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.

The habits of European urologists in the field of cryopreservation before the urological cancers treatment

INTRODUCTION

Treatments against urogenital cancers frequently have fertility side-effects. The strategy to preserve fertility after oncologic treatments is still a matter of debate with a lack of evidence and international guidelines. The aim of this study is to investigate fertility preservation practices before urogenital cancer treatments and to compare national habits.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An online anonymous survey was submitted from January to June 2021 to six European urological societies. The 31-items questionnaire included questions about demography, habits of evaluation, and management of fertility preservation in case of urogenital cancer treatments.

RESULTS

Two hundred twenty-eight urologists from six urological societies in five different countries (Belgium, The Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, Finland) filled out the survey. Three quarter (74%; n = 166) usually propose a cryopreservation before orchidectomy. In case of oligo/azoo-spermia, the technique performed for the sperm extraction during orchidectomy varies among the sample: 70.5% (n = 160) of the responders do not perform a Testicular Sperm Extraction (TESE) nor a Percutaneous Epididymal Sperm Aspiration (PESA). The cryopreservation for prostate cancer treatments is never proposed in 48.17% (n = 105) of responders but conversely it is always proposed in 5.05% (n = 11). The cryopreservation before bladder cancer treatments is not commonly proposed (67.5%, n = 154).

CONCLUSION

Our study showed variable country specific tendencies in terms of fertility preservation in the period of treatment of urological cancers. These differences seem to be related to national guidelines recommendations. Standardization of international guidelines is urgently needed in the field of fertility for urological cancer patients.

European Countries have different rates of sperm cryopreservation before vasectomy and at the time of reversal

INTRODUCTION

Effective male contraceptive options are condoms and vasectomy. Vasectomy should not be considered as a reversible method of contraception even if vasovasostomy can be offered to men to restore fertility after vasectomy. Therefore, there is a real questioning among urologist concerning cryopreservation before vasectomy. We carried out an international survey concerning the practice of cryopreservation before vasectomy and during vasovasostomy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An online anonymous survey was submitted from January to June 2021 to 6 European urological societies. The 31-items questionnaire included questions about demography, habits of cryopreservation before vasectomy or during vasectomy reversal and in case of urogenital cancers.

RESULTS

228 urologists from six urological societies in five different countries (Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, Finland) answered the questionnaire. French urologists were more in favor of cryopreservation before vasectomy than other European urologists (p<0,0001). They also significantly found that not talking about cryopreservation before vasectomy is a medical fault unlike other urologists (p<0,0001). The specialization in andrology did not influence the choice of cryopreservation before vasectomy (p = 0,9452). The majority of urologists did not perform intraoperative sperm extraction during vasovasostomy (81%; n = 127) with a significant difference between urologists with or without andrology training (p = 0,0146). Success rates after vasovasostomy are significantly better for robot-assisted surgery (p = 0.0159) or with microscope (p = 0.0456) versus without microscope.

CONCLUSION

Cryopreservation before definitive sterilization significantly varies among European urologists and seems to be mostly dictated by habits than by knowledge. An international consensus is needed to standardize practices and guide patient's choice. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Solitary prostate cancer liver metastasis: an exceptional indication for liver resection

INTRODUCTION

Prostatic cancer metastases (PCM) are usually systemic. Isolated PCM liver metastases (PCLM) are very rare. The treatment of PCM consists of hormono- and chemotherapy eventually combined with stereotactic radiation.

PATIENT AND DISCUSSION

A case of a 67-year old man presenting with a solitary, metachronous PCLM undergoing a left extended hepatectomy due to resistance to hormono- and chemotherapy is reported. He died of recurrent systemic disease 31 months later.

CONCLUSIONS

The very rare indication and possible role of liver resection in the treatment of PCLM is discussed.

[Systematic preoperative SARS-CoV-2 screening by chest CT before urological surgery]

Due to COVID-19 outbreak, the Belgian Association of Urology recommended limiting non-emergency surgical care. The aim of this study was to analyze if a preoperative screening for COVID-19 was key to select optimal operative candidates and its impact on surgical outcomes.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

we present a retrospective analysis of all consecutive patients who underwent oncological high-risk and emergency urological surgeries in a Belgium tertiary center from March 30 to April 30, 2020. The screening protocol was based on clinical assessment and chest-CT to identify COVID-19-positive patients.

RESULTS

a total of 32 patients underwent elective oncologic (n = 17; 53 %) and emergency (n = 15; 47 %) operations. Screening by chest-CT revealed three cases of COVID-19 (9 %) having led to postpone two interventions. The third positive COVID-19 patient died of respiratory complications after bladder perforation urgent procedure. Two patients developed compatible post-operatively symptoms with one positive chest-CT but no positive RT-PCR and successful recovery. Adapted safety measures were followed to mitigate in-hospital transmission.

CONCLUSION

this report suggests feasibility and efficacy of systematic, preoperative screening for COVID-19 by chest computed tomography only. This strategy could allow to perform the majority of scheduled high-risk oncologic interventions safely for both the patients and the surgical staff.

Strategies for liver transplantation during the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak: Preliminary experience from a single center in France

Liver transplantation (LT) during the ongoing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic is challenging given the urgent need to reallocate resources to other areas of patient care. Available guidelines recommend reorganizing transplant care, but data on clinical experience in the context of SARS-CoV-2 pandemic are scarce. Thus, we report strategies and preliminary results in LT during the peak of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic from a single center in France. Our strategy to reorganize the transplant program included 4 main steps: optimization of available resources, especially intensive care unit capacity; multidisciplinary risk stratification of LT candidates on the waiting list; implementation of a systematic SARS-CoV-2 screening strategy prior to transplantation; and definition of optimal recipient-donor matching. After implementation of these 4 steps, we performed 10 successful LTs during the peak of the pandemic with a short median intensive care unit stay (2.5 days), benchmark posttransplant morbidity, and no occurrence of SARS-CoV-2 infection during follow-up. From this preliminary experience we conclude that efforts in resource planning, optimal recipient selection, and organ allocation strategy are key to maintain a safe LT activity. Transplant centers should be ready to readapt their practices as the pandemic evolves.