The effect of surgical approach on short-term oncologic outcomes in rectal cancer surgery

Clinical Robotic Surgery Association (India Chapter) and Indian rectal cancer expert group’s practical consensus statements for surgical management of localized and locally advanced rectal cancer

Introduction

There are standard treatment guidelines for the surgical management of rectal cancer, that are advocated by recognized physician societies. But, owing to disparities in access and affordability of various treatment options, there remains an unmet need for personalizing these international guidelines to Indian settings.

Methods

Clinical Robotic Surgery Association (CRSA) set up the Indian rectal cancer expert group, with a pre-defined selection criterion and comprised of the leading surgical oncologists and gastrointestinal surgeons managing rectal cancer in India. Following the constitution of the expert Group, members identified three areas of focus and 12 clinical questions. A thorough review of the literature was performed, and the evidence was graded as per the levels of evidence by Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. The consensus was built using the modified Delphi methodology of consensus development. A consensus statement was accepted only if ≥75% of the experts were in agreement.

Results

Using the results of the review of the literature and experts’ opinions; the expert group members drafted and agreed on the final consensus statements, and these were classified as “strong or weak”, based on the GRADE framework.

Conclusion

The expert group adapted international guidelines for the surgical management of localized and locally advanced rectal cancer to Indian settings. It will be vital to disseminate these to the wider surgical oncologists and gastrointestinal surgeons’ community in India.

[Robotic-assisted surgery of rectal cancer-Technique, limitations and results]

BACKGROUND

The number of oncological robotic-assisted rectal cancer resections is rapidly increasing in Germany and worldwide; however, the indications, technique and potential limitations of this surgical technique are still discussed.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The standardized modular surgical technique, the results in our clinic and the currently published evidence are presented.

RESULTS

The procedure should be divided into seven modules in terms of standardization and teaching. After the learning curve there are principally no limitations or contraindications. The robotic-assisted approach is superior to open surgery in the following points: blood loss, lymph node harvest, negative circumferential resection margin (CRM), complication rate and length of hospital stay. In comparison to conventional laparoscopy the conversion rate and postoperative sexual and bladder function disorders are decreased. The operating time is longer.

CONCLUSION

Robotic-assisted rectal cancer resection is firmly established and standardized. The technique is superior to open surgery and conventional laparoscopy in some important aspects and is developing into the standard for this disease.

Robotic Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery has been considered as an alternative to open surgery by surgeons for colorectal cancer. However, the efficacy and safety profiles of robotic and conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer remain unclear in the literature. The primary aim of this review was to determine whether robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RAS) has better clinical outcomes for colorectal cancer patients than conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS).

METHODS

All randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies were systematically searched in the databases of CENTRAL, EMBASE and PubMed from their inception until January 2018. Case reports, case series and non-systematic reviews were excluded.

RESULTS

Seventy-three studies (6 RCTs and 67 observational studies) were eligible (n = 169,236) for inclusion in the data synthesis. In comparison with the CLS arm, RAS cohort was associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of conversion to open surgery (ρ < 0.001, I² = 65%; REM: OR 0.40; 95% CI 0.30,0.53), all-cause mortality (ρ < 0.001, I² = 7%; FEM: OR 0.48; 95% CI 0.36,0.64) and wound infection (ρ < 0.001, I² = 0%; FEM: OR 1.24; 95% CI 1.11,1.39). Patients who received RAS had a significantly shorter duration of hospitalization (ρ < 0.001, I² = 94%; REM: MD - 0.77; 95% CI 1.12, - 0.41; day), time to oral diet (ρ < 0.001, I² = 60%; REM: MD - 0.43; 95% CI - 0.64, - 0.21; day) and lesser intraoperative blood loss (ρ = 0.01, I² = 88%; REM: MD - 18.05; 95% CI - 32.24, - 3.85; ml). However, RAS cohort was noted to require a significant longer duration of operative time (ρ < 0.001, I² = 93%; REM: MD 38.19; 95% CI 28.78,47.60; min).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis suggests that RAS provides better clinical outcomes for colorectal cancer patients as compared to the CLS at the expense of longer duration of operative time. However, the inconclusive trial sequential analysis and an overall low level of evidence in this review warrant future adequately powered RCTs to draw firm conclusion.

Trends in the Use of Laparoscopy and Robotics for Colorectal Cancer in Florida

Background: Laparoscopy and more recently robotics are increasingly used for colorectal cancer surgery in the United States. We examined the current trends of minimally invasive surgical resections for colorectal cancer in Florida. Methods: The Florida Inpatient Discharge Dataset was used to examine the clinical data of patients who underwent elective surgery for colorectal cancer during 2013-2015. Multivariate analyses were performed to compare patient characteristics associated with the use of open and minimally invasive surgeries. Results: A total of 10,513 patients were analyzed; 5451 (52%) had open surgery, 4403 (42%) laparoscopy, and 659 (6%) robotic surgery. The rates of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) increased from 46.95% in 2013 to 48.72% in 2015. Among minimally invasive surgical procedures, the use of robotics increased from 9.82% in 2013 to 15.48% in 2015. Metastatic cancer (odds ratio [OR] 0.61, confidence interval [CI] 0.55-0.67), Elixhauser score of 3-5 (OR 0.85, CI 0.76-0.95) or more than 5 (OR 0.78, CI 0.63-0.97), Medicaid insurance (OR 0.73, CI 0.6-0.89), Black race (OR 0.88, CI 0.77-0.99), and rural residence (OR 0.83, CI 0.69-0.99) were associated with lower odds of MIS than open surgery. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that the overall rates of MIS for colorectal cancer in Florida increased from 2013 to 2015. Socially deprived and very sick patient populations with colorectal cancer are less likely to undergo MIS.

Disparities in minimally invasive surgery for colorectal cancer in Florida

BACKGROUND

The cost of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) raises potential for racial and social disparities. The aim of this study was to identify the racial, socioeconomic and geographic disparities associated with MIS for colorectal cancer (CRC) in Florida.

METHODS

Using the Florida Inpatient Discharge Dataset, we examined the clinical data of patients who underwent elective resections for CRC during 2013-2015. Multivariable analysis was performed to identify differences in gender, age, race, urbanization, region, insurance and clinical characteristics associated with the surgical approach.

RESULTS

Of the 10,224 patients identified, 5308 (52%) had open surgery and 4916 (48%) had MIS. Females (p = 0.012), Medicare-insured patients (p = 0.001) and residents of South Florida were more likely to undergo MIS. Patients with Medicaid (p = 0.008), metastasis (p < 0.001) or 3-5 comorbidities (p = 0.004) had reduced likelihood of MIS. Hispanic patients in Southwest Florida had reduced likelihood of receiving MIS than whites (p < 0.017). Patients who underwent MIS had significantly reduced LOS (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Consistent with national studies, MIS for CRC in Florida is associated with insurance status and geographic location. There are patient-level regional differences for racial disparities in MIS for CRC in Florida.

Minimally Invasive Approaches for Surgical Management of Primary Liver Cancers

The benefits of minimally invasive approaches in oncologic surgery are increasingly recognized, and laparoscopic liver surgery has become increasingly widespread. In light of the complexity and technical challenges of hepatobiliary procedures, robotic approaches are also employed. The utility, safety, and oncologic integrity of these methods in the management of primary liver cancers are reported. PubMed was used to search the medical literature for studies and articles pertaining to laparoscopic and robotic liver surgery. Studies that particularly addressed hepatocellular carcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma were identified and reviewed. Laparoscopic liver surgery, including for major resections, has been shown to be safe in experienced hands without any compromise of oncologic outcomes for either hepatocellular carcinoma or intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Some studies show improved clinical outcomes including shorter hospital stays and lower complication rates when compared to open surgery, particularly for patients with cirrhosis. Robotic liver surgeries seem to have equally acceptable clinical outcomes; however, there is limited data regarding oncologic integrity and considerable additional expense. Laparoscopic and robotic liver resections are both feasible and safe for the management of primary liver tumors. Future studies should aim to clarify specific indications and optimize applications of these approaches.

Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for complex mediastinal mass resections

Minimally invasive surgery has changed the way operative procedures are performed in many specialties. As surgeons have become progressively facile with these techniques, the opportunities to use them have expanded. In thoracic surgery, many surgeons now use minimally invasive techniques to resect small, uncomplicated pathologies of the mediastinum as well as to perform thymectomy for myasthenia gravis. Experience with these techniques has allowed new knowledge to be gained and expansion of the use of these techniques for more complicated mediastinal pathology. This keynote address will outline the instrumentation and techniques that we have adopted over a decade of using these techniques for more complicated mediastinal pathology.