Functional outcomes after laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted rectal resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Surgical resection is crucial for curative treatment of rectal cancer. Through multidisciplinary treatment, including radiochemotherapy and total mesorectal excision, survival has improved substantially. Consequently, more patients have to deal with side effects of treatment. The most recently introduced surgical technique is robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) which seems equally effective in terms of oncological control compared to laparoscopy. However, RAS enables further advantages which maximize the precision of surgery, thus providing better functional outcomes such as sexual function or contience without compromising oncological results. This review was done according to the PRISMA and AMSTAR-II guidelines and registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018104519). The search was planned with PICO criteria and conducted on Medline, Web of Science and CENTRAL. All screening steps were performed by two independent reviewers. Inclusion criteria were original, comparative studies for laparoscopy vs. RAS for rectal cancer and reporting of functional outcomes. Quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The search retrieved 9703 hits, of which 51 studies with 24,319 patients were included. There was a lower rate of urinary retention (non-RCTs: Odds ratio (OR) [95% Confidence Interval (CI)] 0.65 [0.46, 0.92]; RCTs: OR[CI] 1.29[0.08, 21.47]), ileus (non-RCTs: OR[CI] 0.86[0.75, 0.98]; RCTs: OR[CI] 0.80[0.33, 1.93]), less urinary symptoms (non-RCTs mean difference (MD) [CI] - 0.60 [- 1.17, - 0.03]; RCTs: - 1.37 [- 4.18, 1.44]), and higher quality of life for RAS (only non-RCTs: MD[CI]: 2.99 [2.02, 3.95]). No significant differences were found for sexual function (non-RCTs: standardized MD[CI]: 0.46[- 0.13, 1.04]; RCTs: SMD[CI]: 0.09[- 0.14, 0.31]). The current meta-analysis suggests potential benefits for RAS over laparoscopy in terms of functional outcomes after rectal cancer resection. The current evidence is limited due to non-randomized controlled trials and reporting of functional outcomes as secondary endpoints

Surgical challenges and research priorities in the era of the COVID-19 pandemic: EAES membership survey

Background: Healthcare systems and general surgeons are being challenged by the current pandemic. The European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) aimed to evaluate surgeons’ experiences and perspectives, to identify gaps in knowledge, to record shortcomings in resources and to register research priorities. Methods: An ad hoc web-based survey of EAES members and affiliates was developed by the EAES Research Committee. The questionnaire consisted of 69 items divided into the following sections: (Ι) demographics, (II) institutional burdens and management strategies, and (III) analysis of resource, knowledge, and evidence gaps. Descriptive statistics were summarized as frequencies, medians, ranges, and interquartile ranges, as appropriate. Results: The survey took place between March 25th and April 16th with a total of 550 surgeons from 79 countries. Eighty-one percent had to postpone elective cases or suspend their practice and 35% assumed roles not related to their primary expertise. One-fourth of respondents reported having encountered abdominal pathologies in COVID-19-positive patients, most frequently acute appendicitis (47% of respondents). The effect of protective measures in surgical or endoscopic procedures on infected patients, the effect of endoscopic surgery on infected patients, and the infectivity of positive patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery were prioritized as knowledge gaps and research priorities. Conclusions: Perspectives and priorities of EAES members in the era of the pandemic are hereto summarized. Research evidence is urgently needed to effectively respond to challenges arisen from the pandemic