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

Enzymatic Debridement in Geriatric Burn Patients—A Reliable Option for Selective Eschar Removal

The treatment of geriatric burn patients represents a major challenge in burn care. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of enzymatic debridement (ED) in geriatric burn patients. Adult patients who received ED for treatment of mixed pattern and full thickness burns (August 2017–October 2022) were included in this study and grouped in the younger (18–65 years) and geriatric (≥65 years) groups. Primary outcome was a necessity of surgery subsequent to ED. Both groups (patient characteristics, surgical and non-surgical treatment) were compared. Multiple logistic and linear regression models were used to identify the effect of age on the outcomes. A total of 169 patients were included (younger group: 135 patients, geriatric group: 34 patients). The burn size as indicated by %TBSA (24.2 ± 20.4% vs. 26.8 ± 17.1%, p = 0.499) was similar in both groups. The ASA (2.5 ± 1.1 vs. 3.4 ± 1.1, p p p = 0.245) were similar in both groups. The necessity of additional surgical interventions (63.0 % vs. 58.8 %, p = 0.763) and the wound size debrided and grafted (2.9 ± 3.5% vs. 2.2 ± 2.1%; p = 0.301) were similar in both groups. Regression models yielded that age did not have an effect on efficacy of ED. We showed that ED is reliable and safe to use in geriatric patients. Age did not have a significant influence on the surgical outcomes of ED. In both groups, the size of the grafted area was reduced and, in many patients, surgery was avoided completely

Internalization, Clearing and Settlement, and Liquidity

Abstract: We study the relation between liquidity in financial markets and post-trading fees (i.e. clearing and settlement fees). The clearing and settlement agent (CSD) faces different marginal costs for different types of transactions. Costs are lower for an internalized transaction, i.e. when buyer and seller originate from the same broker. We study two fee structures that the CSD applies to cover its costs. The first is a uniform fee on all trades (internalized and non-internalized) such that the CSD breaks even on average. Traders then maximize trading rates and higher post-trading fees increase observed liquidity in the market. The second fee structure features a CSD breaking even by charging the internalized and non-internalized trades their respective marginal cost. In this case, traders face the following trade-off: address all possible counterparties at the expense of considerable post-trading fees, or enjoy lower post-trading fees by targeting own-broker counterparties only. This difference in post-trading fees drives traders'strategies and thus liquidity. Furthermore, across the two fee structures, we find that observed liquidity may differ from cum-fee liquidity (which encompasses the post-trading fees). With trade-specific fees, the cum-fee spread depends on the interacting counterparties. Next, regulators can improve welfare by imposing a particular fee structure. The optimal fee structure hinges on the magnitude of the post-trading costs. Noteworthy, a fee structure yielding higher social welfare may in fact reduce observed liquidity. Finally, we consider a number of extensions including market power for the CSD, anonymous trading and differences in broker size.