Developing a national colorectal educational agenda: a survey of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland

Laparoscopic vs. open mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: Are these approaches still comparable? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To analyze pathologic and perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic vs. open resections for rectal cancer performed over the last 10 years.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of the following databases was conducted: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE (through PubMed), EMBASE, and Scopus. Only articles published in English from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2018 (i.e. the last 10 years), which met inclusion criteria were considered. The review only included articles which compared Laparoscopic rectal resection (LRR) and Open Rectal Resection (ORR) for rectal cancer and reported at least one of the outcomes of interest. The analyses followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement checklist. Only prospective randomized studies were considered. The body of evidence emerging from this study was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Outcome measures (mean and median values, standard deviations, and interquartile ranges) were extracted for each surgical treatment. Pooled estimates of the mean differences were calculated using random effects models to consider potential inter-study heterogeneity and to adopt a more conservative approach. The pooled effect was considered significant if p <0.05.

RESULTS

Five clinical trials were found eligible for the analyses. A positive involvement of CRM was found in 49 LRRs (8.5%) out of 574 patients and in 30 ORRs out of 557 patients (5.4%) RR was 1.55 (95% CI, 0.99-2.41; p = 0.05) with no heterogeneity (I2 = 0%). Incorrect mesorectal excision was observed in 56 out of 507 (11%) patients who underwent LRR and in 41 (8.4%) out of 484 patients who underwent ORR; RR was 1.30 (95% CI, 0.89-1.91; p = 0.18) with no heterogeneity (I2 = 0%). Regarding other pathologic outcomes, no significant difference between LRR and ORR was observed in the number of lymph nodes harvested or concerning the distance to the distal margin. As expected, a significant difference was found in the operating time for ORR with a mean difference of 41.99 (95% CI, 24.18, 59.81; p <0.00001; heterogeneity: I2 = 25%). However, no difference was found for blood loss. Additionally, no significant differences were found in postoperative outcomes such as postoperative hospital stay and postoperative complications. The overall quality of the evidence was rated as high.

CONCLUSION

Despite the spread of laparoscopy with dedicated surgeons and the development of even more precise surgical tools and technologies, the pathological results of laparoscopic surgery are still comparable to those of open ones. Additionally, concerning the pathological data (and particularly CRM), open surgery guarantees better results as compared to laparoscopic surgery. These results must be a starting point for future evaluations which consider the association between ''successful resection" and long-term oncologic outcomes. The introduction of other minimally invasive techniques for rectal cancer surgery, such as robotic resection or transanal TME (taTME), has revealed new scenarios and made open and even laparoscopic surgery obsolete.

Development and early outcomes of the national training initiative for transanal total mesorectal excision in the UK

AIM

Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) has attracted substantial interest amongst colorectal surgeons but its technical challenges may underlie the early reports of visceral injuries and oncological concerns. The aim of this study was to report on the feasibility, development and the outcome of the national pilot training initiative for TaTME-UK.

METHODS

TaTME-UK was successfully launched in September 2017 in partnership with the healthcare industry and endorsed by the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland. This multi-modal training curriculum consisted of three phases: (i) set-up; (ii) selection of pilot sites; and (iii) formal proctorship programme. Bespoke Global Assessment Scoring (GAS) forms were designed and completed by both trainees and mentors. Data were collected on patient demographics, tumour characteristics and perioperative clinical and histological outcomes.

RESULTS

Twenty-four proctored cases were performed by 10 colorectal surgeons from five selected pilot sites. Median operative time was 331 ± 90 (195-610) min which was reduced to 283 ± 62 (195-340) min in the final case. Independent performance (GAS score of 5) was achieved for most operative steps by case 5. There was one conversion (4.2%), but no visceral injuries. Pathological data confirmed no bowel perforation and intact quality of the mesorectal TME specimens with clear distal margin in all cases and circumferential margins in 23/24 cases (96%).

CONCLUSION

This exploratory study demonstrates acceptable early outcomes in a small cohort suggesting that a competency-based multi-modal training programme for TaTME can be feasible and safe to implement at a national level.

The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland consensus guidelines in surgery for inflammatory bowel disease

AIM

There is a requirement of an expansive and up to date review of surgical management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) that can dovetail with the medical guidelines produced by the British Society of Gastroenterology.

METHODS

Surgeons who are members of the ACPGBI with a recognised interest in IBD were invited to contribute various sections of the guidelines. They were directed to produce a procedure based document using literature searches that were systematic, comprehensible, transparent and reproducible. Levels of evidence were graded. An editorial board was convened to ensure consistency of style, presentation and quality. Each author was asked to provide a set of recommendations which were evidence based and unambiguous. These recommendations were submitted to the whole guideline group and scored. They were then refined and submitted to a second vote. Only those that achieved >80% consensus at level 5 (strongly agree) or level 4 (agree) after 2 votes were included in the guidelines.

RESULTS

All aspects of surgical care for IBD have been included along with 157 recommendations for management.

CONCLUSION

These guidelines provide an up to date and evidence based summary of the current surgical knowledge in the management of IBD and will serve as a useful practical text for clinicians performing this type of surgery.

What to consider when designing a laparoscopic colorectal training curriculum: a review of the literature

Multiple studies have demonstrated the benefits of laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LCS), but in several countries it has still not been widely adopted. LCS training is associated with several challenges, such as patient safety concerns and a steep learning curve. Current evidence may facilitate designing of efficient training curricula to overcome these challenges. Basic training with virtual reality simulators has witnessed meteoric advances and may be essential during the early parts of the learning curve. Cadaveric and animal model training still constitutes an indispensable training tool, due to a higher degree of difficulty and greater resemblance to real operative conditions. In addition, recent evidence favors the use of novel training paradigms, such as proficiency-based training, case selection and modular training. This review summarizes the recent advances in LCS training and provides the evidence for designing an efficient training curriculum to overcome the challenges of LCS training.

Recent updates in the surgical treatment of colorectal cancer

Because of recent advances in medical technology and new findings of clinical trials, treatment options for colorectal cancer are evolutionally changing, even in the last few years. Therefore, we need to update the treatment options and strategies so that patients can receive optimal and tailored treatment. The present review aimed to elucidate the recent global trends and update the surgical treatment strategies in colorectal cancer by citing the literature published in the last 2 years, namely 2016 and 2017. Although laparoscopic surgery is still considered the most common approach for the treatment of colorectal cancer, new surgical technologies such as transanal total mesorectal excision, robotic surgery, and laparoscopic lateral pelvic lymph node dissection are emerging. However, with the recent evidence, superiority of the laparoscopic approach to the open approach for rectal cancer seems to be controversial. Surgeons should notice the risk of adverse outcomes associated with unfounded and uncontrolled use of these novel techniques. Many promising results are accumulating in preoperative and postoperative treatment including chemotherapy, chemoradiotherapy, and targeted therapy. Development of new biomarkers seems to be essential for further improvement in the treatment outcomes of colorectal cancer patients.