Background: The use of robotic surgery is attracting ever-growing interest for its potential advantages such as small incisions, fine movements, and magnification of the operating field. Only a few randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have explored the differences in perioperative outcomes between the two approaches. Methods: We screened the main online databases from inception to May 2023. We included studies in English enrolling adult patients undergoing elective gastrointestinal surgery. We used the following exclusion criteria: surgery with the involvement of thoracic esophagus, and patients affected by severe heart, pulmonary and end-stage renal disease. We compared intra- and post-operative complications, length of hospitalization, and costs between laparoscopic and robotic approaches. Results: A total of 18 RCTs were included. We found no differences in the rate of anastomotic leakage, cardiovascular complications, estimated blood loss, readmission, deep vein thrombosis, length of hospitalization, mortality, and post-operative pain between robotic and laparoscopic surgery; post-operative pneumonia was less frequent in the robotic approach. The conversion to open surgery was less frequent in the robotic approach, which was characterized by shorter time to first flatus but higher operative time and costs. Conclusions: The robotic gastrointestinal surgery has some advantages compared to the laparoscopic technique such as lower conversion rate, faster recovery of bowel movement, but it has higher economic costs.

Spinal anesthesia is the best choice for caesarean delivery. This technique is characterized by a complete and predictable nerve block with a fast onset and few complications. Several intrathecal adjuvants are used in order to improve the quality and duration of anesthesia and reduce its side effects. Sixty-two patients who underwent caesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia were included in this medical records review. In this retrospective study, after adopting exclusion criteria, we assessed 24 patients who received Hyperbaric Bupivacaine 0.5% 10 mg and dexmedetomidine 10 μg (G1), and 28 patients who received an institutional standard treatment with Hyperbaric Bupivacaine 0.5% 10 mg and sufentanil 5 μg (G2). We evaluated the difference in terms of motor and sensory block, postoperative pain, and adverse effects during the first 24 h following delivery and neonatal outcome. Our study found that the sufentanil group had a significantly lower requirement for analgesia than the dexmedetomidine group. Postoperative pain, assessed with the VAS scale, was stronger in G1 than in G2 (4 ± 2 vs. 2 ± 1, p-value < 0.01). Differences between the two groups regarding the intraoperative degree of motor and sensory block, motor recovery time, and neonatal Apgar scores were not noticed. Pruritus and shivering were observed only in G2. Itching and shivering did not occur in the dexmedetomidine group. Postoperative analgesia was superior in the sufentanil group, but the incidence of side effects was higher. Adjuvant dexmedetomidine prevented postoperative shivering.

In current practice, single-shot spinal anesthesia has traditionally been performed using the conventional surface-anatomic-Landmark-Guided technique. This “blind” technique has significant critical issues such as a high risk of complications due to the numerous attempts at spinal needle placement and the negative impact on the learning curve of the trainees. Ultrasound-Assisted spinal anesthesia could reduce these critical issues and allow trainees to perform the procedure more easily and with fewer complications for the patient. We performed a before-and-after monocentric retrospective comparative study at the University of Naples “Federico II” (Naples, Italy). Inclusion criteria were as follows: patients aged 18 years or older; ASA physical status between I and IV; and elective orthopedic surgery under single-shot spinal anesthesia performed by supervised trainees between January 2022 and December 2022. In the selected cohort, 88 patients were included in group A (Landmark-Guided spinal anesthesia) and 91 in group B (Ultrasound-Assisted spinal anesthesia). The number of attempts by trainees (p-value < 0.005), procedure performing time (<0.001), and patient discomfort (<0.001) were significantly lower in group B than in group A. Ultrasound-Assisted single-shot spinal anesthesia performed by novice trainees reduces the number of attempts, complication rate, periprocedural pain, and patient discomfort.

Background: Our hospital became a referral center for COVID-19-positive obstetric patients from 1 May 2020. The aim of our study is to illustrate our management protocols for COVID-19-positive obstetric patients, to maintain safety standards for patients and healthcare workers. Methods: Women who underwent vaginal or operative delivery and induced or spontaneous abortion with a SARS-CoV-2-positive nasopharyngeal swab using real-time PCR (RT-PCR) were included in the study. Severity and onset of new symptoms were carefully monitored in the postoperative period. All the healthcare workers received a nasopharyngeal swab for SARS-CoV-2 using RT-PCR serially every five days. Results: We included 152 parturients with COVID-19 infection. None of the included women had general anesthesia, an increase of severe symptoms or onset of new symptoms. The RT-PCR test was “negative” for the healthcare workers. Conclusions: In our study, neuraxial anesthesia for parturients’ management with SARS-CoV-2 infection has been proven to be safe for patients and healthcare workers. Neuraxial anesthesia decreases aerosolization during preoxygenation, face-mask ventilation, endotracheal intubation, oral or tracheal suctioning and extubation. This anesthesia management protocol can be generalizable.