Implementation of robotic laparoscopic cholecystectomy in a university hospital.

BACKGROUND: Robot surgery is a further step towards new potential developments in minimally invasive surgery. Surgeons must keep abreast of these new technologies and learn their limits and possibilities. Robot-assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy has not yet been performed in our institution. The purpose of this report is to present the pathway of implementation of robotic laparoscopic cholecystectomy in a university hospital. METHODS: The Zeus(R) robot system was used. Experimental training was performed on animals. The results of our experimental training allowed us to perform our first two clinical cases. RESULTS: Robot arm set-up and trocar placement required 53 and 35 minutes. Operative time were 59 and 45 minutes respectively. The overall operative time was 112 and 80 minutes, respectively. There were no intraoperative complications. Patients were discharged from the hospital after an overnight stay. CONCLUSION: Robotic laparoscopic cholecystectomy is safe and patient recovery similar to those of standard laparoscopy. At present, there are no advantages of robotic over conventional surgery. Nevertheless, robots have the potential to revolutionise the way surgery is performed. Robot surgery is not reserved for a happy few. This technology deserves more attention because it has the potential to change the way surgery is performed.

Physicians' estimates of the 10 year cardiovascular risk in hypertensive patients: an evaluation in primary care physicians in training.

To evaluate how young physicians in training perceive their patients' cardiovascular risk based on the medical charts and their clinical judgment. Cross sectional observational study. University outpatient clinic, Lausanne, Switzerland. Two hundred hypertensive patients and 50 non-hypertensive patients with at least one cardiovascular risk factor. Comparison of the absolute 10-year cardiovascular risk calculated by a computer program based on the Framingham score and adapted for physicians by the WHO/ISH with the perceived risk as assessed clinically by the physicians. Physicians underestimated the 10-year cardiovascular risk of their patients compared to that calculated with the Framingham score. Concordance between methods was 39% for hypertensive patients and 30% for non-hypertensive patients. Underestimation of cardiovascular risks for hypertensive patients was related to the fact they had a stabilized systolic blood pressure under 140 mm Hg (OR = 2.1 [1.1; 4.1]). These data show that young physicians in training often have an incorrect perception of the cardiovascular risk of their patients with a tendency to underestimate the risk. However, the calculated risk could also be slightly overestimated when applying the Framingham Heart Study model to a Swiss population. To implement a systematic evaluation of risk factors in primary care a greater emphasis should be placed on the teaching of cardiovascular risk evaluation and on the implementation of quality improvement programs.