The learning curve of laparoscopic, robot-assisted and transanal total mesorectal excisions: a systematic review

Multi-Modal Machine Learning for Evaluating the Predictive Value of Pelvimetric Measurements (Pelvimetry) for Anastomotic Leakage After Restorative Low Anterior Resection

Background/Objectives: Anastomotic leakage (AL) remains a major complication after restorative rectal cancer surgery, with accurate preoperative risk stratification posing a significant challenge. Pelvic measurements derived from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have been proposed as potential predictors of AL, but their clinical utility remains uncertain. Methods: This retrospective, multicenter cohort study analyzed rectal cancer patients undergoing restorative surgery between 2013 and 2021. Pelvic dimensions were assessed using MRI-based pelvimetry. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses identified independent risk factors for AL. Subsequently, machine Learning (ML) models-logistic regression, random forest classifier, and XGBoost-were developed to predict AL using preoperative clinical data alone and in combination with pelvimetry. Model performance was evaluated using F1 scores, with the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC-AUC) and precision-recall curves (AUC-PR) as primary metrics. Results: Among 487 patients, the overall AL rate was 14%. Multivariate regression analysis identified distance to the anorectal junction, pelvic inlet width, and interspinous distance as independent risk factors for AL (p < 0.05). The logistic regression model incorporating pelvimetry achieved the highest predictive performance, with a mean ROC-AUC of 0.70 ± 0.09 and AUC-PR of 0.32 ± 0.10. Although predictive models that included pelvic measurements demonstrated higher ROC-AUCs compared to those without pelvimetry, the improvement was not statistically significant. Conclusions: Pelvic dimensions, specifically pelvic inlet and interspinous distance, were independently associated with an increased risk of AL. While ML models incorporating pelvimetry showed only moderate predictive performance, these measurements should be considered in developing clinical prediction tools for AL to enhance preoperative risk stratification.

Transanal vs Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision and 3-Year Disease-Free Survival in Rectal Cancer: The TaLaR Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Previous studies have demonstrated the advantages of short-term histopathological outcomes and complications associated with transanal total mesorectal excision (TME) compared with laparoscopic TME. However, the long-term oncological outcomes of transanal TME remain ambiguous. This study aims to compare 3-year disease-free survival of transanal TME with laparoscopic TME.

Objective

To evaluate 3-year disease-free survival between transanal TME and laparoscopic TME in patients with rectal cancer.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This randomized, open-label, noninferiority, phase 3 clinical trial was performed in 16 different centers in China. Between April 2016 and June 2021, a total of 1115 patients with clinical stage I to III mid-low rectal cancer were enrolled. The last date of participant follow-up was in June 2024.

Interventions

Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio before their surgical procedure to undergo either transanal TME (n = 558) or laparoscopic TME (n = 557).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary end point was 3-year disease-free survival, with a noninferiority margin of -10% for the comparison between transanal TME and laparoscopic TME. Secondary outcomes included 3-year overall survival and 3-year local recurrence.

Results

In the primary analysis set, the median patient age was 60 years. A total of 692 male and 397 female patients were included in the analysis. Three-year disease-free survival was 82.1% (97.5% CI, 78.4%-85.8%) for the transanal TME group and 79.4% (97.5% CI, 75.6%-83.4%) for the laparoscopic TME group, with a difference of 2.7% (97.5% CI, -3.0% to 8.1%). The lower tail of a 2-tailed 97.5% CI for the group difference in 3-year disease-free survival was above the noninferiority margin of -10 percentage points. Furthermore, the 3-year local recurrence was 3.6% (95% CI, 2.0%-5.1%) for transanal TME and 4.4% (95% CI, 2.6%-6.1%) for laparoscopic TME. Three-year overall survival was 92.6% (95% CI, 90.4%-94.8%) for transanal TME and 90.7% (95% CI, 88.3%-93.2%) for laparoscopic TME.

Conclusions and Relevance

In patients with mid-low rectal cancer, 3-year disease-free survival for transanal TME was noninferior to that of laparoscopic TME.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02966483.

Trends and outcomes in colorectal cancer surgery: a multicenter cross-sectional study of minimally invasive versus open techniques in Germany

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to assess the trend from open to modern minimally invasive (laparoscopic and robot-assisted) surgical techniques for colorectal cancer (CRC) in Germany, with a particular focus on hospital mortality, postoperative complications, and length of hospital stay.

METHODS

A multicenter cross-sectional study was conducted using data from 36 German hospitals, encompassing 1,250,029 cases from January 2019 to December 2023. The study included all hospitalized patients aged ≥ 18 with CRC who underwent surgery. Surgical cases were categorized as open or minimally invasive. Outcomes assessed included in-hospital mortality, morbidity, and hospital length of stay. Statistical analyses involved multivariable logistic and linear regression models adjusted for main diagnosis, metastasis presence, age, sex, and comorbidities.

RESULTS

The study included 4525 CRC cases: 2767 underwent open surgery and 1758 underwent minimally invasive surgery (173 robotic). In-hospital mortality was significantly higher in open surgery (6.1% vs. 1.7%). Open surgery was also significantly associated with higher rates of acute post-hemorrhagic anemia (OR: 2.38; 95% CI: 1.87-3.02), respiratory failure (OR: 1.71; 95% CI: 1.34-2.18), and intraoperative and postprocedural complications (OR: 3.64; 95% CI: 2.83-4.70). Average hospital stay was longer for open surgery (19.5 days vs. 11.0 days).

CONCLUSION

Despite the advantages of minimally invasive surgery, including reduced mortality, morbidity, and shorter hospital stays, open surgery remains the predominant approach for CRC in Germany. These findings underscore the need for increased adoption of minimally invasive techniques and highlight the potential benefits of shifting toward minimally invasive methods to enhance the overall quality of CRC care.

Total Mesorectal Excision with New Robotic Platforms: A Scoping Review

Colorectal surgery is one of the specialties that have significantly benefited from the adoption of robotic technology. Over 20 years since the first robotic rectal resection, the Intuitive Surgical Da Vinci system remains the predominant platform. The introduction of new robotic systems into the market has enabled the first documented total mesorectal excision (TME) using alternative platforms. This scoping review aimed to assess the role and adoption of these emerging robotic systems in performing TME for rectal cancer surgery. Methods: A comprehensive search of the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases was conducted up to August 2024, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. Results: Thirty-six studies were included in the review. The majority of rectal surgical procedures were performed using eight different robotic platforms. Intraoperative, short-term, and functional outcomes were generally favorable. However, pathological results were frequently incomplete. Several studies identified the lack of advanced robotic instruments as a significant limitation. Conclusions: The quality of the resected specimen is critical in rectal cancer surgery. Although TME performed with new robotic platforms appears to be feasible and safe, the current body of literature is limited, particularly in the assessment of pathological and long-term survival outcomes.

Construction and implementation of a laparoscopic skill training course based on a smartphone application and virtual reality

BACKGROUND

To develop a laparoscopic training course that combines a smartphone application (APP) and virtual reality (VR), and initially evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of its implementation.

METHODS

The Exploring Laparoscopy (Ex-Lap) app was developed to meet training demands. The course was designed by integrating the app with a VR simulator (LapSim®) and animal organ perfusion simulators. From January 2021 to December 2023, 91 participants were enrolled in the study and then divided into 5 separate batches to undergo the first stage of the course. The performance of the participants was evaluated by rating scale, the overall Training and Assessment of Basic Laparoscopic Techniques (TABLT) scores, and pass rates. Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS 26.0, employing Kruskal-Wallis tests, Chi-squared analysis, and Fisher's exact test, depending on the data type.

RESULTS

The Staged Training and Assessment of Laparoscopic Skills (STALS) course was developed, consisting of three stages. The overall pass rates for the first stage across the five batches ranged from 85 to 100%, with no significant difference (P = 0.387). No significant differences were found in the scale scores or TABLT scores for the training tasks among students from different batches (all P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The STALS course is applicable in residency training, demonstrating satisfactory teaching effectiveness and replicability.

Learning Curve for Robotic Colorectal Surgery

With the increasing adoption of robotic surgery in clinical practice, institutions intending to adopt this technology should understand the learning curve in order to develop strategies to help its surgeons and operating theater teams overcome it in a safe manner without compromising on patient care. Various statistical methods exist for the analysis of learning curves, of which a cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis is more commonly described in the literature. Variables used for analysis can be classified into measures of the surgical process (e.g., operative time and pathological quality) and measures of patient outcome (e.g., postoperative complications). Heterogeneity exists in how performance thresholds are defined during the interpretation of learning curves. Factors that influence the learning curve include prior surgical experience in colorectal surgery, being in a mature robotic surgical unit, case mix and case complexity, robotic surgical simulation, spending time as a bedside first assistant, and being in a structured training program with proctorship.

Unraveling the role of computed tomography derived body composition metrics on anastomotic leakages rates in rectal cancer surgery: A protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Anastomotic leakage is a major concern following total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer, affecting oncological outcomes, morbidity an treatment costs. Body composition has been suggested to influence anastomotic leakage rates. However, literature on how body composition impact anastomotic leakage rates is conflicting. This systematic review aims to evaluate the role of computed tomography derived body composition metrics on anastomotic leakage rates in rectal cancer patients.

METHODS

Databases PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, web of science, and EMBASE, will be systematically searched for papers from January 2010 onwards. Study selection, data collection and quality assessment will be independently performed by three research fellows. Outcomes described in three or more studies will be included in the meta-analysis. The Q-test and I2 statistic will be used to assess statistical heterogeneity between studies. Publication bias will be examined by visual inspection of funnel plots and quantified by Egger's test. Sensitivity analyses will be conducted to examine the robustness of the meta-analysis. Reporting of the findings will be in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review will synthesize the current evidence and will identify knowledge gaps. Results of the systematic review will aid health care professional in pre-operative decision making and will be distributed through a peer-reviewed publication and presentation of results at international meetings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO protocol number: CRD42023471537.

[Robotic rectal surgery]

Colorectal cancer is one of the most frequent cancerous diseases in industrial nations, whereby tumors of the rectum constitute approximately 30-40% of all colorectal cancers. In addition to the implementation and establishment of novel neoadjuvant concepts for the treatment of rectal cancer, there has been a continuous evolution of surgical techniques in recent years towards minimally invasive surgery. In this respect robot-assisted surgery has become more and more popular despite seemingly weak evidence regarding clinical benefits and the not to be ignored economic aspects; however, recently published high-quality studies provide new evidence showing advantages for a robotic resection in patients suffering from rectal cancer. Thus, the progressive implementation of robotic surgical systems is increasingly attaining a scientific foundation.

Robotic, transanal, and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for locally advanced mid/low rectal cancer: European multicentre, propensity score-matched study

BACKGROUND

Total mesorectal excision (TME) is the standard surgery for low/mid locally advanced rectal cancer. The aim of this study was to compare three minimally invasive surgical approaches for TME with primary anastomosis (laparoscopic TME, robotic TME, and transanal TME).

METHODS

Records of patients undergoing laparoscopic TME, robotic TME, or transanal TME between 2013 and 2022 according to standardized techniques in expert centres contributing to the European MRI and Rectal Cancer Surgery III (EuMaRCS-III) database were analysed. Propensity score matching was applied to compare the three groups with respect to the complication rate (primary outcome), conversion rate, postoperative recovery, and survival.

RESULTS

A total of 468 patients (mean(s.d.) age of 64.1(11) years) were included; 190 (40.6%) patients underwent laparoscopic TME, 141 (30.1%) patients underwent robotic TME, and 137 (29.3%) patients underwent transanal TME. Comparative analyses after propensity score matching demonstrated a higher rate of postoperative complications for laparoscopic TME compared with both robotic TME (OR 1.80, 95% c.i. 1.11-2.91) and transanal TME (OR 2.87, 95% c.i. 1.72-4.80). Robotic TME was associated with a lower rate of grade A anastomotic leakage (2%) compared with both laparoscopic TME (8.8%) and transanal TME (8.1%) (P = 0.031). Robotic TME (1.4%) and transanal TME (0.7%) were both associated with a lower conversion rate to open surgery compared with laparoscopic TME (8.8%) (P < 0.001). Time to flatus and duration of hospital stay were shorter for patients treated with transanal TME (P = 0.003 and 0.001 respectively). There were no differences in operating time, intraoperative complications, blood loss, mortality, readmission, R0 resection, or survival.

CONCLUSION

In this multicentre, retrospective, propensity score-matched, cohort study of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, newer minimally invasive approaches (robotic TME and transanal TME) demonstrated improved outcomes compared with laparoscopic TME.

Total mesorectal excision in MRI-defined low rectal cancer: multicentre study comparing oncological outcomes of robotic, laparoscopic and transanal total mesorectal excision in high-volume centres

BACKGROUND

The routine use of MRI in rectal cancer treatment allows the use of a strict definition for low rectal cancer. This study aimed to compare minimally invasive total mesorectal excision in MRI-defined low rectal cancer in expert laparoscopic, transanal and robotic high-volume centres.

METHODS

All MRI-defined low rectal cancer operated on between 2015 and 2017 in 11 Dutch centres were included. Primary outcomes were: R1 rate, total mesorectal excision quality and 3-year local recurrence and survivals (overall and disease free). Secondary outcomes included conversion rate, complications and whether there was a perioperative change in the preoperative treatment plan.

RESULTS

Of 1071 eligible rectal cancers, 633 patients with low rectal cancer were identified. Quality of the total mesorectal excision specimen (P = 0.337), R1 rate (P = 0.107), conversion (P = 0.344), anastomotic leakage rate (P = 0.942), local recurrence (P = 0.809), overall survival (P = 0.436) and disease-free survival (P = 0.347) were comparable among the centres. The laparoscopic centre group had the highest rate of perioperative change in the preoperative treatment plan (10.4%), compared with robotic expert centres (5.2%) and transanal centres (2.1%), P = 0.004. The main reason for this change was stapling difficulty (43%), followed by low tumour location (29%). Multivariable analysis showed that laparoscopic surgery was the only independent risk factor for a change in the preoperative planned procedure, P = 0.024.

CONCLUSION

Centres with expertise in all three minimally invasive total mesorectal excision techniques can achieve good oncological resection in the treatment of MRI-defined low rectal cancer. However, compared with robotic expert centres and transanal centres, patients treated in laparoscopic centres have an increased risk of a change in the preoperative intended procedure due to technical limitations.

Progress of MRI in predicting the circumferential resection margin of rectal cancer: A narrative review

Rectal cancer (RC) is the third most frequently diagnosed cancer worldwide, and the status of its circumferential resection margin (CRM) is of paramount significance for treatment strategies and prognosis. CRM involvement is defined as tumor touching or within 1 mm from the outermost part of tumor or outer border of the mesorectal or lymph node deposits to the resection margin. The incidence of involved CRM varied from 5.4 % to 36 %, which may associate with an in consistent definition of CRM, the quality of surgeries, and the different examination modalities. Although T and N status are essential factors in determining whether a patient should receive neoadjuvant therapy before surgery, CRM status is a powerful predictor of local and distant recurrence as well as survival rate. This review explores the significance of CRM, the various assessment methods, and the role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and artificial intelligence-based MRI in predicting CRM status. MRI showed potential advantage in predicting CRM status with a high sensitivity and specificity compared to computed tomography (CT). We also discuss MRI advancements in RC imaging, including conventional MRI with body coil, high-resolution MRI with phased-array coil, and endorectal MRI. Along with a discussion of artificial intelligence-based MRI techniques to predict the CRM status of RCs before and after treatments.

Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision With Delayed Coloanal Anastomosis (TaTME-DCAA) Versus Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision (LTME) and Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision (RTME) for Low Rectal Cancer: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of Short-term Outcomes, Bowel Function, and Cost

INTRODUCTION

Total mesorectal excision (TME) with delayed coloanal anastomosis (DCAA) is surgical option for low rectal cancer, replacing conventional immediate coloanal anastomosis (ICAA) with bowel diversion. This study aimed to assess the outcomes of transanal TME (TaTME) with DCAA versus laparoscopic TME (LTME) with ICAA versus robotic TME (RTME) with ICAA.

METHODS

This was a retrospective propensity score-matched analysis of patients who underwent elective TaTME-DCAA between November 2021 and June 2022. Patients were propensity-score matched in a ratio of 1:3 to patients who underwent LTME-ICAA and RTME-ICAA from January 2019 to December 2020. Outcome measures were histopathologic results, postoperative morbidity, function, and inpatient costs.

RESULTS

Twelve patients in the TaTME-DCAA group were compared with 36 patients in the LTME-ICAA and RTME-ICAA groups each after propensity score matching. Histopathologic results and postoperative morbidity rates were statistically similar. Overall stoma-related complication rates in the ICAA groups were 11%. Median total length of hospital stays for TME plus stoma reversal surgery was similar across all techniques (10 vs. 10 vs. 9 days; P =0.532). Despite a significantly shorter duration of follow-up, bowel function after TaTME-DCAA was comparable to that of LTME-ICAA and RTME-ICAA. Overall median inpatient costs of TaTME-DCAA were comparable to LTME-ICAA and significantly cheaper than RTME-ICAA ($31,087 vs. $29,927 vs. $36,750; P =0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

TaTME with DCAA is a feasible and safe technique compared with other minimally invasive methods of TME, while avoiding bowel diversion and stoma-related complications, as well as comparing favorably in terms of overall hospitalization costs.

Nomogram for predicting the surgical difficulty of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision and exploring the technical advantages of robotic surgery

Background

Total mesorectal excision (TME), represents a key technique in radical surgery for rectal cancer. This study aimed to construct a preoperative nomogram for predicting the surgical difficulty of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (L-TME) and to investigate whether there were potential benefits of robotic TME (R-TME) for patients with technically challenging rectal cancer.

Methods

Consecutive mid-low rectal cancer patients receiving total mesorectal excision were included. A preoperative nomogram to predict the surgical difficulty of L-TME was established and validated. Patients with technically challenging rectal cancer were screened by calculating the prediction score of the nomogram. Then patients with technically challenging rectal cancer who underwent different types of surgery, R-TME or L-TME, were analyzed for comparison.

Results

A total of 533 consecutive patients with mid-low rectal cancer who underwent TME at a single tertiary medical center between January 2018 and January 2021 were retrospectively enrolled. Multivariable analysis demonstrated that mesorectal fat area, intertuberous distance, tumor size, and tumor height were independent risk factors for surgical difficulty. Subsequently, these variables were used to construct the nomogram model to predict the surgical difficulty of L-TME. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the nomogram was 0.827 (95% CI 0.745 - 0.909) and 0.809 (95% CI 0.674- 0.944) in the training and validation cohort, respectively. For patients with technically challenging rectal cancer, R-TME was associated with a lower diverting ileostomy rate (p = 0.003), less estimated blood loss (p < 0.043), shorter procedure time (p = 0.009) and shorter postoperative hospital stay (p = 0.037).

Conclusion

In this study, we established a preoperative nomogram to predict the surgical difficulty of L-TME. Furthermore, this study also indicated that R-TME has potential technical advantages for patients with technically challenging rectal cancer.

Standardization of rectal cancer surgery and bowel preparation in Austria : A multicenter nationwide survey by the Austrian Society of Surgical Oncology

BACKGROUND

Standardized management of colorectal cancer is crucial for achieving an optimal clinical and oncological outcome. The present nationwide survey was designed to provide data about the surgical management of rectal cancer patients. In addition, we evaluated the standard approach for bowel preparation in all centers in Austria performing elective colorectal surgery.

METHODS

The Austrian Society of Surgical Oncology (ACO["Arbeitsgemeinschaft für chirurgische Onkonlogie"]-ASSO) conducted a multicenter questionnaire-based study comprising 64 hospitals between October 2020 and March 2021.

RESULTS

The median number of low anterior resections performed annually per department was 20 (range 0-73). The highest number was found in Vienna, with a median of 27 operations, whereas Vorarlberg was the state with the lowest median number of 13 resections per year. The laparoscopic approach was the standard technique in 46 (72%) departments, followed by the open approach in 30 (47%), transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) in 10 (16%) and robotic surgery in 6 hospitals (9%). Out of 64 hospitals 51 (80%) named a standard for bowel preparation before colorectal resections. No preparation was commonly used for the right colon (33%).

CONCLUSION

Considering the low number of low anterior resections performed in each hospital per year in Austria, defined centers for rectal cancer surgery are still scarce. Many hospitals did not transfer recommended bowel preparation guidelines into clinical practice.

Economic analysis of open versus laparoscopic versus robot-assisted versus transanal total mesorectal excision in rectal cancer patients: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Minimally invasive total mesorectal excision is increasingly being used as an alternative to open surgery in the treatment of patients with rectal cancer. This systematic review aimed to compare the total, operative and hospitalization costs of open, laparoscopic, robot-assisted and transanal total mesorectal excision.

METHODS

This systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement (PRISMA) (S1 File) A literature review was conducted (end-of-search date: January 1, 2023) and quality assessment performed using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria.

RESULTS

12 studies were included, reporting on 2542 patients (226 open, 1192 laparoscopic, 998 robot-assisted and 126 transanal total mesorectal excision). Total costs of minimally invasive total mesorectal excision were higher compared to the open technique in the majority of included studies. For robot-assisted total mesorectal excision, higher operative costs and lower hospitalization costs were reported compared to the open and laparoscopic technique. A meta-analysis could not be performed due to low study quality and a high level of heterogeneity. Heterogeneity was caused by differences in the learning curve and statistical methods used.

CONCLUSION

Literature regarding costs of total mesorectal excision techniques is limited in quality and number. Available evidence suggests minimally invasive techniques may be more expensive compared to open total mesorectal excision. High-quality economical evaluations, accounting for the learning curve, are needed to properly assess costs of the different techniques.

Learning Curve for Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision for Low Rectal Malignancy

BACKGROUND

Although transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) is a promising treatment for low rectal cancer, it is considered technically demanding, and the number of cases required to become proficient in TaTME remains unknown. The purpose of this study was to assess the TaTME learning curve based on the total mesorectal excision completion time.

STUDY DESIGN

This retrospective analysis comprised 128 individuals who received TaTME between September 2016 and December 2021. The cumulative sum method was used to generate the learning curve. The duration of the procedure from the beginning to the end of the circumferential rendezvous was used to define the total mesorectal excision completion time.

RESULTS

The learning curve consists of 3 phases: phase I (learning phase: cases 1 to 38), phase II (consolidation phase: cases 39 to 70), and phase III (maturing phase: cases 71 to 128). As the phases varied, both the overall operative time and total mesorectal excision completion time decreased considerably. Through the 3 phases of TaTME, intraoperative adverse events decreased, and in phase III, none occurred. Only 1 instance of local recurrence occurred during phase III, and none occurred during phase I or II.

CONCLUSIONS

After 70 operations, the surgeon could join the mastery phase of TaTME based on the total mesorectal excision completion time. After the mastering phase began, there were no intraoperative negative occurrences. From the beginning, the oncological safety could be guaranteed.

A Cost Overview of Minimally Invasive Total Mesorectal Excision in Rectal Cancer Patients: A Population-based Cohort in Experienced Centres

Background

Total mesorectal excision has been the gold standard for the operative management of rectal cancer. The most frequently used minimally invasive techniques for surgical resection of rectal cancer are laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and transanal total mesorectal excision. As studies comparing the costs of the techniques are lacking, this study aims to provide a cost overview.

Method

This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent total mesorectal resection between 2015 and 2017 at 11 dedicated centers, which completed the learning curve of the specific technique. The primary outcome was total in-hospital costs of each technique up to 30 days after surgery including all major surgical cost drivers, while taking into account different team approaches in the transanal approach. Secondary outcomes were hospitalization and complication rates. Statistical analysis was performed using multivariable linear regression analysis.

Results

In total, 949 patients were included, consisting of 446 laparoscopic (47%), 306 (32%) robot-assisted, and 197 (21%) transanal total mesorectal excisions. Total costs were significantly higher for transanal and robot-assisted techniques compared to the laparoscopic technique, with median (interquartile range) for laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and transanal at €10,556 (8,642;13,829), €12,918 (11,196;16,223), and € 13,052 (11,330;16,358), respectively (P < 0.001). Also, the one-team transanal approach showed significant higher operation time and higher costs compared to the two-team approach. Length of stay and postoperative complications did not differ between groups.

Conclusion

Transanal and robot-assisted approaches show higher costs during 30-day follow-up compared to laparoscopy with comparable short-term clinical outcomes. Two-team transanal approach is associated with lower total costs compared to the transanal one-team approach.

Training curriculum in minimally invasive emergency digestive surgery: 2022 WSES position paper

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS), including laparoscopic and robotic approaches, is widely adopted in elective digestive surgery, but selectively used for surgical emergencies. The present position paper summarizes the available evidence concerning the learning curve to achieve proficiency in emergency MIS and provides five expert opinion statements, which may form the basis for developing standardized curricula and training programs in emergency MIS.

METHODS

This position paper was conducted according to the World Society of Emergency Surgery methodology. A steering committee and an international expert panel were involved in the critical appraisal of the literature and the development of the consensus statements.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies regarding the learning curve in emergency MIS were selected. All but one study considered laparoscopic appendectomy. Only one study reported on emergency robotic surgery. In most of the studies, proficiency was achieved after an average of 30 procedures (range: 20-107) depending on the initial surgeon's experience. High heterogeneity was noted in the way the learning curve was assessed. The experts claim that further studies investigating learning curve processes in emergency MIS are needed. The emergency surgeon curriculum should include a progressive and adequate training based on simulation, supervised clinical practice (proctoring), and surgical fellowships. The results should be evaluated by adopting a credentialing system to ensure quality standards. Surgical proficiency should be maintained with a minimum caseload and constantly evaluated. Moreover, the training process should involve the entire surgical team to facilitate the surgeon's proficiency.

CONCLUSIONS

Limited evidence exists concerning the learning process in laparoscopic and robotic emergency surgery. The proposed statements should be seen as a preliminary guide for the surgical community while stressing the need for further research.

Assessing the learning curve of robot-assisted total mesorectal excision: a multicenter study considering procedural safety, pathological safety, and efficiency

PURPOSE

Evidence regarding the learning curve of robot-assisted total mesorectal excision is scarce and of low quality. Case-mix is mostly not taken into account, and learning curves are based on operative time, while preferably clinical outcomes and literature-based limits should be used. Therefore, this study aims to assess the learning curve of robot-assisted total mesorectal excision.

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed in four Dutch centers. The primary aim was to assess the safety of the individual and institutional learning curves using a RA-CUSUM analysis based on intraoperative complications, major postoperative complications, and compound pathological outcome (positive circumferential margin or incomplete TME specimen). The learning curve for efficiency was assessed using a LC-CUSUM analysis for operative time. Outcomes of patients before and after the learning curve were compared.

RESULTS

In this study, seven participating surgeons performed robot-assisted total mesorectal excisions in 531 patients. Learning curves for intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, and compound pathological outcome did not exceed predefined literature-based limits. The LC-CUSUM for operative time showed lengths of the learning curve ranging from 12 to 35 cases. Intraoperative, postoperative, and pathological outcomes did not differ between patients operated during and after the learning curve.

CONCLUSION

The learning curve of robot-assisted total mesorectal excision based on intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, and compound pathological outcome did not exceed predefined limits and is therefore suggested to be safe. Using operative time as a surrogate for efficiency, the learning curve is estimated to be between 12 and 35 procedures.

Challenges and Learning Curves in Adopting TaTME and Robotic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: A Cusum Analysis

Simple Summary

Rectal cancer surgery remains a challenge and information about the learning curve in adopting new techniques is lacking. This paper analyzes our experience in taTME (since 2015) and robotic surgery (since 2018) at a fully accredited referral center for the treatment of rectal cancer in Spain. In this retrospective study, we aim to analyze the learning curves for taTME and robot-assisted rectal procedures in the incorporation of these platforms into our practice. We sought to describe our team’s experience in incorporating these techniques and to analyze the difficulties that we have had. Hoping that sharing our experience can help other groups improve their results during the difficult initial phase of incorporating new techniques.

Abstract

New techniques are being developed to improve the results of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. This paper analyzes the learning curves for transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) and robot-assisted surgery in our colorectal surgery department. We analyzed retrospectively data from patients undergoing curative and elective surgery for rectal cancer ≤12 cm from the anal verge. We excluded extended surgeries. We used cumulative sum (CUSUM) curve analysis to identify inflection points. Between 2015 and 2021, 588 patients underwent surgery for rectal cancer at our center: 67 taTME and 79 robot-assisted surgeries. To overcome the operative time learning curve, 14 cases were needed for taTME and 53 for robot-assisted surgery. The morbidity rate started to decrease after the 17th case in taTME and after the 49th case in robot-assisted surgery, but it is much less abrupt in robot-assisted group. During the initial learning phase, the rate of anastomotic leakage was higher in taTME (35.7% vs. 5.7%). Two Urological lesions occurred in taTME but not in robot-assisted surgery. The conversion rate was higher in robot-assisted surgery (1.5% vs. 10.1%). Incorporating new techniques is complex and entails a transition period. In our experience, taTME involved a higher rate of serious complications than robot-assisted surgery during initial learning period but required a shorter learning curve.