Prospective, observational, multicenter study on minimally invasive gastrectomy for gastric cancer: robotic, laparoscopic and open surgery compared on operative and follow-up outcomes - IMIGASTRIC II study protocol: IMIGASTRIC II

Background:Several meta-analyses have tried to defi ne the role of minimally invasive approaches. However, further evidence to get a wider spread of these methods is necessary. Current studies describe minimally invasive surgery as a possible alternative to open surgery but deserving further clarifi cation. However, despite the increasing interest, the difficulty of planning prospective studies of adequate size accounts for the low level of evidence, which is mostly based on retrospective experiences.A multi-institutional prospective study allows the collection of an impressive amount of data to investigate various aspects of minimally invasive procedures with the opportunity of developing several subgroup analyses.A prospective data collection with high methodological quality on minimally invasive and open gastrectomies can clarify the role of diff erent procedures with the aim to develop specifi c guidelines.Methods and analysis:a multi-institutional prospective database will be established including information on surgical, clinical and oncological features of patients treated for gastric cancer with robotic, laparoscopic or open approaches and subsequent follow-up.The study has been shared by the members of the International study group on Minimally Invasive surgery for GASTRIc Cancer (IMIGASTRIC)The database is designed to be an international electronic submission system and a HIPPA protected real time data repository from high volume gastric cancer centers.Ethics:This study is conducted in compliance with ethical principles originating from the Helsinki Declaration, within the guidelines of Good Clinical Practice and relevantlaws/regulations.Trial registration number:NCT0275108

Colorectal Cancer Stage at Diagnosis Before vs During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Italy

IMPORTANCE Delays in screening programs and the reluctance of patients to seek medical attention because of the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 could be associated with the risk of more advanced colorectal cancers at diagnosis. OBJECTIVE To evaluate whether the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic was associated with more advanced oncologic stage and change in clinical presentation for patients with colorectal cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This retrospective, multicenter cohort study included all 17 938 adult patients who underwent surgery for colorectal cancer from March 1, 2020, to December 31, 2021 (pandemic period), and from January 1, 2018, to February 29, 2020 (prepandemic period), in 81 participating centers in Italy, including tertiary centers and community hospitals. Follow-up was 30 days from surgery. EXPOSURES Any type of surgical procedure for colorectal cancer, including explorative surgery, palliative procedures, and atypical or segmental resections. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was advanced stage of colorectal cancer at diagnosis. Secondary outcomes were distant metastasis, T4 stage, aggressive biology (defined as cancer with at least 1 of the following characteristics: signet ring cells, mucinous tumor, budding, lymphovascular invasion, perineural invasion, and lymphangitis), stenotic lesion, emergency surgery, and palliative surgery. The independent association between the pandemic period and the outcomes was assessed using multivariate random-effects logistic regression, with hospital as the cluster variable. RESULTS A total of 17 938 patients (10 007 men [55.8%]; mean [SD] age, 70.6 [12.2] years) underwent surgery for colorectal cancer: 7796 (43.5%) during the pandemic period and 10 142 (56.5%) during the prepandemic period. Logistic regression indicated that the pandemic period was significantly associated with an increased rate of advanced-stage colorectal cancer (odds ratio [OR], 1.07; 95%CI, 1.01-1.13; P = .03), aggressive biology (OR, 1.32; 95%CI, 1.15-1.53; P < .001), and stenotic lesions (OR, 1.15; 95%CI, 1.01-1.31; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This cohort study suggests a significant association between the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and the risk of a more advanced oncologic stage at diagnosis among patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer and might indicate a potential reduction of survival for these patients

Robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: In the right colon surgery, there is a growing literature comparing the safety of robotic right colectomy (RRC) to that of laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC). With this paper we aim to systematically revise and meta-analyze the latest comparative studies on these two minimally invasive procedures. METHODS: A systematic review of studies published from 2000 to 2017 in the PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases was performed. Primary endpoints were postoperative morbidity and mortality. Secondary endpoints were blood loss, conversion to open surgery, harvested lymph node anastomotic leak, postoperative hemorrhage, abdominal abscess, postoperative ileus, time to first flatus, non-surgical complications, wound infections, hospital stay, and incisional hernia and costs. A subgroup analysis was performed on those series presenting only extracorporeal anastomosis in both arms. RESULTS: After screening 355 articles, 11 articles with a total of 8257 patients were eligible for inclusion. Operative time was found to be significantly shorter for the laparoscopic procedures in the pooled analysis (SMD -\u20090.99 95% CI -\u20091.4 to -\u20090.6, p\u2009<\u20090.001). Conversion to open surgery was more common during laparoscopic procedures than during the robotic ones (RR 1.7; 95% CI 1.1-2.6, p\u2009=\u20090.02). No significant differences in mortality (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.18-1.23, p\u2009=\u20090.124) and postoperative complications (RR 1.05; 95% CI 0.9-1.2, p\u2009=\u20090.5) were found between LRC versus RRC. The pooled mean time to first flatus was higher in the laparoscopic group (SMD 0.85 days; 95% CI 0.16-1.54, p\u2009=\u20090.016). Hospital costs were significantly higher in RRCs (SMD -\u20090.52; 95% CI -\u20090.52 to -\u20090.04, p\u2009=\u20090.035). CONCLUSIONS: RRC can be regarded as a feasible and safe technique. Its superiority in terms of postoperative recovery must be confirmed by further large prospective series comparing RRC and LRC performed with the same anastomotic technique. RRC seemed to be associated with higher costs than LRC

Robotic versus laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

AbstractThe aim of this study was to review the latest evidence on the robotic approach (RHR) for inguinal hernia repair comparing the pooled outcome of this technique with those of the standard laparoscopic procedure (LHR). A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus for studies published between 2010 and 2021 concerning the comparison between RHR versus LHR. After screening 582 articles, 9 articles with a total of 64,426 patients (7589 RHRs) were eligible for inclusion. Among preoperative variables, a pooled higher ratio of ASA &gt; 2 patients was found in the robotic group (12.4 vs 8.6%, p &lt; 0.001). Unilateral hernia repair was more common in the laparoscopic group (79.9 vs 68.1, p &lt; 0.001). Overall, operative time was longer in the robotic group (160 vs 90 min, p &lt; 0.001); this was confirmed also in the sub-analysis on unilateral procedures (88 vs 68 min, p = 0.040). The operative time for robotic bilateral repair was similar to the laparoscopic one (111 vs 100, p = 0.797). Conversion to open surgery was 0% in the robotic group. The pooled rate of chronic pain and postoperative complications was similar between the groups. The standardized mean difference MD of the costs between LHR versus RHR was − 3270$ (95% CI – 4757 to − 1782, p &lt; 0.001). In conclusion, laparoscopic and robotic inguinal hernia repair have similar safety parameters and postoperative outcomes. Robotic approach may require longer operative time if the unilateral repair is performed. Costs are higher in the robotic group.</jats:p

Robotic versus laparoscopic left colectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract Background This study aimed to review the new evidence to understand whether the robotic approach could find some clear indication also in left colectomy. Methods A systematic review of studies published from 2004 to 2022 in the Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus databases and comparing laparoscopic (LLC) and robotic left colectomy (RLC) was performed. All comparative studies evaluating robotic left colectomy (RLC) versus laparoscopic (LLC) left colectomy with at least 20 patients in the robotic arm were included. Abstract, editorials, and reviews were excluded. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale for cohort studies was used to assess the methodological quality. The random-effect model was used to calculate pooled effect estimates. Results Among the 139 articles identified, 11 were eligible, with a total of 52,589 patients (RLC, n = 13,506 versus LLC, n = 39,083). The rate of conversion to open surgery was lower for robotic procedures (RR 0.5, 0.5–0.6; p &lt; 0.001). Operative time was longer for the robotic procedures in the pooled analysis (WMD 39.1, 17.3–60.9, p = 0.002). Overall complications (RR 0.9, 0.8–0.9, p &lt; 0.001), anastomotic leaks (RR 0.7, 0.7–0.8; p &lt; 0.001), and superficial wound infection (RR 3.1, 2.8–3.4; p &lt; 0.001) were less common after RLC. There were no significant differences in mortality (RR 1.1; 0.8–1.6, p = 0.124). There were no differences between RLC and LLC with regards to postoperative variables in the subgroup analysis on malignancies. Conclusions Robotic left colectomy requires less conversion to open surgery than the standard laparoscopic approach. Postoperative morbidity rates seemed to be lower during RLC, but this was not confirmed in the procedures performed for malignancies. </jats:sec

Robotic vs open gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis on short and long-term outcomes

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was compare short- and long-term outcomes between robotic (RG) and standard open gastrectomy (OG). METHODS: This is a single-center propensity score-matched study including patients who underwent RG or OG for gastric cancer between 2008 and 2018. RESULTS: In total, 191 patients could be included for analysis. Of 60 RG patients, 49 could be matched. After matching, significant differences in baseline characteristics were no longer present. Operative time was significantly longer (451 min, IQR: 392-513) in the RG group than in the OG (262 min, IQR: 225-330) (P &lt; .0001). No significant differences in postoperative complications between RG (n = 15, 30.6%) and OG (n = 15, 30.6%) were seen (P = 1.000). Overall survival was comparable between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: RG is feasible and safe. With regard to long-term oncologic outcomes, survivals in the RG group were similar to those in OG group