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

Ninety-day morbidity of robot-assisted redo surgery for recurrent rectal prolapse, mesh erosion and pelvic pain:lessons learned from 9 years' experience in a tertiary referral centre

Aim With increasing follow-up of patients treated with minimally invasive ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) more redo surgery can be expected for recurrent rectal prolapse, mesh erosion and pelvic pain. The aim of this study is to evaluate the 90-day morbidity of robot-assisted redo interventions. Method All robot-assisted redo interventions after primary transabdominal repair of rectal prolapse between 2011 and 2019 were retrospectively analysed and compared with the results for patients after primary robot-assisted VMR during the same period. The redo interventions were divided into groups based on the indication for surgery (recurrent prolapse, mesh erosion, pelvic pain). Intraoperative complications and 90-day postoperative morbidity were evaluated. Results Three hundred and fifty nine patients were treated with primary VMR, with 73 for recurrent rectal prolapse, 12 for mesh erosion and 14 for pelvic pain. Complications of recurrent prolapse surgeries were comparable to those of primary VMR (p > 0.05). More intraoperative complications, minor and major complications were seen in redo surgery for erosion compared with primary VMR (23% vs. 3%, p = 0.01; 31% vs. 11%, p = 0.055; and 38% vs. 1%, p 0.05). Half of the patients with pelvic pain experienced relief of their symptoms. Conclusion Redo surgery for management of recurrent rectal prolapse is safe. Redo surgery for mesh erosion is associated with high morbidity rates. Redo surgery for pelvic pain can have major complications and is only effective in half of the cases

Implications of the new MRI-based rectum definition according to the sigmoid take-off:multicentre cohort study

Background: The introduction of the sigmoid take-off definition might lead to a shift from rectal cancers to sigmoid cancers. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to determine the clinical impact of the new definition. Methods: In this multicentre retrospective cohort study, patients were included if they underwent an elective, curative total mesorectal excision for non-metastasized rectal cancer between January 2015 and December 2017, were registered in the Dutch Colorectal Audit as having a rectal cancer according to the previous definition, and if MRI was available. All selected rectal cancer cases were reassessed using the sigmoid take-off definition. The primary outcome was the number of patients reassessed with a sigmoid cancer. Secondary outcomes included differences between the newly defined rectal and sigmoid cancer patients in treatment, perioperative results, and 3-year oncological outcomes (overall and disease-free survivals, and local and systemic recurrences). Results: Out of 1742 eligible patients, 1302 rectal cancer patients were included. Of these, 170 (13.1 per cent) were reclassified as having sigmoid cancer. Among these, 93 patients (54.7 per cent) would have been offered another adjuvant or neoadjuvant treatment according to the Dutch guideline. Patients with a sigmoid tumour after reassessment had a lower 30-day postoperative complication rate (33.5 versus 48.3 per cent, P &lt; 0.001), lower reintervention rate (8.8 versus 17.4 per cent, P &lt; 0.007), and a shorter length of stay (a median of 5 days (i.q.r. 4-7) versus a median of 6 days (i.q.r. 5-9), P &lt; 0.001). Three-year oncological outcomes were comparable. Conclusion: Using the anatomical landmark of the sigmoid take-off, 13.1 per cent of the previously classified patients with rectal cancer had sigmoid cancer, and 54.7 per cent of these patients would have been treated differently with regard to neoadjuvant therapy or adjuvant therapy.</p

From Da Vinci Si to Da Vinci Xi:realistic times in draping and docking the robot

Robot-assisted surgery is assumed to be time consuming partially due to extra time needed in preparing the robot. The objective of this study was to give realistic times in Da Vinci Xi draping and docking and to analyse the learning curve in the transition from the Si to the Xi in an experienced team. This prospective study was held in a hospital with a high volume of robot-assisted surgery in general surgery, urology and gynaecology. Times from the moment patients entered the operating room until the surgeon took place behind console were precisely recorded during the first 6 weeks after the implementation of the Xi. In total, 65 procedures were performed and documented. The learning curve for the process of draping and docking the robot was reached after 21 and 18 cases, respectively. Mean times after completion of the learning curve were 5 min for draping and 7 min for docking and were statistically different from mean times before completion of the learning curve (p values <0.01). In dedicated teams netto extra time needed for preparing the Xi can even be reduced to just the time needed for docking. Thus, setting up the robot should have limited impact on overall time spent in the operation room

Implications of the new MRI-based rectum definition according to the sigmoid take-off:multicentre cohort study

Background: The introduction of the sigmoid take-off definition might lead to a shift from rectal cancers to sigmoid cancers. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to determine the clinical impact of the new definition. Methods: In this multicentre retrospective cohort study, patients were included if they underwent an elective, curative total mesorectal excision for non-metastasized rectal cancer between January 2015 and December 2017, were registered in the Dutch Colorectal Audit as having a rectal cancer according to the previous definition, and if MRI was available. All selected rectal cancer cases were reassessed using the sigmoid take-off definition. The primary outcome was the number of patients reassessed with a sigmoid cancer. Secondary outcomes included differences between the newly defined rectal and sigmoid cancer patients in treatment, perioperative results, and 3-year oncological outcomes (overall and disease-free survivals, and local and systemic recurrences). Results: Out of 1742 eligible patients, 1302 rectal cancer patients were included. Of these, 170 (13.1 per cent) were reclassified as having sigmoid cancer. Among these, 93 patients (54.7 per cent) would have been offered another adjuvant or neoadjuvant treatment according to the Dutch guideline. Patients with a sigmoid tumour after reassessment had a lower 30-day postoperative complication rate (33.5 versus 48.3 per cent, P &lt; 0.001), lower reintervention rate (8.8 versus 17.4 per cent, P &lt; 0.007), and a shorter length of stay (a median of 5 days (i.q.r. 4-7) versus a median of 6 days (i.q.r. 5-9), P &lt; 0.001). Three-year oncological outcomes were comparable. Conclusion: Using the anatomical landmark of the sigmoid take-off, 13.1 per cent of the previously classified patients with rectal cancer had sigmoid cancer, and 54.7 per cent of these patients would have been treated differently with regard to neoadjuvant therapy or adjuvant therapy.</p

Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage versus sigmoidectomy for perforated diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis:three-year follow-up of the randomised LOLA trial

Background : This study aimed to compare laparoscopic lavage and sigmoidectomy as treatment for perforated diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis during a 36 month follow-up of the LOLA trial. Methods : Within the LOLA arm of the international, multicentre LADIES trial, patients with perforated diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis were randomised between laparoscopic lavage and sigmoidectomy. Outcomes were collected up to 36 months. The primary outcome of the present study was cumulative morbidity and mortality. Secondary outcomes included reoperations (including stoma reversals), stoma rates, and sigmoidectomy rates in the lavage group. Results : Long-term follow-up was recorded in 77 of the 88 originally included patients, 39 were randomised to sigmoidectomy (51%) and 38 to laparoscopic lavage (49%). After 36 months, overall cumulative morbidity (sigmoidectomy 28/39 (72%) versus lavage 32/38 (84%), p = 0·272) and mortality (sigmoidectomy 7/39 (18%) versus lavage 6/38 (16%), p = 1·000) did not differ. The number of patients who underwent a reoperation was significantly lower for lavage compared to sigmoidectomy (sigmoidectomy 27/39 (69%) versus lavage 17/38 (45%), p = 0·039). After 36 months, patients alive with stoma in situ was lower in the lavage group (proportion calculated from the Kaplan–Meier life table, sigmoidectomy 17% vs lavage 11%, log-rank p = 0·0268). Eventually, 17 of 38 (45%) patients allocated to lavage underwent sigmoidectomy. Conclusion : Long-term outcomes showed that laparoscopic lavage was associated with less patients who underwent reoperations and lower stoma rates in patients alive after 36 months compared to sigmoidectomy. No differences were found in terms of cumulative morbidity or mortality. Patient selection should be improved to reduce risk for short-term complications after which lavage could still be a valuable treatment option. Graphical abstract: [Figure not available: see fulltext.

Long-term mesh erosion rate following abdominal robotic reconstructive pelvic floor surgery:a prospective study and overview of the literature

Introduction and hypothesis: The use of synthetic mesh in transvaginal pelvic floor surgery has been subject to debate internationally. Although mesh erosion appears to be less associated with an abdominal approach, the long-term outcome has not been studied intensively. This study was set up to determine the long-term mesh erosion rate following abdominal pelvic reconstructive surgery. Methods: A prospective, observational cohort study was conducted in a tertiary care setting. All consecutive female patients who underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy and sacrocolporectopexy in 2011 and 2012 were included. Primary outcome was mesh erosion. Preoperative and postoperative evaluation (6 weeks, 1 year, 5 years) with a clinical examination and questionnaire regarding pelvic floor symptoms was performed. Mesh-related complications were assessed using a transparent vaginal speculum, proctoscopy, and digital vaginal and rectal examination. Kaplan–Meier estimates were calculated for mesh erosion. A review of the literature on mesh exposure after minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy was performed (≥12 months’ follow-up). Results: Ninety-six of the 130 patients included (73.8%) were clinically examined. Median follow-up time was 48.1 months (range 36.0–62.1). Three mesh erosions were diagnosed (3.1%; Kaplan–Meier 4.9%, 95% confidence interval 0–11.0): one bladder erosion for which mesh resection and an omental patch interposition were performed, and two asymptomatic vaginal erosions (at 42.7 and 42.3 months) treated with estrogen cream in one. Additionally, 22 patients responded solely by questionnaire and/or telephone; none reported mesh-related complaints. The literature, mostly based on retrospective studies, described a median mesh erosion rate of 1.9% (range 0–13.3%). Conclusions: The long-term rate of mesh erosion following an abdominally placed synthetic graft is low

Long-term Anatomical and Functional Results of Robot-Assisted Pelvic Floor Surgery for the Management of Multicompartment Prolapse:A Prospective Study

BACKGROUND: Long-term data on robot-assisted sacrocolporectopexy for the treatment of multicompartment pelvic organ prolapse are scarce. With the rising prevalence of prolapse and increasing surgical repair, it is essential to evaluate long-term results. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate long-term functional and anatomic outcomes after sacrocolporectopexy. DESIGN: This is a prospective, observational cohort study. SETTINGS: This study was conducted at a teaching hospital with tertiary referral function for patients with gynecological/rectal prolapse. PATIENTS: All patients undergoing robot-assisted sacrocolporectopexy from 2011 to 2012 were included. INTERVENTION: Robot-assisted sacrocolporectopexy was performed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the anatomic cure rate after 1 and 4 years, defined as simplified pelvic organ prolapse quantification stage 1 vaginal apical prolapse and no external rectal prolapse or internal rectal prolapse present. Kaplan-Meier curves were used for determination of recurrence-free intervals. Secondary outcomes were functional pelvic floor symptoms (symptoms of bulge, obstructed defecation, fecal incontinence, urogenital distress inventory) and quality of life (Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire). RESULTS: Fifty-three patients were included. After 12 and 48 months, the recurrence-free intervals based on Kaplan-Meier estimates were 100% and 90%. In total, there were 10 recurrences: 2 apical and 8 internal rectal prolapses. Symptoms of bulge (94%-12%; p < 0.0005), fecal incontinence (62%-32%; p < 0.0005), obstructed defecation (59%-24%; p = 0.008), and median Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire scores (124-5; p = 0.022) improved significantly at final follow-up. Median urogenital distress inventory scores showed improvement after 1 year (30-13; p = 0.021). LIMITATIONS: This was an observational, single-center study with selective postoperative imaging. CONCLUSIONS: Ninety percent of patients were recurrence free 48 months after robot-assisted sacrocolporectopexy. Symptoms of vaginal bulge, quality of life, constipation, and fecal incontinence improved significantly. However, a subgroup of patients showed persistent bowel complaints that underlie the complexity of multicompartment prolapse. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B265

Cost analysis and cost-effectiveness of open versus laparoscopic versus robot-assisted versus transanal total mesorectal excision in patients with rectal cancer:a protocol for a systematic review

INTRODUCTION: Nowadays, most rectal tumours are treated open or minimally invasive, using laparoscopic, robot-assisted or transanal total mesorectal excision. However, insight into the total costs of these techniques is limited. Since all three techniques are currently being performed, including cost considerations in the choice of treatment technique may significantly impact future healthcare costs. Therefore, this systematic review aims to provide an overview of evidence regarding costs in patients with rectal cancer following open, laparoscopic, robot-assisted and transanal total mesorectal excision. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic search will be conducted for papers between January 2000 and March 2022. Databases PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases will be searched. Study selection, data extraction and quality assessment will be performed independently by four reviewers and discrepancies will be resolved through discussion. The Consensus Health Economic Criteria list will be used for assessing risk of bias. Total costs of the different techniques, consisting of but not limited to, theatre, in-hospital and postoperative costs, will be the primary outcome. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical approval is required, as there is no collection of patient data at an individual level. Findings will be disseminated widely, through peer-reviewed publication and presentation at relevant national and international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021261125

Definition of large bowel obstruction by primary colorectal cancer:A systematic review

Aim: Controversies on therapeutic strategy for large bowel obstruction by primary colorectal cancer mainly concern acute conditions, being essentially different from subacute obstruction. Clearly defining acute obstruction is important for design and interpretation of studies as well as for guidelines and daily practice. This systematic review aimed to evaluate definitions of obstruction by colorectal cancer in prospective studies. Method: A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library. Eligibility criteria included randomized or prospective observational design, publication between 2000 and 2019, and the inclusion of patients with an obstruction caused by colorectal cancer. Provided definitions of obstruction were extracted with assessment of common elements. Results: A total of 16 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 99 prospective observational studies were included. Obstruction was specified as acute in 28 studies, complete/emergency in five, (sub)acute or similar terms in four and unspecified in 78. Five of 16 RCTs (31%) and 37 of 99 cohort studies (37%) provided a definition. The definitions included any combination of clinical symptoms, physical signs, endoscopic features and radiological imaging findings in 25 studies. The definition was only based on clinical symptoms in 11 and radiological imaging in six studies. Definitions included a radiological component in 100% of evaluable RCTs (5/5) vs. 54% of prospective observational studies (20/37, P = 0.07). Conclusion: In this systematic review, the majority of prospective studies did not define obstruction by colorectal cancer and its urgency, whereas provided definitions varied hugely. Radiological confirmation seems to be an essential component in defining acute obstruction