Outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Robotic-assisted rectal surgery (RARS) and Laparoscopic-assisted rectal surgery are the two techniques that are increasingly used for rectal cancer, and both have their advantages and disadvantages. This meta-analysis will analyze the outcomes of both techniques to determine their relative performance and suitability.

METHODS

An extensive search was carried out on PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, Embase, and Google Scholar, followed by a meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess both approaches for rectal cancer.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis is comprised of fifteen RCTs. The conversion to open surgery (RR = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.38-0.74, P = 0.0002) was significantly lower in the RARS group. The outcomes like anastomotic leak, postoperative ileus, postoperative urinary retention (POUR), surgical site infection (SSI), and intra-abdominal abscess showed no significant difference between the two groups. The reoperation rate (RR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.34-0.95, P = 0.03) was lower in the robotic group. High heterogeneity was obtained when pooling data on operative time, length of hospital stay, and blood loss. Oncological outcomes, including local recurrence, the number of harvested lymph nodes (LN) and distal resection margin showed no significant distinction among both groups, while the positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) (RR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.49-0.91, P = 0.01) was lower in the RARS group. RARS demonstrated a significantly higher rate of total mesorectal excision (TME) (RR = 1.07, 95% CI: 1.01-1.14, P = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

RARS is safe and feasible for rectal cancer patients and may be superior or equivalent to Laparoscopic-assisted rectal surgery, but high-standard, large-scale trials are required to determine the best approach.

Using risk-adjusted cumulative sum to evaluate surgeon, divisional, and institutional outcomes-a feasibility study

BACKGROUND

Few objective, real-time measurements of surgeon performance exist. The risk-adjusted cumulative sum is a novel method that can track surgeon-level outcomes on a continuous basis. The objective of this study was to demonstrate the feasibility of using risk-adjusted cumulative sum to monitor outcomes after colorectal operations and identify clinically relevant performance variations.

METHODS

The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program was queried to obtain patient-level data for 1,603 colorectal operations at a high-volume center from 2011 to 2020. For each case, expected risks of morbidity, mortality, reoperation, readmission, and prolonged length of stay were estimated using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program risk calculator. Risk-adjusted cumulative sum curves were generated to signal observed-to-expected odds ratios of 1.5 (poor performance) and 0.5 (exceptional performance). Control limits were set based on a false positive rate of 5% (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

The cohort included data on 7 surgeons (those with more than 20 cases in the study period). Institutional observed versus expected outcomes were the following: morbidity 12.5% (vs 15.0%), mortality 2.5% (vs 2.0%), prolonged length of stay 19.7% (vs 19.1%), reoperation 11.1% (vs 11.3%), and 30-day readmission 6.1% (vs 4.8%). Risk-adjusted cumulative sum accurately demonstrated within- and between-surgeon performance variations across these metrics and proved effective when considering division-level data.

CONCLUSION

Risk-adjusted cumulative sum adjusts for patient-level risk factors to provide real-time data on surgeon-specific outcomes. This approach enables prompt identification of performance outliers and can contribute to quality assurance, root-cause analysis, and incentivization not only at the surgeon level but at divisional and institutional levels as well.

Differences in the learning curve of robotic transabdominal preperitoneal inguinal hernia repair according to surgeon's robotic experience

PURPOSE

In this study, we aim to analyze the learning curve of each step of robotic transabdominal pre-peritoneal inguinal hernia repair (rTAPP) in two surgeons with varying degrees of expertise with the robotic platform but no experience with laparoscopic hernia repair.

METHODS

Data on 124 rTAPP cases performed by two surgeons were retrospectively reviewed. Cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis was applied to visualize the learning curve of rTAPP on operation time of each step of the procedure [the peritoneal flap creation (T1), the completion of the critical view of the myopectineal orifice (T2), the mesh application (T3) and the peritoneal flap closure (T4)]. Each intraoperative and postoperative outcome was compared according to surgeon's experience with the robotic platform and learning phase. The robotic surgeon mentored the surgeon-in-training and was present during all surgeries in his learning period.

RESULTS

The surgeon in training with the robotic platform showed a learning phase till the 20th procedure followed by a gradual improvement in performances. The expert surgeon showed a learning phase till the 35th procedure after which a constant decrease of operative time was recorded till the last procedure included. The operative times of each step of the procedures of both surgeons were significantly improved after the learning phase. In the late phase, the surgeon in training could achieve operative times in T2 and T3, which are similar to those of an experienced robotic surgeon with no experience with TAPP before the completion of the learning phase.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, the learning phase of rTAPP surgery may vary between 20 and 35 cases, depending on the surgeon's experience in robotic surgery.

Comparison of surgical outcomes for colostomy closure performed by acute care surgeons versus a dedicated colorectal surgery service

BACKGROUND

Despite colostomy closure being a common procedure, it remains highly morbid. Previous literature suggests that complication rates, including surgical site infections, intra-abdominal abscess, and anastomotic failures, reach as high as 50%. With the creation of a dedicated colorectal service, colostomy reversals have been largely migrated from the acute care surgery services. This study analyzes the differences in outcomes in colostomy closures performed between colorectal surgeons and acute care surgeons.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed our experience with 127 colostomy closures performed in our hospital system by acute care surgeons and colorectal surgeons from 2016 through 2020. Demographic data, operative data, and outcomes such as abscess formation, anastomotic leak, and readmission were analyzed. Multivariate regression analysis was performed for intraabdominal abscesses and anastomotic leaks.

RESULTS

In total, 71 colostomy closures were performed by colorectal surgeons (56%) and 56 by acute care surgeons (43%). The majority of colostomy reversals were after Hartmann's procedure for perforated diverticulitis. No differences in demographics were identified, except for a shorter interval to closure in the acute care surgeons group (10.0 vs 7.2 months; P = .049). Two (3.6%) acute care surgeon patients required colorectal surgeon consultation during the definitive repair. Regression analysis identified body mass index (odds ratio 2.43; P = .001), male gender (odds ratio -2.39; P = .18), and colorectal surgeons (odds ratio -2.28; P = .025) as significant risk factors for anastomotic leak.

CONCLUSION

Analysis of the current series identified female gender and increased body mass index as higher risk, while procedures performed by colorectal surgeons were at decreased risk for anastomotic leak. Our study identified colostomy reversals performed by a dedicated colorectal service decreased the rate of anastomotic leak.