Teaching robotic rectal cancer surgery at your workplace: does the presence of visiting surgeons in the operating room have a detrimental effect on outcomes?

BACKGROUND: Surgery demonstration (SD) is considered to be a mainstay of surgical education, but controversy exists concerning the patient's safety. Indeed, the presence of visiting surgeons is a source of distraction and may have an impact on surgeon's performance. This study's objective was to evaluate possible differences in outcomes between robotic sphincter-saving rectal cancer surgery (RRCS) performed during routine surgical practice versus in the presence of visiting surgeons in the operating room (OR) with direct access to the surgeon. METHODS: Retrospective case-matched studies were conducted from a prospectively collected database. 114 patients (38 with the presence of visiting surgeons) who underwent RRCS between January 2013 and September 2018 were included. Patients were matched in a 1:2 basis after propensity score analysis using five criteria: gender, body mass index, preoperative chemoradiation, type of mesorectum excision, and synchronous liver metastasis. RESULTS: There was no difference between the two groups with regard to mean operating time, estimated blood loss, conversion, and hospital stay. Also, overall (44% vs. 40%; P = 0.6), major morbidity (26% vs. 19%; P = 0.5), and unplanned reoperation (17% vs. 15%; P = 1.0) rates were not statistically different. No difference was noted with regard to the quality of mesorectum excision, or positive rate of circumferential and distal longitudinal resection margins. The mean number of harvested lymph nodes (17 vs. 14.5; P = 0.04) was lower in the SD group and the number of patients with < 12 harvested lymph nodes (31% vs. 16%; P = 0.09) was greater after SD although it did not reach statistical significance. No differences were observed in disease-free or overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of visiting surgeons in the OR seems not to interfere in the quality of rectal resection and does not compromise patient's short-term outcome and survival. However, mild differences in the extent of lymphadenectomy were observed and the surgeons performing SD may be aware of this.

Elective operation after acute complicated diverticulitis: is it still mandatory?

AIM: To investigate recurrence rates, patterns and complications after nonoperatively managed complicated diverticulitis (CD). METHODS: A retrospective study of patients treated for CD was performed. CD was defined on computed tomography by the presence of a localized abscess, pelvic abscess or extraluminal air. For follow-up, patients were contacted by telephone. Numbers of elective surgeries, recurrences and abdominal pain were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 114 patients (median age 57 years (range 29-97)), were admitted for CD. Nine patients required surgical intervention for failure of conservative therapy (Hartmann's procedure: n = 6; resection and colorectal anastomosis: n = 3). Of the 105 remaining patients, 24 (22.9%) underwent elective sigmoid resection. The 81 (71%) non-operated patients were all contacted after a median follow-up of 32 mo (4-63). Among them, six had developed a recurrent episode of diverticulitis at a median follow-up of 12 mo (6-36); however, no patient required hospitalization. Sixty-eight patients (84%) were asymptomatic and 13 (16%) had recurrent abdominal pain. CONCLUSION: Conservative policy is feasible and safe in 71% of cases, with a low medium-term recurrence risk.