Effects of surgical laparoscopic experience on the short-term postoperative outcome of rectal cancer: results of a high volume single center institution

The learning curve of laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery of millennial surgeons: Lessons for a safe implementation in low- and middle-income countries

Objective

This study aimed to analyse the learning curve (LC) in laparoscopic rectal cancer resections of 2 millennial surgeons during the implementation of the first laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery programme in low- and middle-income country (LMIC) cancer centre.

Methods

All consecutive patients operated by two millennial surgeons for primary rectal adenocarcinoma between January 2018 and March 2020 were included. The LC was analysed for operative duration and conversion to open surgery using both cumulative sum (CUSUM) and/or variable life-adjusted display (VLAD) charts.

Results

Eighty-four patients were included, 45 (53.6%) men with a mean age of 57.3 years. Abdominoperineal resection was performed in 31 (36.9%) cases and resections were extended to other organs in 20 (23.8%) patients. Thirteen patients (15.5%) had conversion to open surgery. Using CUSUM, Learning curve based on conversion was completed at 12 cases for the first surgeon versus 10 cases for the second. While using VLAD and learning curve-CUSUM (LC-CUSUM), the cases needed were 26 vs 24 respectively. The median operative duration was 314 min with a LC completed at cases (17 vs. 26), and (18 vs. 29) using, respectively, standard and LC-CUSUM.

Conclusions

This study shows a safe and short LC of millennial surgeons during the implementation of a laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery in an LMIC cancer centre, and the valuable use of modern statistical methods in the prospective assessment of LC safety during surgical training.

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

BACKGROUND

The standard treatment of rectal carcinoma is surgical resection according to the total mesorectal excision principle, either by open, laparoscopic, robot-assisted or transanal technique. No clear consensus exists regarding the length of the learning curve for the minimal invasive techniques. This systematic review aims to provide an overview of the current literature regarding the learning curve of minimal invasive TME.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched for studies with the primary or secondary aim to assess the learning curve of either laparoscopic, robot-assisted or transanal TME for rectal cancer. The primary outcome was length of the learning curve per minimal invasive technique. Descriptive statistics were used to present results and the MINORS tool was used to assess risk of bias.

RESULTS

45 studies, with 7562 patients, were included in this systematic review. Length of the learning curve based on intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, pathological outcomes, or a composite endpoint using a risk-adjusted CUSUM analysis was 50 procedures for the laparoscopic technique, 32-75 procedures for the robot-assisted technique and 36-54 procedures for the transanal technique. Due to the low quality of studies and a high level of heterogeneity a meta-analysis could not be performed. Heterogeneity was caused by patient-related factors, surgeon-related factors and differences in statistical methods.

CONCLUSION

Current high-quality literature regarding length of the learning curve of minimal invasive TME techniques is scarce. Available literature suggests equal lengths of the learning curves of laparoscopic, robot-assisted and transanal TME. Well-designed studies, using adequate statistical methods are required to properly assess the learning curve, while taking into account patient-related and surgeon-related factors.

Robotic versus laparoscopic sphincter-saving total mesorectal excision for mid or low rectal cancer in male patients after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy: comparison of long-term outcomes

The aim of our study was to compare long term outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic sphincter-saving total mesorectal excision (TME) in male patients with mid-low rectal cancer (RC) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT). The study was conducted as a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database, and we analyzed 14 robotic and 65 laparoscopic sphincter-saving TME (R-TME and L-TME, respectively) performed by one surgeon between 2005 and 2013. Patient characteristics, perioperative recovery, postoperative complications and pathology results were compared between the two groups. The patient characteristics did not differ significantly between the two groups. Median operating time was longer in the R-TME than in the L-TME group (182 min versus 140 min). Only two conversions occurred in the L-TME group. No difference was found between groups regarding perioperative recovery and postoperative complication rates. The median number of harvested lymph nodes was higher in the RTME than in the L-TME group (32 versus 23, p = 0.008). The median circumferential margin (CRM) was 10 mm in the R-TME group, 6.5 mm in the L-TME group (p = 0.047. The median distal resection margin (DRM) was 27.5 mm in the R-TME, 15 mm in the L-TME group (p = 0.014). Macroscopic grading of the specimen in the R-TME group was complete in all patients. In the L-TME group, grading was complete in 52 (80%) and incomplete in 13 (20%) cases (p = 0.109). Median follow-up 87 months (1-152). Whereas local recurrence was seen in eight cases (10.12%) and distant metastasis was seen in 18 cases (22.7%). Overall, 5 years survival was 83.3% in R-TME, 75% in L-TME groups. R-TME is a safe and feasible procedure that facilitates performing of TME in male patients with mid to low RC after NCRT.

Teaching in the operating room: A risk for surgical site infections?

BACKGROUND/AIM

To investigate whether teaching procedures and surgical experience are associated with surgical site infection (SSI) rates.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study of patients undergoing general, orthopedic trauma and vascular surgery procedures was done between 2012 and 2015 at two tertiary care hospitals in Switzerland/Europe.

RESULTS

Out of a total of 4560 patients/surgeries, 1403 (30.8%) were classified as teaching operations. The overall SSI rate was 5.1% (n = 233). Teaching operations (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.57-1.07, p = 0.120), junior surgeons (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.55-1.15, p = 0.229) and surgical experience (OR 0.997, 95% CI 0.982-1.012, p = 0.676) were overall not independently associated with the odds of SSI. However, for surgeons' seniority and experience, these associations depended on the duration of surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

In procedures of shorter and medium duration, teaching procedures and junior as well as less experienced surgeons are not independently associated with increased odds of SSI.

Propensity score matching comparison of laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer in a middle-income country: short-term outcomes and cost analysis

Background

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer is associated with improved postoperative outcomes compared to open surgery; however, economic studies have yielded contradictory results. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical and economic outcomes of laparoscopic versus open surgery for patients with rectal cancer.

Methods

Propensity score matching analysis was performed in a retrospective cohort of patients who underwent elective low anterior resection for rectal cancer treatment by laparoscopic and open surgery in a single Brazilian cancer center. Matched covariates included age, gender, body mass index, pTNM stage, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, type of anesthesia, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, and interval between neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and index surgery. The clinical and economic outcomes were evaluated. The follow-up period was within 30 days of the index procedure. The clinical outcomes were reoperation, postoperative complications, operative time, length of stay in the intensive care unit, and postoperative hospital stay. For economic outcomes, a cost analysis was used to compare the costs.

Results

Initially, 220 patients were evaluated. After propensity score matching, 100 patients were included in the analysis (50 patients in the open surgery group and 50 patients in the laparoscopic surgery group). There were no differences in patients' baseline characteristics. Operative time was longer for laparoscopic surgery (247 minutes vs 285 minutes, P=0.006). There were no significant differences in other clinical outcomes. The hospital costs were similar between the two groups (Brazilian reais 21,233.15 vs Brazilian reais 21,529.28, P=0.115), although the intraoperative costs were higher for laparoscopic surgery, mainly owing to the surgical devices and the theater-related costs. The postoperative costs were lower for laparoscopic surgery, owing to lower intensive care unit, ward, and reoperation costs.

Conclusion

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer is not costlier than open surgery from the health care provider's perspective, since the intraoperative costs were offset by lower postoperative costs. Open surgery tends to have a longer length of stay.

Sarcopenia is negatively associated with long-term outcomes in locally advanced rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The association of sarcopenia and visceral obesity to treatment outcome is not clear for locally advanced rectal cancer. This study evaluates the influence of skeletal muscle and visceral fat on short-term and long-term outcomes in locally advanced rectal cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy followed by curative resection.

METHODS

A total of 188 patients with locally advanced cancer were included between January 2009 and December 2013. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy was followed by curative resection. Sarcopenia and visceral obesity were identified in initial staging CT by measuring the muscle and visceral fat area at the third lumbar vertebra level.

RESULTS

Among the 188 included patients, 74 (39.4%) patients were sarcopenic and 97 (51.6%) patients were viscerally obese. Sarcopenia and high levels of preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen were significant prognostic factors for overall survival (P = 0.013, 0.014, respectively) in the Cox regression multivariate analysis. Visceral obesity was not associated with overall survival; however, it did tend to shorten disease-free survival (P = 0.079).

CONCLUSIONS

Sarcopenia is negatively associated with overall survival in locally advanced rectal cancer patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy and curative resection. Visceral obesity tended to shorten disease-free survival. Future studies should be directed to optimize patient conditions according to body composition status.

Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic operation in anus-preserving rectal cancer: a meta-analysis

Objective

The aim of this meta-analysis is to provide recommendations for clinical practice and prevention of postoperative complications, such as circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement, and compare the amount of intraoperative bleeding, safety, operative time, recovery, outcomes, and clinical significance of robot-assisted and conventional laparoscopic procedures in anus-preserving rectal cancer.

Methods

A literature search (PubMed) was performed to identify biomedical research papers and abstracts of studies comparing robot-assisted and conventional laparoscopic procedures. We attempted to obtain the full-text link for papers published between 2000 and 2016, and hand-searched references for relevant literature. RevMan 5.3 software was used for the meta-analysis.

Results

Nine papers (949 patients) were eligible for inclusion; there were 473 patients (49.8%) in the robotic group and 476 patients (50.2%) in the laparoscopic group. According to the data provided in the literature, seven indicators were used to complete the evaluation. The results of the meta-analysis suggested that robot-assisted procedure was associated with lower intraoperative blood loss (mean difference [MD] −41.15; 95% confidence interval [CI] −77.51, −4.79; P=0.03), lower open conversion rate (risk difference [RD] −0.05; 95% CI −0.09, −0.01; P=0.02), lower hospital stay (MD −1.07; 95% CI −1.80, −0.33; P=0.005), lower overall complication rate (odds ratio 0.58; 95% CI 0.41, 0.83; P=0.003), and longer operative time (MD 33.73; 95% CI 8.48, 58.99; P=0.009) compared with conventional laparoscopy. There were no differences in the rate of CRM involvement (RD −0.02; 95% CI −0.05, 0.01; P=0.23) and days to return of bowel function (MD −0.03; 95% CI −0.40, 0.34; P=0.89).

Conclusion

The Da Vinci robot was superior to laparoscopy with respect to blood loss, open conversion, hospital stay, and postoperative complications during anus-preserving rectal cancer procedures; however, conventional laparoscopy had an advantage regarding operative time. The remaining indicators (CRMs and recovery from intestinal peristalsis) did not differ.

Open Versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: Single-Center Results of 587 Cases

PURPOSE

We aimed to compare the short-term and long-term results of laparoscopic and open rectal resections.

METHODS

A total of 587 rectal cancer patients were included. The main measures were demographic data, duration of surgery, early postoperative results, pathologic data, and long-term follow-up.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in demographic data, morbidity rate, tumor location, and sphincter-preservation rates between the 2 groups. The duration of surgery (155 vs. 173 min, P<0.001), time to gas passage, defecation, and solid food intake and length of hospital stay were significantly shorter in the laparoscopic group than the open group (P<0.05). According to the univariate and multivariate analysis, laparoscopic surgery did not have an effect on local recurrence but had a favorable effect on survival rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic rectal surgery has advantages over open surgery with respect to short-term and long-term clinical results and when performed in high-volume centers.

How to reduce the laparoscopic colorectal learning curve

Background:

The laparoscopic approach for colorectal pathologies is becoming more widely used, and surgeons have had to learn how to perform this new technique. The purpose of this work is to study the indicators of the learning curve for laparoscopic colectomy in a community hospital and to find when the group begins to improve.

Methodology:

From January 1 2005 to December 31 2012, 313 consecutive laparoscopic colorectal surgeries were performed (105 rectal and 208 colonic) by at least 60% of the same surgical team (6 members) in each operation. We evaluate the learning curve by moving averages and cumulative sums (CUSUM) for different variables related to the surgery outcomes.

Results:

Moving average curves for postoperative stay, fasting, and second step analgesia show a stabilizing trend toward improvement as we get more experience. However, intensive care unit stay, number of lymph nodes achieved, and operating time did not show a clear decreasing tendency. CUSUM curves of conversion, specimens <12 lymph nodes, and complications all show a clear turning point marked on all the charts around the procedure 60, accumulating a positive trend toward improvement. The CUSUM curve of the “learning variable” shows this improvement point at procedure 70.

Conclusions:

The laparoscopic colectomy learning curve accelerates with a collective team involvement in each procedure. The CUSUM and moving average curves are useful for initial and ongoing monitoring of new surgical procedures. The markers of the learning curve evidenced in our study are the conversion rate, postoperative surgical morbidity, and the number of patients with a lymph node count <12.

What is new in this paper?

The significance of this study is the evaluation of the learning curve, in laparoscopic colorectal surgery, of a surgical team in a community hospital, using moving average and CUSUM curves. This study demonstrated that the number of patients needed to achieve skilful practice decreased when there is collective team involvement in each procedure.

Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for mid or low rectal cancer in male patients after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy: comparison of short-term outcomes

The aim of our study was to compare short-term outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic sphincter-saving total mesorectal excision (TME) in male patients with mid-low rectal cancer (RC) after neadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT). The study was conducted as a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database, and we analyzed 14 robotic and 65 laparoscopic sphincter saving TME (R-TME and L-TME, respectively) performed by one surgeon between 2005 and 2013. Patient characteristics, perioperative recovery, postoperative complications and and pathology results were compared between the two groups. The patient characteristics did not differ significantly between the two groups. Median operating time was longer in the R-TME than in the L-TME group (182 min versus 140 min). Only two conversions occurred in the L-TME group. No difference was found between groups regarding perioperative recovery and postoperative complication rates. The median number of harvested lymph nodes was higher in the RTME than in the L-TME group (32 versus 23, p = 0.008). The median circumferential margin (CRM) was 10 mm in the R-TME group, 6.5 mm in the L-TME group (p = 0.047. The median distal resection margin (DRM) was 27.5 mm in the R-TME, 15 mm in the L-TME group (p = 0.014). Macroscopic grading of the specimen in the R-TME group was complete in all patients. In the L-TME group, grading was complete in 52 (80%) and incomplete in 13 (20%) cases (p = 0.109). R-TME is a safe and feasible procedure that facilitates performing of TME in male patients with mid-low RC after NCRT.

Use of Valtrac™-secured intracolonic bypass in laparoscopic rectal cancer resection

The occurrence of anastomotic leakage (AL) remains a major concern in the early postoperative stage. Because of the relatively high morbidity and mortality of AL in patients with laparoscopic low rectal cancer who receive an anterior resection, a fecal diverting method is usually introduced. The Valtrac™-secured intracolonic bypass (VIB) was used in open rectal resection, and played a role of protecting the anastomotic site. This study was designed to assess the efficacy and safety of the VIB in protecting laparoscopic low rectal anastomosis and to compare the efficacy and complications of VIB with those of loop ileostomy (LI). Medical records of the 43 patients with rectal cancer who underwent elective laparoscopic low anterior resection and received VIB procedure or LI between May 2011 and May 2013 were retrospectively analyzed, including the patients' demographics, clinical features, and operative data. Twenty-four patients received a VIB and 19 patients a LI procedure. Most of the demographics and clinical features of the groups, including Dukes stages, were similar. However, the median distance of the tumor edge from the anus verge in the VIB group was significantly longer (7.5 cm; inter-quartile range [IQR] 7.0-9.5 cm) than that of the L1 group (6.0 cm; IQR 6.0-7.0 cm). None of the patients developed clinical AL. The comparisons between the LI and the VIB groups were adjusted for the significant differences in the tumor level of the groups. After adjustment, the LI group experienced longer overall postoperative hospital stay (14.0 days, IQR: 12.0, 16.0 days; P < 0.001) and incurred higher costs ($6300 (IQR: $5900, $6600)) than the VIB group (7.0 days, $4800; P < 0.05). Stoma-related complications in the ileostomy group included dermatitis (n = 2), stoma bleeding (n = 1), and wound infection after closure (n = 2). No BAR-related complications occurred. The mean time to Valtrac™ ring loosening was 14.1 ± 3.2 days. The VIB procedure, as a good partner with the laparoscopic rectal cancer resection, appears to be a safe and effective, but time-limited, diverting technique to protect an elective low colorectal anastomosis.

Have early postoperative complications from laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery improved over the past 20 years?

AIM

Laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery has been increasingly used since 1991 following the publication of the first case series. Since then, several studies have confirmed that laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer is challenging with associated morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to determine if the rates of early postoperative complications in laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery have improved over the past 20 years.

METHOD

A literature search of the EMBASE and MEDLINE databases between August 1991 and August 2011 was conducted using the keywords laparoscopy, rectal cancer and postoperative complications. Data were analysed using linear regression ANOVA performed in GNUMERICS software.

RESULTS

Ninety-seven studies were included for analysis. Over the last 20 years there has been no significant change in the rate of any early postoperative complications (anastomotic leak, conversion, sexual, urinary or faecal dysfunction, wound infection, overall morbidity or mortality). However, in the last 3 years, the rate of positive resection margins has decreased significantly (P = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

There was no evidence of a statistically significant change in early postoperative complications until 3 years ago. This may reflect the inherent morbidity associated with rectal surgery regardless of the approach used, the limitations of the current laparoscopic instrumentation or the relatively long learning curve. With increasing experience, a repeat analysis in the near future following the publication of ongoing randomized clinical trials might show improved outcomes.

Clinical competence in the surgery of rectal cancer: the Italian Consensus Conference

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The literature continues to emphasize the advantages of treating patients in "high volume" units by "expert" surgeons, but there is no agreed definition of what is meant by either term. In September 2012, a Consensus Conference on Clinical Competence was organized in Rome as part of the meeting of the National Congress of Italian Surgery (I Congresso Nazionale della Chirurgia Italiana: Unità e valore della chirurgia italiana). The aims were to provide a definition of "expert surgeon" and "high-volume facility" in rectal cancer surgery and to assess their influence on patient outcome.

METHOD

An Organizing Committee (OC), a Scientific Committee (SC), a Group of Experts (E) and a Panel/Jury (P) were set up for the conduct of the Consensus Conference. Review of the literature focused on three main questions including training, "measuring" of quality and to what extent hospital and surgeon volume affects sphincter-preserving procedures, local recurrence, 30-day morbidity and mortality, survival, function, choice of laparoscopic approach and the choice of transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM).

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

The difficulties encountered in defining competence in rectal surgery arise from the great heterogeneity of the parameters described in the literature to quantify it. Acquisition of data is difficult as many articles were published many years ago. Even with a focus on surgeon and hospital volume, it is difficult to define their role owing to the variability and the quality of the relevant studies.

Role of laparoscopy in rectal cancer: A review

Despite established evidence on the advantages of laparoscopy in colon cancer resection, the use of laparoscopy for rectal cancer resection is still controversial. The initial concern was mainly regarding the feasibility of laparoscopy to achieve an adequate total mesorectal excision specimen. These concerns have been raised following early studies demonstrating higher rates of circumferential margins positivity following laparoscopic resection, as compared to open surgery. Similar to colon resection, patients undergoing laparoscopic rectal cancer resection are expected to benefit from a shorter length of hospital stay, less analgesic requirements, and a faster recovery of bowel function. In the past decade there have been an increasing number of large scale clinical trials investigating the oncological and perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic rectal cancer resection. In this review we summarize the current literature available on laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery.

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for the treatment of colorectal cancer: a literature review and recommendations from the Comité de l'évolution des pratiques en oncologie

BACKGROUND

Adoption of the laparoscopic approach for colorectal cancer treatment has been slow owing to initial case study results suggesting high recurrence rates at port sites. The use of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer still raises a number of concerns, particularly with the technique's complexity, learning curve and longer duration. After exploring the scientific literature comparing open and laparoscopic surgery for the treatment of colorectal cancer with respect to oncologic efficacy and shortterm outcomes, the Comité de l'évolution des pratiques en oncologie (CEPO) made recommendations for surgical practice in Quebec.

METHODS

Scientific literature published from January 1995 to April 2012 was reviewed. Phase III clinical trials and meta-analyses were included.

RESULTS

Sixteen randomized trials and 10 meta-analyses were retrieved. Analysis of the literature confirmed that for curative treatment of colorectal cancer, laparoscopy is not inferior to open surgery with respect to survival and recurrence rates. Moreover, laparoscopic surgery provides short-term advantages, including a shorter hospital stay, reduced analgesic use and faster recovery of intestinal function. However, this approach does require a longer operative time.

CONCLUSION

Considering the evidence, the CEPO recommends that laparoscopic resection be considered an option for the curative treatment of colon and rectal cancer; that decisions regarding surgical approach take into consideration surgeon experience, tumour stage, potential contraindications and patient expectations; and that laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer be performed only by appropriately trained surgeons who perform a sufficient volume annually to maintain competence.

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: outcomes in 513 patients

BACKGROUND

Few reports have demonstrated the feasibility and efficacy of laparoscopic resection in patients with rectal cancer (RC). The objective of the present study was to assess the effectiveness of laparoscopic resection for RC, with an emphasis on perioperative variables and long-term oncological outcomes.

METHODS

This prospective study was carried out between January 2005 and September 2010 and included 513 patients diagnosed with RC who underwent laparoscopic surgery. Patients with locally advanced RC (cT3/cT4 or N+) received neoadjuvant treatment. Adjuvant treatment was applied to patients with stage II/III disease or according to the neoadjuvant protocol. All patients were followed-up prospectively for the evaluation of complications and oncological outcome. Survival rate analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

Sphincter-preserving surgery was performed on 389 patients, and the remaining 124 patients underwent abdominoperineal resection. Perioperative mortality occurred in only one patient (0.2 %), and 27 (5.3 %) intraoperative complications were recorded. The most common postoperative complication was anastomotic leakage (5.5 %). The conversion rate was 6.4 %. The mean number of harvested lymph nodes was 23.6 ± 13. The mean distance to the distal margin was 2.6 ± 1.9 (0-7) cm. Distal margin positivity was detected in 9 (1.7 %) patients. The circumferential margin was positive in 39 (7.6 %) cases. After a median follow-up period of 30 (1-78) months, recurrence occurred in a total of 59 patients (11.5 %). Local recurrence was detected in 16 patients (3.1 %), and both local and distant recurrence was found in 7 patients (1.4 %). Distant recurrence only was detected in 43 patients (8.4 %). The overall 5-year survival rate was 84 %, and the 5-year disease-free survival rate was 77.4 %. The local recurrence-free survival rate was 98.4 % at 2 years, 95.7 % at 3 years, and 94.3 % at 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results, together with the review of the literature, clearly demonstrate that laparoscopic resection for RC is a feasible method at specialized high-volume centers. The long-term outcomes are at least as good as those from open surgery as long as the principles of oncologic surgery are respected and faithfully performed.

Total mesorectal excision: a comparison of oncological and functional outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Long-term data from the CLASICC study demonstrated the oncologic equivalence of laparoscopic and open rectal cancer surgery despite an increased circumferential resection margin involvement in the laparoscopic group in the initial report. Moreover, laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) may be associated with increased rates of male sexual dysfunction compared to conventional open TME. Robotic surgery could potentially obtain better results than laparoscopy. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical and functional outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic surgery in a single-center experience.

METHODS

This study was based on 100 patients who underwent minimally invasive anterior rectal resection with TME. Fifty consecutive robotic rectal anterior resections with TME (R-TME) were compared to the first 50 consecutive laparoscopic rectal resections with TME (L-TME).

RESULTS

Median operative time was 270 min in R-TME and 275 min in L-TME. No conversions occurred in the R-TME group whereas six conversions occurred in the L-TME group. The mean number of harvested lymph nodes was 16.5 ± 7.1 for R-TME and 13.8 ± 6.7 for L-TME. The circumferential margin (CRM) was <2 mm in six L-TME patients, whereas no one in R-TME group had a CRM <2 mm. The International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) scores were significantly increased 1 month after surgery in both the L-TME and R-TME groups, but they normalized 1 year after surgery. Erectile function worsened significantly 1 month after surgery in both the groups but it was restored completely 1 year after surgery in the R-TME group and partially in the L-TME group.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic TME is oncologically safe and adequate for rectal cancer treatment, showing better results than laparoscopic TME in terms of CRM, conversions, and hospital length of stay. Better recovery in voiding and sexual function is achieved with the robotic technique.

The impact of practice environment on laparoscopic colectomy utilization following colorectal residency: a survey of the ASCRS Young Surgeons

AIM

It is often thought that practice patterns are different in private (PP) vs university hospital (UH) settings. We aimed to describe the impact of practice environment on the type of laparoscopic colectomy procedures performed by graduating colorectal surgeons.

METHOD

A review was carried out of prospectively gathered self-reported questionnaire data. Graduates of American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons' (ASCRS)-approved colorectal residencies from 2004 to 2008 underwent an on-line survey, developed by the ASCRS Young Surgeons' Committee.

RESULTS

About 177 (52%) of 342 graduates surveyed responded. Practice setting data were available for 157 (89%) surgeons. Gender, geographical location and age were similar in both cohorts. PP surgeons utilized a laparoscopic approach more often for rectal cancer (37% vs 19%; P=0.003). There was no significant difference in the rate of laparoscopic surgery in colon cancer, diverticular disease, inflammatory bowel disease, Clostridium difficile or emergency surgery. PP surgeons operated more often with a partner (43% vs 8%) or surgical assistant (13% vs 4%; both P<0.001), while UH surgeons had a colorectal resident (10% vs 21%) or general surgery resident (15% vs 55%; both P<0.001). Impediments to performing laparoscopic surgery for PP surgeons included a perceived lack of hospital equipment (33% vs 20%) and support (29% vs 17%; both P<0.05). Perception of personal experience, access to trained assistants, financial reimbursement, length of surgery and patient availability were equivalent in both groups.

CONCLUSION

While differences such as type of assistant and impediments to laparoscopic utilization exist between PP- and UH-based practices, early laparoscopic practice patterns remain similar. PP surgeons more frequently perform laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer and with hand-assistance. Despite differences, newly trained colorectal surgeons in both settings utilize and require laparoscopic skills.

Factors influencing the quality of total mesorectal excision

BACKGROUND

Total mesorectal excision (TME) has become the standard of care for rectal cancer. Incomplete TME may lead to local recurrence.

METHODS

Data from the multicentre observational German Quality Assurance in Rectal Cancer Trial were used. Patients undergoing low anterior resection for rectal cancer between 1 January 2005 and 31 December 2009 were included. Multivariable analysis using a stepwise logistic regression model was performed to identify predictors of suboptimal TME.

RESULTS

From a total of 6179 patients, complete data sets for 4606 patients were available for analysis. Pathological tumour category higher than T2 (pT3 versus pT1/2: odds ratio (OR) 1.22, 95 per cent confidence interval 1.01 to 1.47), tumour distance from the anal verge less than 8 cm (OR 1.27, 1.05 to 1.53), advanced age (65-80 years: OR 1.25, 1.03 to 1.52; over 80 years: OR 1.60, 1.15 to 2.22), presence of intraoperative complications (OR 1.63, 1.15 to 2.30), monopolar dissection technique (OR 1.43, 1.14 to 1.79) and low case volume (fewer than 20 procedures per year) of the operating surgeon (OR 1.20, 1.06 to 1.36) were independently associated with moderate or poor TME quality.

CONCLUSION

TME quality was influenced by patient- and treatment-related factors.

Robotic technologies in surgical oncology training and practice

The modern-day surgeon is frequently exposed to new technologies and instrumentation. Robotic surgery (RS) has evolved as a minimally invasive technique aimed to improve clinical outcomes. RS has the potential to alleviate the inherent limitations of laparoscopic surgery such as two dimensional imaging, limited instrument movement and intrinsic human tremor. Since the first reported robot-assisted surgical procedure performed in 1985, the technology has dramatically evolved and currently multiple surgical specialties have incorporated RS into their daily clinical armamentarium. With this exponential growth, it should not come as a surprise the ever growing requirement for surgeons trained in RS as well as the interest from residents to receive robotic exposure during their training. For this reason, the establishment of set criteria for adequate and standardized training and credentialing of surgical residents, fellows and those trained surgeons wishing to perform RS has become a priority. In this rapidly evolving field, we herein review the past, present and future of robotic technologies and its penetration into different surgical specialties.