Implementation of robotic rectal cancer surgery: a cross-sectional nationwide study

Assessment of postoperative morbidity in Spanish hospitals: Results from a national survey

BACKGROUND

The methodology used for recording, evaluating and reporting postoperative complications (PC) is unknown. The aim of the present study was to determine how PC are recorded, evaluated, and reported in General and Digestive Surgery Services (GDSS) in Spain, and to assess their stance on morbidity audits.

METHODS

Using a cross-sectional study design, an anonymous survey of 50 questions was sent to all the heads of GDSS at hospitals in Spain.

RESULTS

The survey was answered by 67 out of 222 services (30.2%). These services have a reference population (RP) of 15 715 174 inhabitants, representing 33% of the Spanish population. Only 15 services reported being requested to supply data on morbidity by their hospital administrators. Eighteen GDSS, with a RP of 3 241 000 (20.6%) did not record PC. Among these, 7 were accredited for some area of training. Thirty-six GDSS (RP 8 753 174 (55.7%) did not provide details on all PC in patients' discharge reports. Twenty-four (37%) of the 65 GDSS that had started using a new surgical procedure/technique had not recorded PC in any way. Sixty-five GDSS were not concerned by the prospect of their results being audited, and 65 thought that a more comprehensive knowledge of PC would help them improve their results. Out of the 37 GDSS that reported publishing their results, 27 had consulted only one source of information: medical progress records in 11 cases, and discharge reports in 9.

CONCLUSIONS

This study reflects serious deficiencies in the recording, evaluation and reporting of PC by GDSS in Spain.

Robotic-Assisted Surgery for Rectal Cancer: An Expedited Summary of the Clinical Evidence

Background

Rectal cancer is a disease in which cancer cells form in the rectum, which has the primary function of temporarily storing feces, controlling defecation, and maintaining continence. Surgery is the most common treatment for rectal cancer; surgical approaches include open, laparoscopic, and robotic assisted. We conducted an expedited summary of the clinical evidence for robotic-assisted surgery for rectal cancer, which included an evaluation of effectiveness and safety.

Methods

We performed a systematic literature search of the clinical evidence to retrieve systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We assessed the risk of bias in the included systematic reviews using AMSTAR 2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, version 2), and we assessed the risk of bias in the included RCT using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias Tool for Randomized Trials, version 1. We reported the quality of the body of evidence as evaluated in the included systematic reviews according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria if it was evaluated.

Results

We included 14 studies in the clinical evidence review (12 systematic reviews and 1 RCT on robotic-assisted vs. laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery and 1 systematic review on robotic-assisted vs. open rectal cancer surgery). Compared with laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery, robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery may result in similar overall survival; similar rates of conversion, blood transfusion, and readmission,· reduced blood loss; shorter length of stay; and improved quality of life. Compared with open rectal cancer surgery, robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery may result in similar overall survival, reduced blood loss, and shorter length of stay.

Conclusions

Robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery may result in similar or improved clinical outcomes compared with laparoscopic and open rectal cancer surgery.

Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for mid-low rectal cancers

INTRODUCTION

Robotic surgery (RS) is experiencing major development, particularly in the context of rectal cancer. The aim of this meta-analysis was to summarize data from the literature, focusing specifically on the safety and effectiveness of robotic surgery in mid-low rectal cancers, based on the hypothesis that that robotic surgery can find its most rational indication in this anatomical location.

METHOD

The meta-analysis was conducted according to the PRISMA 2000 recommendations, including all randomized trials that compared robotic surgery versus laparoscopic surgery (LS) that were found in the Medline-PICO, Cochrane Database, Scopus and Google databases. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers. The risk of bias was analyzed according to the Cochrane Handbook method and the certainty of the evidence according to the GRADE method. The analysis was carried out with R software Version 4.2-3 using the Package for Meta-Analysis "meta" version 6.5-0.

RESULTS

Eight randomized trials were included (with a total of 2342 patients), including four that focused specifically on mid-low rectal cancer (n=1,734 patients). No statistically significant difference was found for overall morbidity, intra-operative morbidity, anastomotic leakage, post-operative mortality, quality of mesorectal specimen, and resection margins. The main differences identified were a lower conversion rate for RS (RR=0.48 [0.24-0.95], p=0.04, I2=0%), and a longer operative time for RS (mean difference=39.11min [9.39-68.83], p<0.01, I2=96%). The other differences had no real clinical relevance, i.e., resumption of flatus passage (5hours earlier after RS), and lymph node dissection (one more lymph node for LS).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis does not confirm the initial hypothesis and does not show a statistically significant or clinically relevant benefit of RS compared to LS for mid-low rectal cancer.

Short-term results in a population based study indicate advantage for minimally invasive rectal cancer surgery versus open

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to determine if minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for rectal cancer is non-inferior to open surgery (OPEN) regarding adequacy of cancer resection in a population based setting.

METHODS

All 9,464 patients diagnosed with rectal cancer 2012-2018 who underwent curative surgery were included from the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry.

PRIMARY OUTCOMES

Positive circumferential resection margin (CRM < 1 mm) and positive resection margin (R1). Non-inferiority margins used were 2.4% and 4%.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

30- and 90-day mortality, clinical anastomotic leak, re-operation < 30 days, 30- and 90-day re-admission, length of stay (LOS), distal resection margin < 1 mm and < 12 resected lymph nodes. Analyses were performed by intention-to-treat using unweighted and weighted multiple regression analyses.

RESULTS

The CRM was positive in 3.8% of the MIS group and 5.4% of the OPEN group, risk difference -1.6% (95% CI -1.623, -1.622). R1 was recorded in 2.8% of patients in the MIS group and in 4.4% of patients in the OPEN group, risk difference -1.6% (95% CI -1.649, -1.633). There were no differences between the groups in adjusted unweighted and weighted analyses. All analyses demonstrated decreased mortality and re-admissions at 30 and 90 days as well as shorter LOS following MIS.

CONCLUSIONS

In this population based setting MIS for rectal cancer was non-inferior to OPEN regarding adequacy of cancer resection with favorable short-term outcomes.

Implementation of totally robotic right hemicolectomy: lessons learned from a prospective cohort

Robotics facilitates the realization of intra-corporeal anastomosis during right hemicolectomy and allows extracting the operative specimen through a C-section, offering potential benefits in terms of post-operative recovery and incidence of incisional hernia. Therefore, we progressively implemented robotic right hemicolectomy (robRHC) in our centre, and would like to report our initial experience with the technique. Consecutive patients who underwent robRHC within a single centre were prospectively included. Variables related to patients' demographics, surgical procedures, post-operative recovery and pathological outcomes were collected. Sixty patients underwent robRHC in our centre. Indications for robRHC were colon cancer in 58 patients (96.7%) and polyps not amenable to endoscopic resection in 2 patients (3.3%). Fifty-eight patients underwent robRHC with D2 lymphadenectomy and central vessel ligation (96.7%), and two patients (3.3%) had robRHC associated with another procedure. All patients had intra-corporeal anastomosis. The mean ± operative time was of 200.4 ± 114.9 min. Two conversions (3.3%) to open surgery were performed. The mean ± SD length of stay was of 5.4 ± 3.8 days. Seven patients (11.7%) experienced a post-operative complication with a Clavien-Dindo score ≥ 2. Two patients (3.5%) had an anastomotic leak. The mean ± SD number of harvested lymph nodes was of 22.4 ± 7.6. All patients had negative pathological margins (R0 resection). To conclude, robotic RHC is a safe procedure, which can be implemented with satisfying peri- and post-operative outcomes. The potential benefits of the technique remain to be demonstrated by randomized controlled trials.

Computed tomography-based preoperative muscle measurements as prognostic factors for anastomotic leakage following oncological sigmoid and rectal resections

BACKGROUND

Oncological sigmoid and rectal resections are accompanied with substantial risk of anastomotic leakage. Preoperative risk assessment and patient selection remain difficult, highlighting the importance of finding easy-to-use parameters. This study evaluates the prognostic value of contrast-enhanced (CE) computed tomography (CT)-based muscle measurements for predicting anastomotic leakage.

METHODS

Patients that underwent oncological sigmoid and rectal resections in the LUMC between 2016 and 2020 were included. Preoperative CE-CT scans, were analyzed using Vitrea software to measure total abdominal muscle area (TAMA) and total psoas area (TPA). Muscle areas were standardized using patient's height into: psoas muscle index (PMI) and skeletal muscle index (SMI) (cm2 /m2 ).

RESULTS

In total 46 patients were included, of which 13 (8.9%) suffered from anastomotic leakage. Patients with anastomotic leakage had a significantly lower PMI (22.1 vs. 25.1, p < 0.01) and SMI (41.8 vs. 46.6, p < 0.01). After adjusting for confounders (age and comorbidity), lower PMI (odds ratio [OR]: 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71-0.99, p = 0.03) and SMI (OR: 0.93, 95%CI 0.86-0.99, p = 0.02) were both associated with anastomotic leakage.

CONCLUSION

This study showed that lower PMI and SMI were associated with anastomotic leakage. These results indicate that preoperative CT-based muscle measurements can be used as prognostic factor for risk stratification for anastomotic leakage.