy (RLC) versus laparoscopic (LLC) left colectomy with at least 20 patients in the robotic arm were included. Abstract, editorials, and reviews were excluded. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale for cohort studies was used to assess the methodological quality. The random-effect model was used to calculate pooled effect estimates. Results: Among the 139 articles identified, 11 were eligible, with a total of 52,589 patients (RLC, n = 13,506 versus LLC, n = 39,083). The rate of conversion to open surgery was lower for robotic procedures (RR 0.5, 0.5–0.6; p < 0.001). Operative time was longer for the robotic procedures in the pooled analysis (WMD 39.1, 17.3–60.9, p = 0.002). Overall complications (RR 0.9, 0.8–0.9, p < 0.001), anastomotic leaks (RR 0.7, 0.7–0.8; p < 0.001), and superficial wound infection (RR 3.1, 2.8–3.4; p < 0.001) were less common after RLC. There were no significant differences in mortality (RR 1.1; 0.8–1.6, p = 0.124). There were no differences between RLC and LLC with regards to postoperative variables in the subgroup analysis on malignancies. Conclusions: Robotic left colectomy requires less conversion to open surgery than the standard laparoscopic approach. Postoperative morbidity rates seemed to be lower during RLC, but this was not confirmed in the procedures performed for malignancies.

7 May 2019 in Gastric Cancer
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
Leonardo SolainiLeonardo Solaini
Leonardo Solaini
SMSilvia Ministrini
Silvia Ministrini
MBMaria Bencivenga
Maria Bencivenga
ADAlessia D’iGnazio
Alessia D’iGnazio
EMelisabetta marino
elisabetta marino
PMPaolo Morgagni
Paolo Morgagni

1 May 2018 in International Journal of Surgery
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PMPaolo Morgagni
Paolo Morgagni
Leonardo SolainiLeonardo Solaini
Leonardo Solaini
MFMassimo Framarini
Massimo Framarini
GVGiovanni Vittimberga
Giovanni Vittimberga
AGAndrea Gardini
Andrea Gardini
Giorgio ErcolaniGiorgio Ercolani
Giorgio Ercolani
Advanced unresectable gastric cancer has a dismal prognosis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the short- and long-term outcomes of patients who underwent induction chemotherapy ± gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer. All patients referred to our center with a clinical diagnosis of unresectable locally advanced or stage IV gastric adenocarcinoma between April 2005 and August 2016 were included in the study. Cox regression was performed to find independent prognostic factor among the considered variable. The cohort included 73 patients: 16 had best supportive care, 35 chemotherapy alone and 22 chemotherapy plus radical surgery. Thirty-three patients underwent surgery after chemotherapy. Twenty-two patients had R0 surgery, while the remaining 11 had only an exploratory procedure. Nine patients (40.9%) underwent gastrectomy plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Three patients out of 22 developed postoperative complications with a Clavien-Dindo grade above 2. Median survival was 50 months for patients who had chemotherapy plus surgery while it was 14 and 3 for those who had chemotherapy alone and best supportive care, respectively (p < 0.0001). Cox regression analysis performed on the whole cohort identified only radical conversion surgery as an independent factor positively associated with survival (HR 0.12, 95% CI 0.05-0.29, p < 0.0001). Conversion gastrectomy, when R0 could be achieved, is associated with long survivals and it is the most important prognostic factor in patients with advanced gastric cancer. Further studies are needed to define the ideal patient who can really benefit from this treatment.